Archive for the ‘ONE planet’ Category

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

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

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

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

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

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

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

steve bannon

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

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

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

BUT communication must happen for the 99%.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

At least since the end of the second world war we have had a neoliberal system – probably since we had universal suffrage, now ordinary people are paying for this compromise. Neoliberalism allowed for public political parlour games in the West. Over regular periods (usually 4 or 5 years) we went through a sham of electoral democracy in which politicians stood up for marginally different versions of the same deal, neoliberalism, with the parties (usually two in each country) offering different levels of token support for ordinary people whilst carrying out 1% policies.

And the left has now paid for their own compromise with this neoliberalism.

Here is an example that happened to me. I don’t know what the current CP tactics are but back in the 80s the CP asked its members to compromise with the neoliberal system in order not to split working-class or union support. Typically this involved extremely distasteful actions. In my own case I attended the NUT conference, and at this conference I was asked to support the Broad Left which included the mainstream leadership. I attended their disco (I attended discos then) and watched a degree of sycophanticism that was so distasteful I walked out. It was undoubtedly true that the Trots, known as the Socialist Teachers’ Alliance then, were adopting policies that would have split the union if their conference motions had been passed. So I understood why the CP asked me to do what I did, but it was distasteful. More attempts at building bridges on the left against the neoliberalism could have been made but they weren’t, and there was an impasse with built-in stagnation. Such analysis concerning these bridges was not around then, so all of the left needs to accept responsibility for this. I think it significant that there was no recognition at the time concerning neoliberalism. The analysis was simply bourgeois and proletarian, and working within the labour movement, either in the unions or the labour party, to remove the impact of the opportunists. The weakness of this analysis, lacking any emphasis on the neoliberal system, was significant in the lack of bridge-building. Because the emphasis was on mass movement unity, battles existed on the left (typified by Trots vs Commies), and the direction of the discourse was always towards unity within the mass movement. However that unity, supposedly considered as unity of the proletariat, effectively meant unity on the left, and there was never any real efforts to unify with the right wing – whether in the union or the labour party. In the minds of the left the populist right, because of their politics lacking compassion for liberal issues were being identified with the 1% when in fact they were populist right and needed to be included within the mass movement against the 1%. To me this weak position was the early causes of the separation of the populist right and move to fascism that is indicated by votes for Brexit and Trump.

Soon after this NUT conference I left the UK so I don’t know how the CP and others on the left have dealt with neoliberalism since then, but I do feel this stagnation continued. Supporting the 1%-Labour, Blair Labour and Blair unions, might well have been CP strategy in order not to split the Labour movement. How awful – supporting war.

As a result populism, those on the right against the 1%, has taken the stage. Now we have a far harder battle, how to unite with this populist right, against the 1%. If we don’t accept that this is the way forward, then fighting against the 1% will be self-evidently impossible when the 99% are so divided. How many of the 99% could now be described as on the left and against the 1%?

I suggest that the left in the 99% have dissociated themselves from the populist right, primarily because of the platforms that I have assessed as being part of the populist right:-

1) Work against the 1%, its influence, the lobbyists that Trump described as the swamp.
2) Work against Wall Street
3) Attack the left.

Whilst the first two are clearly unifying the third is intended to be divisive by the 1%.

However if the power of the 1% is to be minimised, both the populist right and the liberal left need to compromise against the real enemy – the 1%. In the US such a compromise seems almost impossible but it has now become necessary otherwise people are in for a very difficult time with the increasing rise of fascism. This is a compromise that is far more distasteful than the compromise I had at the NUT disco but without it fascism will increasingly take centre stage.

It is my understanding that Trump supporters actually believe he will support them against the 1%. Undoubtedly he has strategic plans for buying off his supporters such as providing jobs in Trumpland, and it is conceivable that whilst adopting 1% and anti-liberal policies (racist, sexist and against LGBT) he will maintain his vote-base.

This division of the 99% between the liberal left and populist right can be laid straightforwardly at the hands of neoliberalism, what has neoliberalism done for these hard-working white people on the right – in Trumpland? Nothing, why would they? The 1% seeks only to exploit for their own profit. But what is far worse, what has the left done for these people? Nothing. The left has fought other legitimate battles, often involving identity politics, and as a result these working people whose personal politics have not been compassionate – such as racist, sexist and anti-LGBT – have lost their incomes and become attracted to the populist right. Yet our interests are the same, and it is self-defeating to turn around and demand that because they are part of the 99% they should change their views and join us. They haven’t, and in the US they have chosen Trump – been conned by Trump – been conned by the 1%.

Because the liberals have supported neoliberalism, have been myopic in the politics they have been involved in, and ignored a significant proportion of the 99% – a proportion that Trump has strategically manipulated, the US now has a 1%-government that will move the US towards fascism.

There is an aspect of US media that I have not seen discussed but is the practise. I watch US comedy progs such as John Oliver, Daily Show, Samantha Bee, Saturday Night Live – these are the only US comedies I find funny. When I am watching them I see nothing but pro-Democrat party propaganda. I see attacks on Trump – OK I agree he is preposterously funny, not attacks on the 1%, and I see the progs increasing divisions within the 99%. These progs add to the problem because they perpetuate and increase the divisions with the rest of the 99%. I can enjoy the humour without being sucked into the division, but can most of the watchers? Can they see that the intended divisions are also part of the 1% mainstream media strategy of dividing the 99%? Without discernment liberals and the left will continue to be part of the problem.

Similarly left-wing media in the UK are attacking and ridiculing Trump, they are perpetuating the situation. The populist white right who are inclined towards UKIP are being ignored by this left-wing, and the 1% are agitating against the 99% using similar tactics to the US. This situation is different to the US because the government is right-wing. However it is functionally the same. Divide the 99% – left against right. Identify the media as left wing, identify the mass movement – labour party and unions – as not being interested in white people. Not being interested in protecting the jobs of white people. Similarly there are attacks on PC in general thus the populist right are ignoring much truth that is spoken by professionals such as teachers, social workers and care-workers. Underlying the rhetoric of this populist right will be blame – blaming the left (liberals in general although the use of that term is not as common in the UK because of the Liberal party and their alliance with Cameron). Neither right nor left are sufficiently focussed on the impact of the 1% in the UK.

Because liberals have supported neoliberalism, the 1% has divided the 99% by financing the populist right. Because liberals have failed to persuade more white people that what liberals are doing is right, we now have a situation where the populist right has grown significantly; liberals and the left do not put forward uniting policies such as fighting the 1% and maybe morality and compassion, they simply promote their own dogma and expect the populist right to accept it. We now have a situation where the liberals, left-wing and populist right need to court each other in order to provide a united front against the 1%. For years the liberals and left have ignored this populist right, and the 1% have managed to cleave apart the 99%. The populist right have peddled preposterous statements such as left-wing mainstream media, and because the left has previously ignored this populism such statements now have significant traction. The 1% have financed this populism with their main purpose being to divide the 99%, and there is such a strength of rhetoric against the left-wing, much of it built on lies and propaganda such as the anti-PC movement, creating unity will be hard. Not all of the populist right can be won over as there is a significant proportion of deplorables, but amongst the rest are compassionate, moral people, who, because of the propaganda, in the US manage to support a horrendous man (Trump) who is immoral and lacking in compassion – being racist sexist and anti-LGBT. In the UK the pattern similarly shows support for the Tories and UKIP, both of which are parties for the 1%. These moral people, quiet white people, need to feel ashamed for supporting Trump and Brexit (and UKIP) but that also means that liberals need to eschew their neoliberalism, and show the non-deplorable on the populist right that there is a unity of interest against the 1%. Both populists and liberals need to change their focus away from each other and towards the real enemy – the 1%.

I have looked a little into the mindset of this moral populist right, and I do not understand it. Yet we must understand each other. Through unity of purpose against the 1% communication needs to be built between the left, liberals and the populist right. This will be difficult because of the years of antagonism, but if we don’t do this Trumps, and to a lesser extent Farages, will continue to arrive on the scene as fascism increases.

To my mind the onus of communicating lies with the liberal left. For all of last century the left has recognised the need to build the mass movement, yet after a century of such building in the US a member of the 1% standing for president has managed to divide the 95% in only one campaign. Not only is the candidate a member of the 1% he is an overt racist and sexist, yet he still split the vote. Why?

1) He promoted racism and sexism and other forms of bigotry. Voicing such enabled the deplorables. But those that should be ashamed also voted for him because they have been convinced that within the propaganda their compassion does not have to recognise racism and sexism.

2) Trump has managed to convince many on the populist right that he is the person to vote for in fighting the 1%. To people on the left this seems ludicrous but this is because the left has failed to see how they have been compromised by neoliberalism. Below I discuss Obama as an example of neoliberal failure. Because of this neoliberal failure leaders on the populist right have been able to convince members of the 99% that mainstream government and media is controlled by the left. How can the liberal left have been so remiss? Because they failed to identify and attack neoliberalism, even with Occupy opening the territory the left within the Democrats failed to take advantage. The Democrats did not identify themselves with Occupy, and so they lost the high ground with regards to attacking the 1%. Left-wing press clearly do such 1%-attacks, the Democrats don’t as a whole, and the populist right have identified the 1%-Democrats as the Left enabling a right-wing vote for the Deplorable.

3) And of course the main failure of the left has been its failure to embrace all in the 99% including those on the right. White racists and white disguised racists have lost their jobs as a result of 1% accumulation. Despite their lack of this compassion many of these people are hard-working trying to look after their families, and the left-wing have not represented them. This is shamefully ignorant as they have had years of analysis, understood that it is only through unity that the 99% can win yet such people have been ostracised because they lack liberal values – and compassion. If you genuinely believe in mass movement politics then you have to embrace white racism with all its faults. By being inclusive these people will hopefully see beyond the racism into recognising their interests are the same as all working people including liberals. At present they don’t and that has been as a consequence of the neoliberal system – a system that too many on the left have accepted.

4) The liberal left have become pre-occupied with identity politics. Rather than attacking the 1% the liberal left have focussed on legitimate issues such as gender equality, racial equality, LGBT equality etc Because they also failed to dissociate themselves from the neoliberalism, much of this focus worked on getting these identity groups better pay. From the perspective of the populist right all that appears is that the left agenda is to increase the pay of these identity groups at their own expense. Identity politics needs to fit into the struggle against the 1%, and this is clearly not the case. This is again a failure of the left to struggle against neoliberalism.

Voting a black man as president in the US alienated this populist right. This could have been alleviated if Obama had adopted policies that included the white right. When you consider the rise of Black Lives Matter, he didn’t even promote the interests of black people. When you examine with discernment, what he has done he has mostly acted as a puppet for the 1%. Prior to the elections and soon after mainstream left-wing media, what little I know of it, were fawning over Obama. But what has he done in the struggle against the 1%?

To conclude, the blame for the rise of the populist right and their manipulation by the 1% into accepting Trump and Brexit can be laid very clearly at the hands of the liberal left. They failed to focus on the real problem – the 1%, and the majority of them have colluded with the neoliberal system. The left have focussed their energies on identity politics thus alienating the populist right who have started to identify with neo-fascist groups. Even moral compassionate white people have thus identified because they have become alienated from the left part of the 99%. It is time for the left to change, re-orient their dominant strategies into fighting the 1%, and work towards including the populist right even though there is divisive racism and sexism within the right.

I would like to see a change in the use of the term neoliberalism – new liberals? How can the populist right recognise the difference between left liberal and neoliberalism? Without such a recognition how can there be a united 99%? A long blog!

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

I have moved past Trump depression but this thought struck me “we get our governments because of the way we vote”.

How do we vote? Primarily we vote out of self-interest, a mistaken view of self-interest that we inherit through our communities. Workers’ self-interest is supposedly Labour, and owners and business people vote for the Tories; in the US they similarly vote for Democrat and Republican. In many cases Republicans voted with their tradition, Trump, even though their heart told the “nice” ones that Trump was/is deplorable.

This mould needs to be broken, and it is this message that has not got across. Correct analysis about the recognition of 1% does lead to breaking this mould – not some token right-wing limited idealism connected to 1% that allows some to vote Trump, but few accept this correct analysis. First and foremost it is the 1% who are destroying the middle-class, causing small businesses to crash and middle-class home-owners to lose their property. Because the 1% own mainstream media they divert attention to race or government incompetence to explain this.

The working-class are now also misguided because the Labour party are not the party of the working-class, they are simply a better shade of blue. To understand this we need to look at neoliberalism, and the way the 1% have controlled the elections. Both Labour and Conservative (Democrat and Republican) are parties of the 1%, neither are the parties of the people. Look at the way Labour is destroying itself to prevent Corbyn from gaining power, this is not socialist principles but neo-liberal manipulation. In the same way the mainstream pushed Bernie out of the democratic nomination.

Once you see the neoliberal control of the elections, we can see little point in elections as there is little that is available for ordinary people. There is strategic voting but that is all.

Given that this is the situation further discussion is relatively pointless, but this is still an analysis using self-interest as the benchmark. Because of community tradition, voting patterns for conservative and labour (republican and democrat) are based on self-interest and allows for manipulation, a manipulation that has been taken to extreme by Deplorable.

Forget self-interest, why aren’t our votes for all people – compassion? When have we had a compassionate government? Why not? Surely a compassionate government would have the interests of the people at heart. There are compassionate tendencies amongst people who have been forced to vote Republicans and conservatives but by tradition they do not vote for compassion. Compassion is not even discussed as an approach, why not? Why do we accept that government is about economy first? What about a compassionate government that puts the people first? Not the self-interest of the rich nor the self-interest of the poor but compassion – measure actions by compassion. No wars for profit – just compassion. Changing the benchmarks of the elections by introducing compassion can only be positive because it would mean the mainstream liars would at least have to pay lipservice to compassion. BUT some might use it to make real change.

In parts of Europe there is a pirate party that has grown to change the agenda in part, far better to change the agenda through the Compassion party. The Pirate party has electoral candidates, maybe in time the Compassion party would have candidates – but realistically to what avail in a neoliberal system? And remember tactical voting in the delusory electoral system, such a vote might be non-productive.

But compassion. Compassion would help move the agenda. At least we could have a compassionate momentum. Engaged Buddhists, work for a compassionate momentum.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Growing up afraid

Posted: 14/11/2016 in Freedom, ONE planet, Struggle, War
Tags:

I grew up afraid but with nothing to fear – or better afraid of the wrong thing. This fear characterised my environment, a quiet Manchester suburb where we conformed to a way of life – a way of wage-slavery. But it was better than war – the second world war, so I soon learned to understand where that came from. I live outside the UK now but when at uni my friends went abroad – I was afraid. As I hit bottom and came out of the conditioning and the fear, travelling was still not the answer because of this fear. But I was developing as a person working on the fears created in the UK. When I was 40 I moved abroad and never turned back to the UK environment that is so dominated by fear.

This fear explains so much that is wrong with the UK, including the racism that underlies Brexit; I am sure it explains Trump but I don’t know those people well enough. Whilst I grew up afraid I grew up feeling a sense of being imprisoned – repressed. This was what my environment did to me. For a long time I saw the problem as being my father, but whilst there are individual characteristics there – that it is not appropriate to discuss – my focus on him at the time was not justified. It was the fear that came from the suburban environment. You can understand it. The parents were all people who had been involved in the war, their adolescence was as children in a country at war. In my house it was never discussed but the fear was there. Wage slavery was just accepted because it was better than war.

When I went to uni it was as part of a generation who were questioning. At uni I don’t remember questioning much as my life was dominated by the bottle, but I suppose I must have because after 18 months of the world of work I hit bottom. And never looked back. I have always seen that hitting bottom as breaking out of conditioning – the academic mindset, but it was more. It was breaking the restrictions that fear had put on me. I carried that fear with me a long time even after I had hit bottom. But hitting bottom was the beginning of breaking through the fear.

What did that fear do to the UK? I grew up surrounded by racism, sexism and violence. At teacher training college I went to a fancy dress ball in a dress for some reason – I had some strength having hit bottom three years previously. A trainee teacher who was a rugby player touched my dick that was showing through the tight dress, I touched his back in a blasé way and he thumped me – I walked away; I was not a fighter and he was bigger than me anyway. Why was he violent? At the same place another teacher promised to buy a bike from me. We agreed that I would leave the bike outside my house and he would collect it and pay me some money. Maybe he was drunk, maybe he didn’t want it – that is not my point. A year later I was teaching so was he. He was living in a squat with a colleague. She told him what I said, he told her if I ever told her the story again he would come and hit me. Fear breeds the kind of violence these two teachers showed. They grow up with fear, and then defend themselves by being violent. I chose those stories because these people were teachers, the violence amongst less educated is worse. Violence is not an acceptable way of life but it is created by systemic fear and is integral to western way of life. For me this is a significant part of Britain, and why I don’t live there.

But the violence that is British is not unique in the West, nor am I saying that it is uniquely western. But what is the excuse for such fear now? My parents had grown up during the war (I am 64), so they had fear. My generation grew up with that fear but actually had nothing to fear. Yet the fear continued. Why? Conspiracy theory; remember conspiracies like this just develop, not some idea from a smoke-filled room. Fear worked to create profits. My parents, my environment, was an excellent place for profits. Through the 50s and 60s the fatcats made huge profits based on a compliant workforce, and why was the workforce so compliant? Because of fear of war. Look at the history. Slowly in the 50s and 60s began to fight off the fear that was repressing them. Violence dogged that breaking out because that was the fatcats holding onto their post-war profits. Young people expressing themselves brought out that fear, and arms of repression, police and others, jumped on them. For 20 years the fatcats made huge profits at the expense of a low-paid workforce. During the 70s the workforce sought their due recompense and the fatcats refused to budge and closed the country down. This increased people’s fear, and with the media defending the fatcats people turned that fear on themselves – against the unions, and voted in Thatcher. Thatcher then fostered that fear in other ways, and so on until the present day.

In British society what is there to be afraid of? There is no second world war that parents had lived through. But there is the fear and violence that has been fostered ever since my childhood. There is racism that has been built up by the media. Fear of losing jobs to immigrants, a fear that is not borne out by statistics. A fear that is fanned by the media which is the PR arm of the fatcats who will do anything for a profit especially not pay fair wages. There is however a legitimate fear that is rarely discussed because it would affect the fatcats’ wealth, the fear of blowback from all the wars for profits; this is not a fear recognised by many.

How I would experience that fear if I was growing up in Britain now I do not know. But what I do know is that that fear is manufactured by the establishment to maintain a compliant workforce – to maintain the fatcats’ profits. That fear is so strong that the equivalent environment to the one I grew up in voted Brexit. Now I am not a big fan of the EU as I am an internationalist and don’t like Fortress Europe (against the USA). But for the people of my background to be voting for Brexit shows how bad that fear still is. And yet that fear has no legitimacy, it is created by the divisions the fatcats through the establishment impose on society in order to increase profits.

In Britain we now grow up with fear because they want us to be afraid. That is a reality we should know. How you deal with it I don’t know, after all the bully boys the system creates still are violent – however educated.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

I have begun revising the Treatise (Treatise of Zandtao). Whilst these small revisions are not going to be online for a while I should note that HHSR has been removed together with references to reincarnation. I have been studying Nagarjuna a bit– as being a link between what is Theravada (supposedly the original Buddha’s teachings and Zen/Tibetan). Reincarnation is really a Hindu belief that has become part of Buddhism according to Buddhadasa – I like that for the reasons that it explains the origin (Hindu India) of the belief and that proving reincarnation seems not to be possible. It is usually assigned to one of the Buddha’s unanswered questions. I was unsure of a lot of the references to unanswered questions, here is a summary that is from one of the Theravada suttas SN 44 explaining why the questions are not answered.

I am more concerned about Nagarjuna’s dependence on faith, I noticed this in the letter to the king in “The Good-hearted Letter” Section Two. Let me start by saying that faith is something I do not have. But before I get into that I want to surmise why Nagarjuna needed faith, and that is his belief in reincarnation. How can you accept reincarnation unless through faith because there is no way you can assert it through experience; having said that I cannot explain stories such as these without finding some disguised way of saying they are lies; the stories are not sufficient evidence to support reincarnation – just sufficient to create doubts. But for me the world is paradoxical enough to accept “exceptions to the rule”. But it matters not, I have not experienced it so I don’t accept it for myself.

Faith is a requirement for reincarnation yet it my view that the Buddha never asked us to have faith in him – or anything. Based on the Kalama Sutta, AN3, it is my contention that the Buddha asked us not to believe him but to come to some kind of personal conviction through experience that what he said is true. I often think of this as internalising an idea by deeply knowing it as a truth – or even experiencing the idea as an insight. Faith says here is a dogma, believe it – in other words here is a mindset, believe it. Are holy books factual? Or are they allegorical to bring home certain spiritual truths? My own view is the second, you must decide for yourself what is important.

This issue of “holding to a mindset” has been alluded to throughout the treatise, and is central to a perspective on conditioning. In an earlier chapter of the Treatise I looked at the book “The Four Agreements” demonstrating that we grow up with mindsets which we agree with because they are custom and practise for our societies, in effect this mindset of agreements could be seen more sinisterly as conditioning. The way we grow up could be seen as making agreements with our parents and society, or it could be seen in a more passive way as conforming to that conditioning that our upbringing requires of us.

The dogmas of a faith are a mindset, the agency of accepting that mindset separates a faith from a set of ideas, and I question that agency. I don’t dismiss the agency, I have used the term “internalising” as an acceptable agency, and I would also see insight as legitimate – although I find it difficult to see how a whole faith could be determined through insight. Debating the agency of one’s faith is an individual journey for each person to undergo, but without a suitable agency one’s faith is simply a set of ideas – a dogma – a mindset. Accepting a mindset without appropriate deep enquiry is for me a mistake that many make. It happens as we start to unravel conditioning especially amongst the young who reject conditioning but then seek to replace it. There is a charismatic figure, David Icke, who has politically dissected much that is wrong with our society. There is a strong body of younger people who follow him. There are two issue that I contend with him. The first concerns the Illuminati. I have never investigated the Illuminati because I don’t know them so how can I ascertain the truth about them. Throughout this book I have discussed the 1%, and I have no doubt that these bourgeoisie control our corporatocracy through finance and influence. But I have no experience to suggest that these people are masons – they may well be. I do however believe that groups such as Bilderberg meet and exert influence on our society. However the control of the 1% is in my view through convergence of interest and influence based on their own conditioning rather than a concrete plan or planning meeting. Second are the lizards. The only lizards I have come across are the ones that scuttle across my living room leaving small shit everywhere. If there are aliens as lizards I can accept correction but it has to be verifiable by direct personal experience. Icke-ists accept and feel they have to accept the full mindset. This is based on our miseducation in which indoctrination through accepting mindsets, ideas and facts stuffed in our minds to pass exams, leads to one mindset being replaced by another once we start to see through our conditioning – discussed throughout in Matriellez.

However this aspect of our conditioning, our mindset-replacing tendency, needs to be seen for what it is – another part of our conditioning (education methods), and it is only when this additional aspect is replaced by complete enquiry can we say that we have overcome conditioning.

Isms are a good way to begin examining conditioning. Consider nationalism. Is this a good thing? Many education systems foster nationalism as this produces stability within a society. By saying your own society is better than others you are immediately creating a lesser society, a group of inferiors. Once you have people seen as less than you, it is very easy for manipulative groups to misuse media to create a war for profit – can we kill our own? If we are all seen as equal, all societies seen as equal, then such excuses for war disappear – we do not make war on ourselves. This of course is a fundamental democratic principle that all people have equal democratic rights.

Racism is another ism well worth examining. I was brought up a white middle-class racist, and was fortunate enough to learn about my racism by good black people being willing to teach me and tolerate the racism I grew up with. When I reflect on things that I have thought and even said, I am somewhat ashamed despite knowing they are sourced in conditioning – conforming to the custom and practise of the white middle-class I grew up with. I would recommend all people of privilege such as white privilege to seriously examine themselves. In my professional biography as part of my M Ed I included a discussion of anti-racist training (ART), and would encourage people to examine themselves through such training approaches.

As a male chauvinism is another ism that I was born with, and therefore grew up being sexist. As an adult I intellectually accepted equality but I am not sure I always practised it because of my desires. Society is undoubtedly chauvinist, and we are therefore continually bombarded with media that promotes sexism. As males, especially younger males in whom the desires are stronger, constant re-evaluation is required. For example, what is anorexia and bulimia? Are these psychological conditions that a few women suffer from? Or are they natural consequences of a sexist society that portrays women as sex objects based on a body image that it is almost impossible to maintain – a situation made far worse by the way Big Food manipulates our foods for profit so that maintaining our health is so difficult. Should women have equal rights in the workplace? Or just in workplaces that do not affect my promotion?

Antisemitism is a particularly interesting ism for those on the left. When you consider history there is no doubt that Jews have been persecuted culminating in the atrocity of the Nazi Holocaust. Following the situation that has happened in Palestine where the homeland of Israel was created, on the left there has been much support for the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, oPt. Often that support has been vocal against Jews, is that antisemitic? At the same time there are wealthy Jews who could be called 1%, some such Jews have power in media. Is that then a Jewish conspiracy? I recommend a deep enquiry into one’s own antisemitism, and a suitable place to start are these 7 tenets of antisemitism.

Considering the ongoing barrage of media conditioning, enquiry is so important, it is integral that we continually re-evaluate our own conditioning because it is so easy to accept negative mindsets. When we add to this the dangers of attaching to mindsets once developed as insights the need for constant enquiry is a matter of ever-vigilance.

But we need to consider what is the purpose of this conditioning. It is conformity to what end. Certainly conformity is useful for providing a stable society but it does not begin to give a reason until we look at the 1%. They require a compliant and consuming workforce, they need consuming wage-slaves who can accept the various consequences of the current system such as climate change and wars for profits. Now the conditioning has a meaning because across the world we have people who accept working for money to pay the bills and consuming extras.

And where is the danger to this system? If for some reason the workforce refuses to be wage-slaves and discerningly decides not to waste money on consumerism. This is why so much effort is made to attack unions because when workers band together they demand the profits for themselves.

But more than unions they fear a unity of purpose, a unity of purpose that sees 99% working together for the interest of the Gaia – climate change, renewable energy, Dakota pipeline – and for the interests of all the people in the world – no wars for profits. Such division of peoples comes from nationalism – dividing nation against nation, racism diving white from black, sexism – dividing women from men, and antisemitism – dividing gentile from Jew.

Political unity in the interest of all peoples and for the interest of our planet is the way we can overcome the 1% manipulation of ourselves as consuming wage-slaves.

And unity or Oneness is what is sought through spiritual awareness. We are not separate people with individual interests, but we are One people with the interest of the One planet, our home. Even the very religions which are the systemic way of understanding this Oneness are used to separate. Wars have been fought with religion as an excuse yet religions when understood in depth seek only Oneness.

But what happens to people who seek Oneness, they become aware that we are not separate but One people. They transcend the separation and understand there is Unity. They overcome the conditioning that creates separation, they see through the delusion where we are conditioned as separate and accept the Unity.

This acceptance of Unity is usually associated with forms of bliss, and the transcendental process is often confused with the joy that people have during transcendence but the truth is that this transcendence happens when people end separation, when they end division, when they don’t accept the agreements their society and upbringing require of them, when they work to end their conditioning on all levels. Transcending conditioning is what brings Unity – anatta.

And this transcendence brings understanding on all levels. Once we throw off the shackles of our conditioning, by rejecting separation, by going beyond dogma and intellect, by fighting the hatred that comes with all the isms – often bringing wars with profits, by accepting Unity as Gaia where destroying the environment by climate change and industrial exploitation is understood as destroying ourselves. This is all transcendence. From the moment any part of our conditioning is questioned we begin transcendence. For some it remains political where the bliss is never experienced because new mindsets are clung to. For the spiritual the transcendental experience can bring with it bliss but instead of a mindset they cling to bliss and don’t move forward. But the process is the same – enquiry, removing the shackles that ignorance of our conditioning places on us bringing with it open minds that question, that naturally reject injustice, that reject climate exploitation, that want genuine peace, a peace that comes with the Unity of all peoples in Gaia.

This transcendence is what the three tenets of the Treatise of Zandtao are working towards. Healing the body so we do not become attached to the diseases that are a consequence of toxic intake whilst at the same time working with Gaia through whole foods that enable us to survive in harmony with nature. And the energy is the energy of Gaia of One planet. Once we open our minds and bodies to that energy that is Gaia then we begin to feel through that energy that this is not separation but Unity, the energy of the One planet that sustains us, making us feel vital when we accept the Path that is Gaia. We work together in Gaia, we transcend the conditioning that seeks division, and we accept Unity for what it is – the natural way.

In the Treatise I have looked at many ways that work towards this transcendence, this removal of conditioning. One way just mentioned are the three tenets, but much more importantly there are the 4 Agreements, and there is magga – the 8-Fold Path. All seek one thing – the removal of conditioning – the removal of agreements, the removal of the attachment to I and mine, the removal of attachment to the 5 khandas, the Unity that comes with the understanding once the conditioning has been removed.

There are many levels of this transcendence. When we see black people justifiably angry in “Black Lives Matter”, we might well see people who have transcended this political aspect but need more. When we see Momentum supporting Corbyn in his struggle against the 1% we see people who have transcended this aspect of conditioning but who seek more. When we see the monk who devotes their lives to meditation we see a transcendence that has overcome the conditioning of wage-slavery and consumerism, but needs more. On this diverse world there is much transcendence to varying degrees, it can only be hoped that these people do not rest on their laurels and that they work to seek a complete transcendence, a transcendence that comes from permanent enquiry, a transcendence that lacks conditioning on any level, a transcendence that brings with it a complete freedom from any shackles. Unity that is anatta.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.


Have enjoyed listening to Corbyn’s conference speech, I thought it was an excellent leadership speech and rallying call – function of conference (but I am biassed). It is refreshing to hear a socialist party leader actually discussing socialism.

corbyn

Here are his “not-the-ten commandments” – well worth considering [25.56]:-

zbulletFull Employment
zbulletHomes Guarantee
zbulletSecurity at work
zbulletStrong public National Health Service and social care
zbulletNational Education Service for all
zbulletAction on Climate Change
zbulletPublic Ownership and Control of our Services
zbulletCut in the Inequality of Income and Wealth
zbulletAction to Secure an Equal Society
zbulletPeace and Justice at the Heart of our International Policy

Who would not want this? 1%.
Can it be financed? I have always believed such policies can be financed if a government has the strength to enforce its policies. Here is how John McDonnell intends to do it:-

mcdonnell

Feasible – the figures work.

Will they allow it to happen? Of course not. But it is well worth a battle to see how far we can win back rights for humanity in general, and not just the privileged few.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.