Archive for the ‘Struggle’ Category

G? or NATO or ?

Posted: 28/07/2018 by zandtao in Democracy, ONE planet, Struggle
Tags: ,

It is difficult to come to terms with the Trump-puppetry. I suspect, although I don’t know for sure, that the Trump position is the least controlled policy in the years of neoliberalism, but there is no doubt how effective his time as President has been for the 1%. The 1% control the Republican party, and even though in toto they didn’t want him to begin with they support him now as he is getting them money.

Trump is clearly narcissistic, probably to the point of there being a clinical problem, but this matters not to the 1% whose greed is sociopathic and species-suicidal anyway. They give the Trump-puppet a leash of enabled narcissism that covers a continual erosion of regulation that protects people whilst leaving untouched the regulation that protects financial mechanisms – that protects the profits of the 1%. (see Chomsky on Trump as a distraction).

For years Republicans have performed the neoliberal dance completely subservient to the 1%-profit-making, there is therefore no reason to believe that they are suddenly enamoured of such a philistine. Apart from the immorality of war which is bipartisan, they do usually claim some sort of moral ethos to their position. Trump does not have any appeal to morality, his rationale is hardcore right-wing populism. I am convinced that many republicans have a dilemma over the promotion of certain right-wing values that cause violence. But this is tolerated because of the increased profits and deregulation that is the 1%-bidding.

So what about this Guardian opinion? Is there anything to it other than a snowflake knee-jerking?

I have never considered the Russia interference issue because to me it is a RED herring – cold war joke. You have to be very ignorant to think that there has not been some Russian manipulation through social media. How serious the impact is I have no idea, but that has got to be a conditioning problem connected to gullibility. However the essential tenet of US foreign policy since the Second World War has been manipulation, so there is a clear level of hypocrisy. During the Cold War era there was a continual vying of international interest between US and USSR – dominated by US manipulation. Despite the naivete of this Guardian article this US manipulation has never been for the promotion of democracy – it could better be described as the promotion of neocolonialism of which sham electoral democracy is a lynchpin for the deluding of populations.

So what does a public show of solidarity with Putin show? Maybe it is that the world must accept a move to the right?

For me some sort of alliance between the US, USSR and China initially appears beneficial for the world. But I suspect that the Trump-puppet/ Putin summit was not concerned with cementing a G3 but an attempt at marginalising China in the Trump-puppet trade war.

In this clip Paul Jay of TRNN (the Real News Network) describes the interrelationship between free market, oligarchs (Russian and American), their puppets, Trump and possibly Putin, and the way they control governments. There are far too many clarifications that Paul makes it is a waste of writing to discuss them, listen.

And in relation to a G3, in this clip Paul makes it clear that Trump-puppet strategies are concerned with China and Iran – his actions indicate this so I won’t disagree. It makes sense that Trump-puppet cements an alliance with Russia in a trade war with China, and Russia is an essential ally in the balkanisation of the Middle East and the control of Iran.

This quote places the Russiagate hype into an obvious context that I had not previously seen – shame on me “The reason that there was such vicious glee emanating from liberals in regards to RT America being targeted and sanctioned, is because liberals have been conditioned to believe that Russia in general, and RT America in particular, is the sole reason for Trump being president. The mainstream media, in fulfilling their position as the propaganda arm for the elites and the military-intelligence industrial complex, has continuously beat the anti-Russia and anti-RT drum.” I have watched the machinations of neoliberalism, the Corporate-Democrats, eschewing Bernie in favour of Hillary, and since the Trump-puppet election their failure to come up with a meaningful strategy to fight the Trump-puppet – simply hoping he will implode. Their efforts are far more concerned with fighting the genuine democratisation of the party, much in line with the attacks on Corbyn through anti-Semitism and the like. Here is a clear analysis of Fake News and Russia by the late Edwards S Herman, a collaborator of Chomsky; it is detailed and not just focussed on Russia but the Fake News of the New York Times: its approach is similar to this blog.

BAR have a very clear position on this RED herring of Russia as illustrated by this gif:-

As usual BAR analysis is on the money and is far more critical of the snowflake response to Russia. This article is rather polemic but describes the situation. Glen’s use of “dependable” is interesting and worth considering. I completely accept that Obama and Clinton as neoliberal mouthpieces were dependable. What about Trump-puppet? This is a subjective view, and as I don’t know him has got to have very little credence. I accept Chomsky’s view that Trump is loving the attention – and whilst snowflakes particularly are focussed on him the 1% are making long-term changes that Americans and the world will suffer from as they increase accumulation. The Trump-puppet’s narcissism is also drawing all the flack, and this the 1% have got to love. In fact if Trump-puppet continues to do what they want, he is better than Clinton- and Obama-puppet. Certainly Obama’s popularity enabled introduction of certain policies without disruptive response. Trump-puppet is causing far more damage to the social fabric of America but this does not overly concern the 1%. Trump-puppet is increasing war profits, but there has to be serious questions as to how much damage he is doing to international business “ethos”.

For example, do the 1% want a trade war with China? I subscribe to the view that there is a global 1%-land, and 1%-“nationality” is far more important in 1%-land. Despite some views to the contrary (Icke etc.), these people are still human. The American 1% will certainly pay lip-service to Trump-puppet’s MAGA although accumulation will be their first priority. I suspect close ties between US and Russian oligarchs (not something that was started by Trump-puppet), but I am not so sure about China because their protectionist policies especially with regards to currency tends to be a barrier to imperial control. So I am unsure about China and the trade war.

Is Trump-puppet dependable? I would say no. Is he controllable? I think very much so. Will he always be so? ??????

The same article talks about the corporatocracy wanting diversity, I think they have accepted that rather than wanting it. Accepting it means that they have been able to profit from it, no moral position. Now there is confrontation rather than diversity, they can still exploit it. Exploiting people is what they do. To them it doesn’t matter whether there is confrontation, in fact it is better for them because accepting diversity risks a united position against the 1%; division is the usual 1% strategy. For the 1% bipartisan confrontation, racist and sexist confrontation suits, so there I disagree with Glenn – “Thus, corporate America, wedded as it is to a “diversity” doctrine that means little to the masses of Black people but is a red flag to the White Man’s Party “deplorables,” will be forced to identify more publicly with the Democrats, or pretend to be apolitical.”

I want to finally note this article in which BAR attacks the Democrats’ black caucus. I note rather than comment, it is not for a white person to comment on such issues. However I will say to white people who talk about black people as one … There is a unity of all black people when they meet white racism, as white people we need to change our racism, stop racist assaults at whatever level, and see black people as the different people they are.

<– Previous Post “Love and Chauvinism” Next Post –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Advertisements

MAWPs and Fake News

Posted: 15/07/2018 by zandtao in Freedom, Struggle
Tags: ,


In this blog I examined a history of “fake news” in which sound people have always seen the news as “fake” – controlled by media moguls of the 1%. Trump’s approach to Fake News is different, he trying to control what his supporters accept as news – news is fake unless the news supports Trump. This is not a question of Fake News but a propaganda exercise that has worked well in deluding many of his supporters.

I have already described a while back why MAWPs are a particular target group or demographic of Trump supporters. There is an obvious corollary to Trump’s control of Fake News that I had not pointed out; I was aware of it but it was not central to my understanding. The A of MAWP is arrogant, they know what is going on, they don’t need to learn anything because they already know. So when they are told the news is fake, they already know it is. I was quoted Denzel Washington “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you do read it, you’re misinformed”; but this was used by the MAWP as an excuse not to learn. And that is awful.

As usual this MAWP was set in his ways, and like another MAWP recently – not the troll, he can listen and agree to the most significant aspects of being a genuine socialist:- the problem is the 1% and they make profits from war. After the previous MAWP I was aware of how much agreement there was. With this MAWP there was good banter as well – as I was a snowflake and he was a fascist bastard. But when there was serious discussion he agreed with the main points – as did the other MAWP who had shocked me so much when I became aware he was a Trump supporter. The point is that these guys have a good sense of Unity with the main issue of 1% and war, but have been completely conditioned into the neoliberal bipartisan created schism of fascists and snowflakes.

When I described neoliberalism and the way it works he didn’t disagree, but he immediately mawped up when I talked of media conditioning saying something like “my ideas are my own” – his A. This is the problem with MAWPs – his ideas are not his own but the way the 1% want MAWPs to think, and he is not listening to anyone else who is saying differently because they are speaking “Fake News”.

The right wing has never been willing to listen. When I grew up the right wing were comfortable with the news occasionally ranting about the socialist bias of the BBC. So they got their steady flow of right-wing propaganda at 9.00pm. People of my generation rejected this propaganda and they made minor changes to the BBC, such changes of course moving away from the right-wing post-war propaganda of the 50s, 60s and 70s but never telling the truth. For these right-wingers, left-wing means centrist (Blair) but by then the Liberals had become powerful elsewhere under Blair’s government. And they became a target. It was correct they were targeted but the reasons were wrong. These snowflakes adhered to their ideals eschewing the other, and so the right-wing became alienated and have backlashed with Trump, Farage and Brexit. I apologise for seamlessly moving between the US and UK, but the dominant forces in both countries are similar. In the US however there are more extremists and more money to create them, hence the emergence of Trump, however there has always been the ilk of “Brittania Unchained” and Dominic Raab in British politics.

The point of this blog is how do we educate MAWPs? By their nature their arrogance prevents education, and this weakness has been utilised by the money behind the move to the right. The answer for educating them is not through the bleating of snowflakes as they just heighten their arrogance. Whichever think-tank decided to empower snowflakes under Blair and Obama certainly knew how to push MAWP buttons, how long will we have to pay for this manipulation?

For most of my life the answer of educating has always been information, present the facts and anyone desiring to learn will understand the truth. Now that we are in a situation where such information cannot be controlled by the media 1% they have a new tactic – Fake News, make these MAWPs think that they are being lied to by all who disagree. In the US the MAWPs fail to see how the 1% and their Trump-puppet are simply enabling further exploitation perhaps because the Trump-puppet spends time decrying his masters to make himself popular. The arrogance of these MAWPs that they can believe a politician is absolutely staggering, and despite so much evidence to the contrary believe he is working in their interest. However this is in line with the small business owner who arrogantly considers themselves to be part of the 1% until they are swallowed by the Big fish.

Convincing these “fooled” has gotten harder with access to information, all they see with the new information is snowflake foolishness because of their own MAWP arrogance. This is why the recognition of conditioning globally is a Unity-strategy for moving forward.

“cultural transgression” <– Previous Post “Love/chauvinism” Next Post –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Snowflake Confusion

Posted: 06/07/2018 by zandtao in Corbyn, Democracy, ONE planet, Struggle, War


The first principle of politics is Unity so I hate the idea of condemning someone writing near the Left but the viewpoint of this neoliberal lackey is a huge problem because she confuses the waters. Analysing why I say this however is useful.

I first want to establish some parameters. I am not defending Susan Sarandon because I don’t know where she stands, I am only criticising the position of the writer of the article. I also wish to explain my use of the word “snowflake”. I equate this word with a term “wishy-washy liberal” that many socialists have used. But it is a word used by populist right – alt-right. Should that be a reason for me not to use it? I use it because the description feels apt. Liberals, armchair socialists are one of the causes of the move to the right although the main cause is the finance of the dark money network promoting right-wing populism by supporting “bad actors”. Liberals and armchair socialists tend to just talk. Social media is an excellent media for these people because they can pretend to be active. These people might say “I agree with you but I will not strike”. “I agree with you but … I am not risking my job, my house, my catchment area/school district, my way of life, my standard of living”. In other words the agreement was in words only. Because establishment knew they were only confronted by words, they did nothing to change. And now that these word-battlers have been confronted by the alt-right they panic, but they have no substance – they are snowflakes. Why call them snowflakes? Because they must choose, they must be more determined, for the world to change snowflakes must get a backbone.

In the UK snowflakes are Guardian readers so it is not surprising that this article is from the Guardian, Owen Jones needs to sort her.

Let’s now analyse. The main thrust of the article is that because some people support the Greens they are taking votes from the Democrats enabling Trump. This is an argument about strategic voting, and strategic voting generally misses the point. Yes, I would have voted for Clinton as I would Blair, but 98% of me doesn’t want Clinton/Blair – 100% of me doesn’t want Trump. What a choice for someone whose politics is mainly concerned with compassion for ALL – compassion and freedom for all people and compassion for the planet. This is the dilemma of neoliberalism, and the Guardian article just perpetuates this neoliberal compromise. People need to stand up and demand compassion for ALL, snowflakes don’t, Democrats and Labour remain neoliberal, and we have Trump and Brexit – and the 1% increasing the power of the alt-right.

There should be no need for a Green party. Democracy and Socialism (Labour) should automatically promote Green. In fact Green should be the priority as put forward by indigenous wisdom, but if we were democrats and socialists we would recognise the truth of indigenous wisdom. The failure lies not with Susan Sarandon supporting the Greens but with the mainstream of Democrats and Labour who support a neoliberal agenda, an agenda which includes so many policies that support war and wage-slavery. Snowflakes don’t be “Guardian readers”, be compassionate for ALL and demand change in Democrats and Labour – unite behind Bernie and Corbyn. End neoliberalism.

From the article I disagree with a quote from Susan Sarandon, maybe it is out of context because from what I know of her she would support what I then say. “Only a few months ago, Susan was explaining to this newspaper that had Hillary been elected: “We would still be fracking, we would be at war. It wouldn’t be much smoother. Look what happened under Obama that we didn’t notice.” As she concluded of Hillary: “I did think she was very, very dangerous.”” But what Susan doesn’t say in this quote (maybe she says it elsewhere) has been put clearly by Chomsky here. Trump has benefitted business by removing regulations. I would also suggest that under Trump there has been increased actions of racism and sexism. Under Hillary I doubt if there would have been the increased racism and sexism, I am not so sure so many regulations would have been removed. But in terms of war and wage-slavery there would have been business as usual, the same as Trump without the bluster.

The point of this blog is that the writer is participating in attacks on each other – on ourselves, instead of attacks on neoliberalism, very safe for her job. She can create snowflake debate without losing her job, she can pretend she is actually working for an improved life for all without threatening her own livelihood and family – because she is not threatening the media establishment of neoliberalism who pay her wages.

For me there are only two classes, and we need to work for Unity in the struggle against the 1%. Promoting strategic voting at the expense of needed policy is not a way of doing this. I also propose recognition of a new “class” – the snowflake class. Many people divide the 99% so here is my division – alt-right, snowflakes and socialists. At the moment socialists are very much in the minority but they are a driving force for compassion for ALL. For the world to change snowflakes will have to become disadvantaged enough that they see the need to be socialists. At the same time the alt-right who are not deplorables need to realise that their egos are being pandered to by Trump and Brexit as a tool of the 1%, then the good people from the alt-right will learn to bury their differences with socialists and work for compassion for ALL. A long struggle.

“Conditioning – strategy” <– Previous Post Next Post –> “Cultural transgression”

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.


This could have been a continuation of the last blog, but that then could have been long and missed the point about the New Fact of Life.

Understanding and seeing racism as conditioning is a way of working – campaigning. Making demands in terms of identity is not helpful, there is no education – no communication. Just an ideal, a set of ideas that is agreed with or disagreed with. You are racist, no I’m not. You are racist, no I’m not. You are racist, no I’m not. You are racist, no I’m not. You are racist, no I’m not. You are sexist, no I’m not. You are sexist, no I’m not. You are sexist, no I’m not. You are sexist, no I’m not. You are sexist, no I’m not. You are sexist, no I’m not. There is no meeting here, no communication, no helping each other.

But understanding conditioning recognises that it is not a switch, yes or no, it is a spectrum – a continuum. I will always have to be conscious of racism because there are always conditioning forces that want to make me racist again – even despite an awareness that was a pinnacle as editor of Young Journal and was never really lost teaching in Botswana and Nigeria – lost now 12 years in Thailand?

As discussed throughout the esp. Ch 22, the process of conditioning is ongoing and pervasive. Conditioning is the agreements that get made from generation to generation, and this conditioning is the basis of the ego that can be so divisive and destructive. When bell hooks describes an imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, she is describing with a verbal hammer a significant proportion of the conditioning we are processed with. But what she is not overtly describing is the ego that we are also conditioned with. When you put all of these together we can begin to understand conditioning, and begin to understand what all of us need to move beyond – and moving beyond conditioning could be a manifesto for Unity.

It is important to consider the current political realities in terms of this conditioning. It is quite clear that we are all conditioned to some extent, and it is equally evident that this conditioning benefits the 1% who accumulate whilst our different conditionings divide us. If we don’t keep our focus on those who benefit with our divisions we end up contributing to those benefits. If we accept that there is a conditioning both natural and systemic, then we can begin to experience freedom whilst at the same time become aware of how deeply exploited we are by the 1%. We can then see that being divided only hurts us.

It is so important to understand that this conditioning does not singly apply to those who are privileged within the conditioning. In bell hooks words it conditions privilege to imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchs and withdraws privilege from those who are not. All people are conditioned to accept the privilege of the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, not just white men, but women – all genders, and people of colour.

What is also important to note in this description of conditioning is that of the conditioning of the ego, to move beyond conditioning is to move beyond ego. This is significant for a group of intellectuals known as the IDweb. These people demand freedom but this freedom is limited and conditioned, it is really freedom to exploit. Genuine freedom is freedom from conditioning, freedom from ego, freedom for all. In the US and increasingly in the western world this freedom has become freedom from government regulation, and as Noam Chomsky discusses here, the purpose of Trump flim-flam is to create a public charade whilst removing regulations that benefit business and disadvantage people – all done in the name of freedom.

A key component of the IDweb (article not link site gone?) is the promotion of the individual intellectual – the cult of the individual intellectual such as the ego of Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris, and significant in all of the IDweb is that lack of freedom for ALL, the lack of compassion for ALL. This is the intellectualism of the ego, of competition, of self-aggrandisement, of capitalism.

Also try to see where identity politics fits into this process of conditioning. This creates an identity or ego around certain ideals such as fighting the privilege of white men in favour of non-whites, non-males etc. These are ideas that the ego attaches to and makes demands for. This is a conditioned response to the exploitation by the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy but in itself is still conditioned. When the ego clings to an ideal as a conditioned response it creates division. If instead it was recognised as conditioning then it would be more clearly understood that moving beyond conditioning is not holding to ideals but educating an awareness that is beyond conditioning. In other words identity politics is a divisive conditioned response of the ego, needs to understand its own egoic conditioning, needs to move forward in its understanding of conditioning, and begin to recognise the importance of Unity and the need to develop awareness.

Whilst a step in the right direction Marxism has got stuck as an ideal that more and more people are rejecting. It came about as an explanation as to how working people were being exploited by the capitalist/imperialist owners of the nineteenth century. Marxism was however limited to an examination of finance, and by limiting the ethos to finance it has left the proletariat vulnerable to exploitation through finance and by accumulation. The level of accumulation of contemporary super-wealthy is far beyond that envisaged in the times of Marx, and the ease with which many of the proletariat can be bought off by the super-wealthy makes any organisation by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie virtually impossible if they are fighting for equality of finance.

Continuing with an emphasis on finance is now a conditioned response because it has been controlled by the powerful – by the 1%. In moving beyond conditioning we have to try to establish what is beyond the conditioning, beyond the ego, and when we recognise how conditioning works we can see that what is beyond is compassion and freedom for all. This I discussed in the Treatise as pathtivism:-

When I discussed this as being esoteric – a bit beyond, I was not exhibiting a clear analysis. Where we are going with a class analysis based on finance is outmoded and has been controlled by the 1%. Class based on the global interests of all people would end the competitiveness that divided the first from the third world. But a position in which the global class interest is placed in the context of Gaia would bring sustainability to an interest that is limited to humanity and its lack of sustainability. These last two positions are not contradictory for Gaia’s interest and the peoples’ interests are identical if thought through. It is capitalism that focusses on exploiting resources to increase profit, that is conditioning, and is not in the peoples’ interest. Pathtivism or indigenous wisdom is the only practical way forward, a way that is beyond conditioning.

For a fuller development of the recognition of conditioning, addiction and the need for pathtivism in the context of Gaia, consider the last section of the – Ch 21-25.

“New Fact of Life” <– Previous Post “Snowflake Confusion” Next Post –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

New Fact of Life

Posted: 29/06/2018 by zandtao in ONE planet, Struggle
Tags: ,


When I grew up people were racist overtly, much use of racist language – as a child and teenager I used such language; it was just my upbringing. On reflection I would say that I was never being intentionally racist but more importantly I was making no effort to be anti-racist, it was just what people in a white suburb in the 60s were like. I was fortunate. As a young man I met people who taught me not to be racist, I particularly remember a black teacher who later became a friend taking the time to teach me not to be racist. Over time I began to explore how deep this racism went – in me and in society, and as I got older I grew to understand more and more of the racist conditioning that is endemic in British society.

To think someone is “inferior” because of the colour of the skin is something I now find completely alien. When I was young I can’t say I thought black people “inferior” in any way, but it was just the done thing to use racial insults.

Institutionally to treat someone as being “less” in any way is completely unjust. For example the housing practices of Lambeth council in the 70s and early 80s disadvantaged black people, and was unacceptable – it was just white people favouring white people; in other words institutional racism.

As I grew older my perspective widened, and I began to see the treatment of black people as “internal colonialism”. Overseas the tactics of the ruling colonial government was always to divide and rule. I particularly remember two African guys (friends) who took the time to educate me on how this worked in their countries of Cameroon and Uganda. Whilst divide-and-rule was not limited to Africa, it was very effective there. I was also recently taught that divide-and-rule as a tactic has existed far longer by Indians – in the caste system.

With such powerful forces in place it is hardly surprising that British people grow up with racist conditioning.

When I was younger things started to change. In the 70s and 80s there was a move to change this racism. It started with language because misuse of language towards black people was so prevalent, but at that time it was perceived as a two-stage process – stop the insulting language and then educate as to why the language was so inappropriate.

Over the years this process changed, mainly under Blair (I was not in the UK then), and it became acceptable that racist language was censored – without any educational component. Those critical of this approach call it PC-authoritarianism, and I completely understand why. With the focus on the superficialities of PC and language, the awareness of the problem has been lost, and many people just accepted the censorship seeing the language as unacceptable without developing any awareness. Although there was an improved environment because of the lack of such language, there was not really a change in racist attitudes – they were just hidden. For this reason it has been so easy for the racism to re-emerge as right-wing forces have become stronger. The new fact of life is that such racist opinion that had been hidden has been emboldened by politicians prepared to express such opinions. It now means that I have to be prepared to meet racists who are prepared to express their racism, and I have to live with it. At the same time there is still a powerful PC-authoritarian lobby for whom censorship is acceptable. This means that there is unlikely to be a change in awareness as there are just two opposing opinions being expressed, and no attempt at communication and no attempt at developing awareness. In fact trolling as baiting snowflakes has become popular, and such arrogance can never be helpful – however tempting.

What has to be understood is that racism is part of the conditioning that western countries deliver – it is still part of our upbringing. How it is experienced differs from family to family, from white community to white community. I have no idea how it is experienced in society now, I don’t know how just the teaching of racism is. But it is fair to say that all white people grow up conditioned as racists to some extent, it is just part of general conditioning in white society.

Conditioning is powerful as discussed in Treatise LINK – Ch22 and elsewhere. It is just part of the experience of growing up in a western society. Although society and education is similar throughout, how racism is perceived is very different depending on family and community. But it is emotion and conditioning that determines how racist you are. My own increased awareness came from meeting black people who took the time to help me. If in your community you don’t meet such good people then the racism is likely to be far more entrenched.

What has to be understood is that racism is conditioned, it is not rational. We receive attitudes in our upbringing, and emotionally we attach to these attitudes – they are not based on rational thinking. At the same time we cannot use observation to support a position. For example gang culture, one cannot deny there are black gangs deeply involved in drug culture and who kill each other. Equally it cannot be denied that there are not such white drug gangs although white criminality is prevalent throughout all strata of white society – and rich crime is far more dangerous and lucrative. One can observe however survival behaviour amongst poorer people whatever the colour of the skin. Simply by observation one could make any argument for or against racism simply by selecting the observations you choose. To try to change racism by rational argument alone does not work, awareness is more than just rational – it needs to be emotional and political, an understanding of conditioning. Like all forms of conditioning it takes a long time to undo all the harm our conditioning brings us.

I recently met a lady whose views on race were very different to mine. Ten years ago she would have been unlikely to express her views to me even though we would probably both been aware of each other’s views. I do not expect to meet her again whereas previously we would have had a socially acceptable relationship – she was the wife of a friend. The friend and I disagreed over issues but were still able to be amicable – not close. That is fine, that is Unity. But now we are divided, that is the prevailing ethos.

The New Fact of Life is that racists are being emboldened by the move to the right. At the same time this emboldening is of people who do not object to separation, do not see the necessity of working together. In my life I have always been seen as extreme – left, but I worked with people accepting that the system was unfair but there was a need for compromise. Centrist-right teachers did not compromise and as it was their system they didn’t have to – but there was a tolerance. The new fact of life is that that tolerance has gone.

I don’t like PC-censorship, and tend to agree with right-wing crits that it is oppressive. However right-wing oppression is always far worse. They have no problem with being hypocritical, criticising liberals whilst being far more repressive themselves. But right-wing repression usually brings with it the law, and if not that force then the bullying that goes with right-wing ignorance. I think Antifa violence going on the attack cannot possibly win, and gives credibility to right-wing bullyboys. There does need to be defence but …

I fear the increasing right-wing oppression, that kind of mindlessness I was glad to leave behind in the UK. I suspect it will now follow me. Will I still be able to blog nearer my death?

And in talking about this New Fact of Life I am partly shamed. 24/7 blacks, Hispanics and Muslims have to live with this, most of the time I can let it pass me by.

“Brainwasheds” <– Previous Post Next Post –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Venezuela and John Oliver

Posted: 10/06/2018 by zandtao in Democracy, Freedom, Media, Struggle


I usually watch John Oliver, and have generally seen his show as sensible and being well researched. At the time I was somewhat dismayed when I heard this programme on Venezuela. For years I had known about US intervention in Venezuela – as usual intervention because of oil, but when I heard Oliver’s programme doubts were cast. Rather stupidly I didn’t follow up my doubts.

I just caught the truth here. I picked it up from the Real News Network, it is from Empire Files (youtube channel) and is a blow-by-blow debunking of John Oliver’s bias (I hope they haven’t made any errors as it will be aired). If you are interested in seeing how colonialist bias works, watch this:-

I take everything I watch on TV with a pinch of salt – always have. But it is disappointing to see John Oliver collaborating so much. If I am any judge there is no doubt in my mind that in general the researchers are working for positive change – the American word “progressive”. However his discussion of Venezuela is part of the collective fear of socialism as exhibited with the only consistency on the IDWeb (socialism and IDWeb discussed here). I cannot accept that amongst those researchers they are not just bleeting liberals, I am sure there are socialists working there. Why did they push this out? It was not a big issue for the US, why did they accept whatever pressures were put on them?

It makes me more frightened of Trump’s America – and that is not something I thought I could say. Liberal issues are controlled. People are able to discuss them because they have been sufficiently countered by the ranting right description of snowflakes. I know Hillary colluded with neo-liberalism but why are John Oliver and his research team? They could have ignored Venezuela, why put out the propaganda?

Censorship is getting worse.

“Ego, self, anatta” <– Previous Post “Indigenous Wisdom” Next Post –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Dangerous Times

Posted: 26/05/2018 by zandtao in Freedom, Insight, ONE planet, Struggle
Tags: ,

We are living in dangerous times, I am so deeply afraid for the future; I see nothing changing for the better.

Where is the direction of Gaia, Mother Earth? Where is the direction to end war? Where is the direction to end wage-slavery?

Nowhere.

Where is the direction now? Increasing repression through repression on both sides. Repression helps no-one because it makes no change. It simply covers over the cracks, it Grenfells – gentrifies. This increasing repression is polarising society, and we are not examining this polarisation because we are stuck in our own media bubbles. Understanding through detachment has been replaced by repression based on positions – moral or otherwise.

This aspect of repression started with what Jordan Peterson calls PC-authoritarianism. This man is part of a right-wing egotistical freedom movement who are very dangerous, and has been rightly criticised here. But however sound the criticism it doesn’t matter, our world is polarised and what is said in the NYT does not matter to those listening to Peterson. And what is worse the world is moving more to sympathy for Peterson’s right-wing egotism because the finance is there to support Peterson and the IDweb. Meanwhile the 1% exploit through a Trump facade.

We have not learnt the lesson of PC-authoritarianism. I am going to examine how I see the personal history of PC. Back in the 70s racist language was common-place, at that time it didn’t matter to most people that this language was offensive – offensive language was used in the presence of black people and black people were considered to have a chip if they didn’t accept it. Slowly things began to change in that repressing racist language and removal of racist images improved the general ethos. But it was never meant to be censorship alone, it was meant to be a two-pronged approach in which removal of poor use of language went hand-in-hand with how racism was harmful for everyone. However there wasn’t much effort put into the educational side, and when Blair got into power there was increased repression on the language without any effort being made towards education.

When people are repressed there is a pressure situation built up because the source of the problem had not gone away. These repressed people were still racist. On the surface the problem of racism had been sugarcoated but nothing had been done about the squalid racist mire underneath. As a result when they started funding the alt-right, out came the racists again. There are now increased racist attacks, and racist intellectuals barely bother to disguise themselves as in the IDWeb.

I spent many an hour discussing politics with a neighbour. He did not disagree with any of the issues I raised such as war, exploitation wage-slavery, the 1%, Wall Street. However his mind was so warped with racism that he occasionally expressed to me concerning the difficulties of employing Aborigine workers, and how his liberty was infringed by regulations that protected them. He was also strongly against PC-authoritarianism. These combined were sufficient as he turned out to be a Trump supporter. In other words his racism mattered more than anything else except the PC-police. Of course this is an ignorant position but Trump’s backroom staff knew that the root issue was racism. All the years in which there was some form of PC-ascendancy nothing was actually done about racism, it was only repressed and it is now back in full force in some communities.

Racism is now so strong that this form of state repression is acceptable. Trump says that he would like NFL owners to drop players who took the knee. Now they have agreed that there will be a penalty if players take the knee. This is fascism:-

I first began this blog thinking about this meme:-

I first thought this was great, but then … Is the meme asking that the nephew be educated as to why repeated “no” is harassment or just being told “don’t ask more than once”? Then I began thinking about the relationship thing. Relationship is not about politics, I know how much I hated it when I went home and got it in the neck from a partner who was angry and treated me as a representative of patriarchy – I benefit from the privilege of being a member of the imperialist, white supremacist patriarchy but in my home I can offer empathy; I would however liked to have been me.

Now what happens to this “nephew”? Maybe he is down, maybe it took a great deal to ask. Will the girl think about it, realise she made a mistake and ask him out? Rather than an opportunity to warn the nephew against possible harassment, isn’t this an opportunity to help promote good relationship? Maybe the mother (of the nephew) could involve the mother of the girl in discussion about how to promote relationship.

I don’t want the nephew to ask again, I want a society in which relationship can be built. Can mothers teach daughters to ask a boy out? Can this be done without the girl being perceived as a “slut”? Can we help our young people build relationship?

Or do we remain slaves to sets of ideals which create separation?

It also made me concerned about that ugly brute, male lust. We have reached the stage where right-wing egotistical patriarchs such as Jordan Peterson are attaching blame to women because men not in a relationship behave badly (see NYT article). Peterson is at least recognising the problem in part – the ugliness of male lust. Where are men taught to deal with this? It is a horrible brute, variable in that it is not the same in all men. Some women equate this ugly brute with their own desire; this might be true as I have no experience of how a woman experiences desire – but equally women have no experience of this ugly brute. In relationship all matters need to be brought to the table, discussed, and a mutual understanding be reached. Bringing idealism to the relationship table does not help. If men with Peterson ideals expect women to return to being pliant kitchen chattels, there is only oppression. If women expect men to behave by following a set of rules that they create, there is no relationship. In a heterosexual couple there are two people of the opposite genders seeking to form a relationship, this can only be achieved through mutual love, mutual respect and mutual enabling. Leave the rule book where it belongs.

And that is the problem with our dangerous times, we are allowing ourselves to be dominated by rule books. We need to live together through mutual love, mutual respect and mutual enabling. And to paraphrase Paulette Jordan, love of Gaia. I wish her so much luck, how can she hope to bring Unity in times which have been so intentionally divided.

What good people have to realise politically is that being correct is nowhere near enough, having good ideals is nowhere near enough, having compassion is nowhere near enough. The point is that the 1% have the power and money, they can pay for any form of violent support for what they do. Antifa can be squashed any day they want them to be squashed. The only power that we have as people is togetherness, black and white together, women and men together, using rules to divide us even if these rules might be correct only works in favour of the 1%. Science has proven climate change for decades, the Koch brothers have “faked” climate denial in just one. Who is winning? Find ways of working together. Unity for Gaia.

“Nowhere to hide” <– Previous Post “Indigenous yin/yang” Next Post –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Nowhere to Hide

Posted: 25/05/2018 by zandtao in Struggle
Tags: ,

I have been doing some light listening in the car – bell hooks, and it is excellent. I am MAWP so I am part of the imperialist white supremacist patriarchal system that she continually questions. When you listen to her you have to question what you are doing about race, and I have been complacent about that. Partly that complacency stems from living with black women who looked to me for knowledge on the struggles of black people, partly that complacency comes from things like the Young Journal, partly that complacency comes from learning from Ndeh and Omwody, and partly that complacency comes from being MAWP and knowing that whenever I want I can hide from the results of MAWPs. I can hide within the very imperialist white supremacist patriarchal system I hate. I have no skin that prevents me from hiding.

I compare bell with how I felt about Krishnamurti. When I was about 30 I spent a few years attending the Krishnamurti gatherings at Brockwood park. At that time I was focussed on spirituality trying to come to terms with my understanding, and I would listen as he would say empty your contents of consciousness. I would internally scream at him that I am trying to come to terms with understanding and yet you tell me empty. It was a permanent spiritual revolution, and needed.

Listening to bell is a permanent societal revolution, everything has to be questioned because it is imperialist white supremacist patriarchal. As a MAWP I am not going to have conflict because it is MAWPs who are the problem – apart from the 1% of which MAWPs are their foremen.

It is the state of permanent revolution which is the end of addiction to self Ch 22, it is permanent revolution that ends conditioning, it is permanent revolution that is the practice of Ch 23, and it is permanent revolution that is the pathtivism that I put forward in Ch 24:-

Listening to bell is comfortable because it unhinges any attachment I might have. If I am not agreeing with her – maybe thinking she goes too far, I can stop myself and say that is addiction to conditioning – and let it go.

She makes me evaluate class. That in itself is a good thing. Class is Marxist and therefore MAWP no matter how much socialists argue – ask Russell Means about Europeans. But at the same time the 99% are exploited and provided Gaia is happy somehow working for Unity against the 1% has to underpin the permanent non-violent revolution – unless it becomes legitimately violent and that is very very unlikely as realistically there will never be that level of consciousness amongst the 99%. Working with black comrades in a state of permanent revolution means constant deep listening as each new turn shows how MAWP I am, and how unintentionally I perpetuate the imperialist white supremacist patriarchal system simply by having the conditioning. This deep listening is of course completely liberating no matter how much my ego screams that I have much to offer.

I should think seriously about how to add permanent revolution to the practice of the Treatise. Will I wait and see if Holybooks comes through?

I know bell is Buddhist but she talks much of desire – and there was self esteem that I questioned. I have mixed reactions to her occasional focus on black women fulfilling their sexual desire. On the one hand it is a celebration of self-realisation but on the other it is indulging desire, and attachment to desire is addiction to self – and is therefore not following the path. Following the path is permanent revolution but most don’t have the awareness to follow the path; such celebration of self-realisation is an intermediary step.

“one Family” <– Previous Post “Dangerous Times” Next Post –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Love and Self-esteem

Posted: 19/05/2018 by zandtao in Insight, Struggle
Tags: , , , ,

In the car I have been listening to bell hooks, such an interesting writer. I have downloaded a series of audios on bell hooks – it is readings from several of her books. I had to check the USB because I wasn’t sure even though what was being said sounded like her. But there is a problem, unlike Russell’s conversation podcasts there is too much content for when I am driving.

But it is about love and self-esteem, and she said “go back to your childhood”. This is a strategy I like, and on love and self-esteem again I feel incredibly lucky. I have to assume as context what I have described in the , in this case especially Ch 21 – My Path. I am unwilling to be specific about my home as my mother would not have liked it, but I can describe it in general as I have in being middleclassed as described in the chapter on My Path. Characteristics of being middleclassed are emotional repression and a focus on education leading to house car and education for children. As I have said previously, from my upbringing I emerged middleclassed but, significantly, relatively undamaged and with sufficient bits of paper for passports into life. When I look around this is more than I could have asked for.

In terms of self-esteem being middleclassed makes it easy to understand. I had the arrogance of academic success and as the middleclass straitjacket only really measured this my self-esteem was well intact.

As for love, self-love and other issues that Bell discusses, in my childhood these were de rigueur. In middle-class homes there was love but it was not expressed as emotion, passion; it was expressed as the straitjacket. The first thing I did when I hit bottom was to run back to the straitjacket, this is what being middleclassed provided. When I went to uni I questioned this straitjacket because I was beginning to remove it, but now I don’t – it was a comfort. I cannot advocate the middleclassed home but all-in-all it served me well.

With regards to teen and young adult relationships I was incredibly shy and awkward – undoubtedly in part a product of being middleclassed. In my early teens I dropped opportunities for relationship learning until I left new possibilities behind as too difficult. At uni I was drunk and most undesirable. At these times wanting a relationship was a conditioned thing, it was expected to have one; the “alpha males” I looked up to at that time flitted through relationships (people I later derided as Martin Smoothchatter). I say this in part was due to my being middleclassed but I also feel the path saved me – no idea how the path did it. I can think back to times where my awkwardness prevented me from relating to some wonderful women, but women who that underdeveloped self would have adored and left that adoring self very distant from the path.

In terms of self-esteem I had that in spades because all that mattered was education. Self-love never rose at that time because I so identified with the self-esteem of academic success. But then came the upheaval that started me on the path (again I refer you to Ch 21 for details). As path is unconditional love, this of course changed everything – including with regards to relationship. I became the wandering compassion at the time confused in terms of conscious awareness, but driven by path I was just learning. To begin with love of an other wasn’t the priority although the conditioning to have a relationship was there, I still had the conditioning of the cosmic love of an other. This conditioning confused me especially as in terms of the world I was so immature but the path priority drove me through the conditioning; I still had my awkwardness that prevented formation of relationships.

Once I settled into teaching a self formed. This self was based in the path, I knew who I was and relationships happened because of who I was – the self that the path had formed. There were two women I loved, and they are important in understanding the love that is now me – now part of my path. My first love happened when the woman was still in a relationship. You have to remember that I was immature and did not understand the world. The three of us spoke about this love, my lover’s relationship fizzled out, and this erstwhile lover who I thought was a friend didn’t want to know me – I am sorry it was my immaturity. There were further barriers on my lover’s part in this love, and by the time she really started to respond to my love my love was waning. And my path and independence took over until the relationship petered out and she left London.

My second love was an absolutely intense disaster that I described as worse than Peyton Place. I deeply loved this woman and I got absolutely hammered by pain. By the end of the relationship of nearly three years I was very much an alcoholic – the relationship did not cause the drug dependency but made it worse, much worse. When we separated she still agreed to see me, but very rarely and that petered out after a further 2 or 3 years.

With both of these I had deeply loved an other, but neither lasted a lifetime. Love however did. I had experienced love and that experience meant I knew love, love was always there. And that love can best be described by this Eckhart Tolle meme:-

It was only when I was mature (since retirement) did I realise that I was grateful for how I came to know love. The pain of the second love had been internalised and lasted a long time. Maybe 8 years after the start of that relationship I was in Nyanga and managed to dig out a significant part of that pain, relived it and let it go. And then maybe three years ago I finally came to the realisation that I had loved, love was in me and that I was grateful for the women I had loved – especially the second one.

To return to Bell’s books. I never really had self love. Because I started on the path so young, there was the love that belonged to the path. The path and conditioning and lust took me into relationships (2 significant loving ones) – my path had not matured enough to go beyond this conditioning; remember, this is how I describe path:-

I never loved when I was still relating to self-esteem. When that self-esteem blew up in the upheaval there was path, I never had to love myself as Bell describes. Path is unconditioned love, to think about loving it is a dichotomy that just doesn’t apply. I developed a love of others, but the love of self didn’t apply because the path was beyond self – anatta – no-self. I can relate to the love Eckhart describes but Bell’s descriptions are based in self and in terms of love I bypassed that self mostly – I of course had self in other ways as described in Ch22 on addiction.

The following is speculation as I did not experience it. I want to try and relate to what Bell says – as she is my feminist guide. Because I was middleclassed I grew up with self-esteem but I was completely awkward – lacking in any self-esteem in terms of relationships. My conditioning turned me to drink at uni, and relationships became secondary. I had many passions, a combination of conditioning and intellectual constructs that I should love, and occasional near misses where I was lucky that my awkwardness did not allow adoration. And then came the path. I never needed self-love because I had the path. Self-love conceivably is a stage before anatta. Many never move to anatta, and self-love is an important instinct for survival as Bell describes. For me this is conjecture.

Because I loved, once the pain had passed there was conscious love in me; love that was always there emerged without much pain – intense pain for a short time.

“Native code of ethics” <– Previous Post “one Family” Next Post –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Lasting Change

Posted: 17/05/2018 by zandtao in Media, Struggle
Tags: ,


My niece posted a Zerlina Maxwell clip on her facebook page. In this clip Zerlina berates the rape culture which is prevalent in movies. However her examples were primarily 80s and 90s. In my view although things might appear to be better now in the movies, I wonder how much they are. Here is a view of the “adorkable misogyny” in The Big Bang Theory which suggests there is much to change.

There is no doubt that in my lifetime images of women in media have improved. I grew up on a diet of Carry On films and Benny Hill shows in which the white patriarchy’s portrayal of women was usually just as sex objects in which sexual titilation was turned into humour. Such humour would not now be accepted in mainstream, I believe – I don’t watch it. With the #metoo movement such a rape culture has been driven underground but I question whether it has gone. To answer that I wish to draw a parallel with race.

When I grew up overt racism was acceptable, racist language was commonplace and was used in good homes as well as bad. Back in the 70s the politically-correct movement started where it was recognised that the use of such language publicly should be stopped, and over time in the mainstream it was; I question whether it stopped in homes. However when this PC-movement for correcting language started it was recognised that there should be an educational movement attached to help people become aware of the deeper sources of racism. For people like myself to see Trevor Phillips be part of the Blair government (I wasn’t in the UK then) would have been a real sign of progress. However Trevor in a recent documentary, “Has political correctness gone mad”, questioned what has happened to PC (discussed here. I have my doubts about Trevor especially with his criticism of Muslims, but it all points to an improved position for black people.

Until Brexit in the UK and then Trump in the US. I would argue that the basis of both movements is racism, both personal and institutional. In other words the movement that started back in the 70s and 80s had not really helped white people not to be racist, but had just pushed that racism underground until it became publicly acceptable to be racist again. It is possible that the hate crimes we are now seeing are as “bad” as the hate I grew up with.

And the parallel I draw with the race issue is this. Public pressure could force sexism and rape culture underground but it could take little for that culture to go back to the surface again.

Currently race is used as a scapegoat in terms of their “taking our jobs”. That issue was addressed by the education of anti-racists but was not addressed by the PC-movement. The issue with jobs is that there are not sufficient jobs because the 1% are accumulating all the money rather than circulating it back into the economy with necessary jobs. Without examining this source of racism in the politics of the 1%-system there can be no genuine change. To me this has been evidenced by the re-emergence of a level of public racism that existed at the time I grew up.

I fear the current direction of the feminist movement, and I draw a parallel with terminology used by Bell Hooks – revolutionary feminism and reformist feminism. Reformist feminism recognises the right for women to have access to the same rights as men – perfectly legitimate, and then promotes an agenda of competing for jobs etc. – competing for the limited cake. But Bell then spoke of revolutionary feminism in which there was a fundamental change in the white patriarchal system. This is why her book is called “Feminism is for everybody” – without a fundamental systemic change – revolutionary feminism, #MeToo and Zerlina Maxwell will just be the contemporary fashion.

<– Previous Post “Reason and Decency” “Exploring Gaia” Next Post –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.