Archive for the ‘Struggle’ Category

Compassion Paradigm

Posted: 03/10/2017 in ONE planet, Struggle
Tags: ,

I wonder how much we can communicate. [Below}

I live within a compassion paradigm. This paradigm contends that humans are basically compassionate but conditioning prevents them from being so. Yet compassion is always trying to win through.

This conditioning is of a personal-social-political nature, and working for compassion against this conditioning was my reason for going into education. This conditioning is greatly influenced by a social paradigm I perceive as the 1%-paradigm, and that instead of education working towards removing our conditioning it educates towards increasing conditioning to preserve this 1%-paradigm.

The nature of this 1%-paradigm is to enable the increased accumulation of wealth to the 1%, and within the education system this means avoidance of education that demonstrates the power and influence of the 1%, education for wage-slavery, and miseducation concerning the wars-for-profits. For me these are the “overarching principles of education” even though within education itself there are occasional efforts against this paradigm.

History for me is an important tool to demonstrate the pervasiveness of this 1%-paradigm, it is less useful in demonstrating compassion. I use sources such as Eduardo Galleano, Walter Rodney and Howard Zinn but lay absolutely no claim to academic rigour; in the British context I have sufficient personal knowledge to see how landowners and serfs can develop into 1% and wage-slaves. Exploitation is integral to this 1%-paradigm, exploitation as wage slaves, exploitation as soldiers, exploitation through racism and sexism, and exploitation is a necessary pre-requisite for the accumulation that is the raison d’etre of the paradigm.

Within the 1%-paradigm the overarching concern of academia at all levels is not the leading out of compassion but the development of an increased bank of knowledge that, by avoidance or otherwise, fits within the 1%-paradigm and does not emphasise the compassion paradigm.

You are clearly a devoted historian, and the knowledge you have amassed would academically belittle any arguments I could put forward. But this knowledge functions within this 1%-paradigm. I read your previous comment (interpret) as saying that historical events in the UK dictate a necessary accumulation of power within Westminster, that this power has historically been white, and that to continue with that protective process of accumulation of power involves the continuation of similar processes including aspects of white privilege. Within its context I cannot dispute such an argument. However within a compassionate framework it is flawed as it accepts accumulation of power, white privilege and therefore racism, and at the same time it facilitates the accumulation of wealth to the 1%. Although academically I don’t have the knowledge to argue against, that is not the paradigm I choose to argue within. Hence the problem I said at the beginning of the difficulty of communication.

For me compassion trumps all.

[Below] This was written to a history ex-colleague.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.


Having recognised that in my following the path there has been two childhoods, there has to be a recognition of implications.

I have described these childhoods as system and spiritual. We could describe the system upbringing as conditioning, education or miseducation, and likewise for spiritual. Firstly let me state that these childhoods did not follow one from the other but ran in a sense in parallel. However hitting bottom and following the path was primarily although not exclusively concerned with the system conditioning …. in my case.

Even though I describe the consequence in spiritual terms – following the path, awareness of the process at the time was concerned with systemic education. It was based on the rejection of academia and the rejection of the world of work that academia had led me into. But immediately I rejected the academia, I began to follow a spiritual path. Following the path led to experiences, led to consideration of what spiritual life meant, and led to a removing of systemic conditioning or moving beyond systemic conditioning – mostly.

In this blog I discussed two conditionings perceiving difference between East and West. Yet I also say in the blog that there is only one conditioning, that the systemic conditioning is contained within the spiritual conditioning. In spiritual terms (Buddhist) attachments, to desire – greed – and a false theory – the 1%-system, create a miseducation that conditions us into the way of life the system offers – that benefits the 1%. Included within these attachments are intellectual adherence to academic knowledge and an acceptance that we should compete for more money as a rationale for working. Yet this is not all that is in our upbringing. Whilst I consider this as miseducation, this upbringing as education teaches us organisation and basics without which we could not function in any society. But why our education should teach us to function within a 1%-capitalist-system is purely a matter of exploitation – conditioning and miseducation, and is not concerned with our human development in society or spiritually – compassion.

It is important to see how instinct fits into this conditioning. Instinct is nature’s survival, we cling to our mothers, we have a procreational instinct, and generally have survival instincts. Over time these instincts fall out of necessary use, or at least are intended to, but this does not suit the 1% who benefit from manipulating a social imbalance that propagates these instincts. Particularly the sex instinct continues far beyond its natural end integrated with socialising that connects wealth, fame, sexual imagery and exploitation.

Spiritually, what does our upbringing do? Fundamentally it creates I. Using the 5 khandas (aggregates) as that which constitutes a human, then our spiritual miseducation conditions us into attaching to these khandas, and through that attachment creating selves that during our upbringing we aggregate as I (in Buddhism this is generally discussed as anatta). Within this attachment and aggregation is an acceptance of greed and the 1%-system of war and wage-slavery.

By moving beyond our systemic upbringing, we can see the conditioning into the competitive money ethic and the world of work as a process of creating a delusion that we adhere to. By moving beyond our spiritual upbringing, we see that the conditioning that creates attachment and ultimately the self creates a delusion where we are trapped in I. By moving beyond the spiritual conditioning we can experience genuine freedom, by moving beyond the systemic conditioning we can see that this war and wage-slavery now function for the benefit of the 1%. Moving beyond systemic conditioning does not mean we then become free from spiritual conditioning, hence why I consider I had two childhoods. I described the childhoods as one following the other but after hitting bottom and starting to follow the path there was still much systemic conditioning to remove and I hadn’t really begun to think about spiritual conditioning.

What do these conditionings mean? Discussion of 1%-conditioning is common-place usually using rhetoric such as capitalist exploitation – or the like. However spiritual conditioning is rarely discussed generally except in Buddhist or similar circles. How does this esoteric discussion of anatta impact on people? Eckhart Tolle discusses the pain body regularly, this is an attachment to pain – creating a pain self that impacts on our thinking. I regularly harp on about the intellect or an intellectual self, people especially academics cling to this self, expect compliance to intellectual processes, and do not see the importance of higher mental developments (bhavana) such as insight or other benefits gained as described in Anapanasati pp79-81 [8) What is the benefit of concentration?]. The intellect through its own need to survive cannot conceive of thinking higher than its own, a typical characteristic of self. Following the path helps us understand the impact of these selves, moving beyond “spiritual” conditioning helps us to deal with these selves.

Previously in discussion I tend to have been associated with awareness of systemic conditioning – being against the 1%. In reality I am arguing against all conditioning including the conditioning by selves – that above I have called spiritual conditioning. Politically I have promoted compassion as a unifying approach (blogpost and Unity Platform), in this context compassion means freedom from suffering brought about by conditioning (the spiritual that includes systemic). Recognising two childhoods means a change to looking at conditioning rather than just the system, and even more sees the importance of compassion as a benchmark.

Finally it is interesting to consider conditioning. It is normal to perceive an agency that conditions – such as the 1%-system. The 1%-system has a clear purpose – conditioning for profit. But what is the purpose of spiritual conditioning? Who gains? It is nature’s purpose – Idapaccayata. By recognising the suffering caused by conditioning, we can enjoy the happiness that comes from moving beyond conditioning – spiritual including systemic. This is why we follow the path. Further by recognising that all conditioning is part of “spiritual” conditioning we learn how to be free of it, it is attachment – just let go. Don’t buy into it, just let go.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

All of these words describe me so I am a MAWP, but I have become complacent about my MAWPness. My studies have led me to bhavana meaning mental development through more meditation. And was focussed a lot on MAWP during my first increased sitting.

It started with an encounter where a climate denier gave a plausible scientific account. Now this MAWP has always been quietly arrogant, the sort of intellectual who enjoys superiority if you get angry. Well I did get angry, and will look into that later. This MAWP was too arrogant to see that this plausible denying account was targeted at people like him, people whose intellects were arrogant enough to believe that they could see through such pseudo-science. Such pseudo-science was designed just for MAWPs because a MAWP cannot say “I don’t know enough”. He was fooled by this denial strategy.

This MAWP has a reverence for science possibly because he was not an academic success. He could not accept that doctors were imprisoned by their wage-slavery and that mainstream doctors could not advise Gerson, Byrszinski, cannabis, macrobiotics or others as an alternative to cancer without losing their jobs. His being fooled led to typically intellectual contradictions where he could accept smoking and stopping if he got cancer, whereas he could not accept people choosing not to have chemo yet not seeking alternatives. He could accept the way his own intellectual ego was being fooled but could not accept others’ intellects being fooled because he was not fooled in that way.

I was a fool because I got angry. During the increased meditation I realised my anger was coming from my path. It was an egoic anger similar to the ego that has shown with the use of the word “awakening”. I am arrogant about my following the path, and was angry that this person let himself be fooled by the denier, be fooled into thinking doctors could not be imprisoned by the system, but could not listen to my wisdom. This is a bad anger, and I am ashamed. I have commented before about egos of people on the path including my own, but it is the first time I have been angry with others because of my own path. It is such an obvious self, why did I let it get a grip? If it has reached the level of anger, I have to be much more vigilant concerning my arrogance on the path – especially when dealing with people who are liberal intellectuals.

Bhavana also asked me to look at my own racism, and this was interesting. I have felt reactions to Trevor Noah, I liked him a lot before he started the Daily Show. And these reactions are of the form “Black Daily Show”. Now it definitely is the Liberal Daily Show – appealing to Liberals, but it is the fact that I had thoughts of it as the Black Daily Show and I did not completely dismiss those thoughts. Thoughts were of the form, where are all the white males who are fighting the system? So although that is somewhat better – in that it was about fighting the system, it was still concerning race. The issue of race has changed since I became aware of it, since I became anti-racist. Because I haven’t needed to address my racism in a white racist country for 25 years – except on the edge of South Africa, I have not updated. It is part of my privilege that makes me think more white men should be on. In truth I have no idea about the balance of activism, about the quality of understanding of activists, and I have a legitimate criticism of liberalism and PC. Put all of this together, and I have to be careful of being MAWP. At the same time because of the impact of liberalism, I have to be careful of who is a comrade, and whilst there are good people going on TN I cannot expect to see too many comrades there – it is still 1%-media no matter how much liberalism is put out.

I have noted the increased use of the words “white privilege” amongst black people on liberal media, maybe generally. I had seen such usage as an extreme black reaction but I now see privilege in me – mainly because I haven’t updated; can’t update because of my lifestyle?? With the increasing representation within liberal media, I have to address the competence issue. I supported positive discrimination or affirmative action but at the time noted that this led to people with less competence in positions. I accepted that. But this was 30 years ago. How much has this changed? If I am to see those same positions with the same glasses and question competence, then I am being racist or sexist or LBGTist. Back then there was a sense of MAWP being a patron of black people, but if seen in the same way now that is racism. I must be careful of this but I cannot know because of where I live etc.

It was a shock to see my arrogance about the path becoming so much of a self to create such anger, I need to be so much more aware of this. I like and will use the terminology MAWP especially when describing the supporters of Trump – now deplorables and MAWPs (and wives); there are now no good people supporting Trump or Brexit because of all the hurt the deplorables are causing.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Wage-Slaves Together

Posted: 16/09/2017 in Freedom, Struggle

The left has also allowed itself to be divided over class. As a comrade and teacher I met “cloth-cap elitism”, I wasn’t a real worker. The attitude was the “Workers of the World Unite”, and we’ll let students and teachers tag along. Yet how often have their intellectual energies been driving forces in the movement (Note – I do not consider myself an intellectual).

With divisive terminology used over the years it is not surprising that our movement has been divided. Through our lack of activism based on sound analysis we have allowed a division that calls comrades liberals, and we have allowed identity politics to divide the movement, instead of integrate it, through failure to listen to a section of workers without jobs. Instead identity politics has been manipulated into a competition for decreasing jobs, and increased the internal colonial divide endemic in capitalism.

What is worse is that an increasing number of jobs are not considered slavery. I chose to be a teacher because I believe in the importance of education. But in all my time as a teacher I was never able to educate because of the controls of the 1%-system. Whilst I was always aware of my own wage-slavery it became so much more apparent in retirement reflecting on what a pawn I became.

The important word here is choice, how can I choose to be a slave? And the answer for most people to this question is that they do not. Because they chose they are not slaves. Yet let us examine this choice. The 1%-system allows us to choose from certain professions or careers, so our intellects feel they have made a choice. Then as intellectuals we cannot admit that we have chosen wage-slavery. To hide this error of choice these intellectuals embrace a materialist liberal lifestyle. These intellectuals/liberals develop an approach to their slavery which is acceptance, and avoid at all costs a recognition of its wage-slavery.

Added to this arrogance of choice is an additional arrogance – intellectual arrogance; for many of these people they were taught to see themselves as successes in the 1%-education-system. They were taught to feel superior to other workers who the system created as failures – engendering a different ego, the conflict between successes and failures. I personally met this adversity far too much whilst working in the mass movement.

However what has to be understood is that we are all wage-slaves. For the intellectuals they need to stop considering themselves superior, and for the “traditional workers” whose proportion of the workforce is vastly decreasing they need to stop perceiving themselves as failures in an education system that is designed to create failures.

Liberal intellectuals also need to stop perceiving “mistakes” in the system as mistakes. Much of what we see is intended, if it increases profits for the 1% it is intended. When these Liberals perceive what happens as mistakes, they are deluding themselves and effectively colluding. The traditional workers are given no choice – work for us and we will give you some money to bring up your families – the usual view of wage-slavery. But intellectuals pretend that they have choice, that they control what they do, and this is a much more effective way of enslaving. They choose their jobs, their job description has limitations, but because of their choice they accept this, and they never question. This is their boundary, their cage, their prison, but it is never perceived as such because liberals are comfortable within their cage. These boundaries are also sufficiently wide that fearful intellectuals need never confront the boundaries, and can keep their mortgages and self-esteem.

Conflict is the way out of the cage, conflict of conscience – compassion. Whistle-blowers learn of the limits of their cage, and try to tell the truth; they are currently major targets. This engenders fear in liberals so they avoid conflict. They champion safe causes that the 1% tacitly allows, and satisfy their egos with tilting at windmills.

As the mass movement we have to redefine ourselves. By limiting class descriptions in terms of the traditional worker – peasant and industrial, we have to lose because those jobs are becoming increasingly automated. We cannot accept a middle-class definition as there is no such thing, the middle-classes are simply a different type of wage-slave as many found out after the crash of 2008. We are the 99%.

A PC approach creates division. We do not repress people who disagree because that repression comes out – it has to be expressed. Language was supposed to have been the first step in educating for equality, and not jobs for liberals to enforce repression. There isn’t a future when wage-slaves are separated. There isn’t a future when one wage-slave perceives their type of slavery is better than another. There isn’t a future when we accept intellectual divisions. As wage-slaves we are comrades in the fight against the 1% even though so few of us know.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

I am a member of the compassionate left. Whilst I am not the only such member there is no such organisation. I am compassionate first, for me being compassionate makes me accept the compassionate economic analysis of Marxism. Because I am compassionate I wish to see all people free from suffering, and politically there are no doubts that I must stand on the left, on a left which is against the 1%, against war, and against wage-slavery.

Recently the left has been losing the propaganda war. Funding manipulations on the internet have left many people describing my life-long scourge – wishy-washy liberals – as left. This irritates me. If I start using terms like compassionate – liberals of course call themselves compassionate, hard-line leftist theorists will say that I have let in these wishy-washies. They would say “hold to a contemporary radical Marxist position” as a means of distinguishing from Liberals. Yet a clear compassionate view that includes contemporary radical Marxism distinguishes me from Liberals.

In this context it is worth considering what a Liberal is. Liberals are intellectuals, often what my comrades used to call armchair socialists, who are vaguely caring and vaguely socialist. And by “vaguely” I mean that when it comes to the crunch, if it is a choice between mortgage and socialism liberals will always choose mortgage, and the underlying fear and greed that marks a Liberal can lead them to vote with the right wing especially as they get older. The Liberal agenda varies over time, currently it is wrapped up in identity politics. This identity agenda dominates the façade of liberal media in the West, a media which is increasing the division of the 99% – and this fact of division shows who is controlling the media, 1%.

One of the failures of the left in my lifetime has been the inability of the left to unite. Primarily this is because of intellectualism dominating the left-wing. During my limited activism this left-wing has split itself over intellectual differences concerning Marxism. As a UK activist in the 80s left-wing politics was divided intellectually, hatred of other Marxists dominated – Commies vs Trots. At the time I was pulled to communism where I obtained an excellent Marxist education, but saw the lunacy of their positions. At the time women were still patronised because “Marxists” decided women should not “go down the mines”. And their major attack on the Trots was that they divided the mass movement (which they did) yet in the UK there were 3 communist parties with a total of 5000 people!! So the left is comprised of commies, trots, some of the labour movement and wishy-washy liberals – not the mass movement, is there any wonder that there were right victories in Trump and Brexit?

One of the main reasons that the left is not attracting 99% support is the fact that they don’t listen. These activists are deeply immersed in their activism of promoting the “mass movement”, but they don’t listen to the mass movement because of “recruiting”. A caring person is drawn to political activism and is immediately assailed by factions recruiting for their own brand of Marxism. This intellectual activism is so destructive, and can lose caring activists. The point of Marxist correctness is not that it is intellectually correct but that his analysis supports the compassionate approach that frees all people from suffering, from the 1%, from war and from wage-slavery.

Significant amongst the hard-line Marxists is the notion of revolution. Whilst there is no doubt that the 1% will never relinquish power through the ballot box as they control propaganda globally through the wider media (inc internet), it is only intellectualism that can call for revolution at this stage. Look at the Vanguard in Russia. They started a revolution in which many people died because of capitalist reaction, yet because the people were not “ready” the USSR never moved beyond the dictatorship of the proletariat that eventually stagnated and led to oligarchy. Is this a century of progress? Whilst revolution might well be the only way to dispossess the 1% now, to call for such at the moment is only calling for a futile death of the mass movement. When the revolution might be “ready”, who knows?

Compassion also has a broader appeal. In the West Christianity is the dominant religion yet traditional Christianity votes with the right wing. In Brazil and elsewhere in Latin America there is the tradition of Christian compassion epitomised by Paolo Friere, but in the West the Christian tradition is voting with right-wing thugs. Why aren’t they voting with the compassionate left? Propaganda, not Christian compassionate analysis. This incongruous voting pattern is made far easier by left-wing intellectuals who promote hard-line theories, dismiss religious experience as an opiate, and do not listen to where people are coming from.

Sanders and Corbyn have got to be the great left-wing hopes. Whilst Corbyn’s roots were in the Trotskyist Left, his approach is that of compassion and listening distinguishing him from his erstwhile comrade theorists. Grass roots activist throughout the movement might themselves hold to theories but their success is based on their ability to listen to the mass movement, show compassion and adapt to what they hear. Corbyn does this, I assume Sanders does too.

Clearly the political objective has got to be uniting the 99% against the 1%. Some of Trump’s right-wing rhetoric appropriates the anti-1% dogma, but for some of his supporters their vote was only a “hail Mary” approach – now patently not a touchdown. A compassionate left would have listened to those people, you cannot unite the 99% by not listening to them. If you listen to them they will listen to you. If you don’t try to sell them a “recruitment” line but try to work with them in the interests of the mass movement, maybe there can be some unity. If the dominant approach of the mass movement is compassionate listening activism, then there is a chance of unifying the 99%.

Make compassion a benchmark for activism and voting.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.


Posted: 03/09/2017 in Freedom, ONE planet, Struggle, War
Tags: ,

There seems no end to the misery. From Horizontalidad in the early 90s through the Arab Spring to Occupy (tag) throughout the world and finally OWS, there had been some hope. But the enemy, the 1%, became marked in this movement – and that scared them. So the 1% found the answer, create confusion on the internet by funding all and sundry. Now we have complete chaos, there is no clear genuine left alternative.

In this article Paul Street describes the chaos that would have ensued if Hillary had won. In the article there is a much clearer understanding of on-the-ground US neoliberal politics than anything I could offer from afar. What it definitely shows is the chaos that is now US neoliberal politics. What we now have is the 1%, 2% – a genuine left alternative, and 97% total confusion (I have no basis for the exactness of these figures).

Liberal-bashing is now the fashion amongst the right, and liberal-bleating of a defence is the current level of response. Whilst this is obvious in the US it is occurring throughout the West. The good-old Liberal Obama set the scene for the world’s current greatest humanitarian disaster by sending drones to Yemen. Trump’s alliance with Saudi has seeded the destruction, and the Liberals barely bleat. They cannot do anything about it so they don’t bleat. But if they scream and shout about LBGT toilets, maybe they can do something – and their parties are fine. This is a right-wing created issue to bait the Liberals, meanwhile the real destruction goes on across the world – War for profits in the name of Western neoliberalism.

Is there a solution? Paul talks about a genuine left alternative, but can that ever happen? Since Marx there has been a clear analysis of the source of the problems – the bourgeois 1%, yet we now have a “2%”- acceptance of this. It appears to me that acceptance of this has been on the decrease in my lifetime – not helped at all by the continual left-wing squabbling before the recent “chaos” funding. This leads to the question, can there ever be a united 99%? If we look at the chaos now, the answer seems a resounding no.

Now it is particularly bad but I wonder if the answer could ever have been yes.

To try to get at this we need to look at conditioning. If we move beyond our conditioning we do not accept the 1%-system of neoliberalism, we see that all that matters is compassion. Not, who is in charge? Not, which system do we use? But compassion, compassion for all people. If we are compassionate we don’t fight wars. If we are compassionate we don’t treat people as wage-slaves. We care for people, who they are, and who they could be if enabled. Compassion ends suffering, ends the misery our world is in because of 1%-exploitation (mostly western) and the endless façade of populism, liberal-bashing-and-bleating – neoliberalism. The world needs compassion.

A conditioned person does not put compassion first. When people hear of humanitarian disaster in Yemen, compassion is not the first response; it is conditioning. Muslims, we should protect people but …. If we send money do we look after ourselves? We are good people, our governments cannot be causing wars just for profits, there has to be something wrong with these others. All of these responses are conditioned. The first objective needs to be compassion, put compassion first and leave out the conditioning. When there is a world where compassionate response comes first, then we have a world without division, and division is what is causing the misery. If Rockefeller says we cannot have compassion because my standard of living goes down, we laugh at his greed. Do we laugh at the greed if it is said at the golf club, the country house, etc.? When we look at the poverty that exists in the desert we, right-wing and liberals, are afraid, we, right-wing and liberals, become greedy in case our standard of living is affected, the compassionate and the non-liberal left (different) say “care for them at all costs”.

So why do I differ the compassionate and the non-liberal left? The non-liberal left put their systems, their ideologies first. They are conditioned to believe in systems, that is their education, their intellectualism. As a result of this belief in systems, for years the non-liberal left has fought each other, Commies vs Trots, which version of Marxism is right etc. And whilst they fought, the 1% continued exploitation, and the misery continued – has grown? When there was some crystallisation of action through Horizontalidad and Occupy, there became the funded chaos. Because we were all still responding on a conditioned level – even if that conditioned response is against the system, it was easy to create funded chaos by attacking theories. You cannot attack unconditioned compassion except by greed and selfishness

Can we ever fight our conditioning and become an unconditioned 99% – 100%? Can we ever be a compassionate 99% – a compassionate 100%? I doubt it. Can the 99% unite behind a theory without compassion and without removing conditioning? The evidence so far is no, I think no with the theories -permanently.

But compassion and removal of conditioning is a big ask. But it is a better objective than asking for 99% to believe in a system.

But before erstwhile comrades jump down my neck, where does compassion and removal of conditioning take us? In mid-19th century it would have taken us to a Marxist analysis of the exploitation by the bourgeois, now it takes us to seeing the 1%-system in the world. But compassion does not ask “do we believe in Marxism?”, it asks “how does understanding Marx lead to compassion?” And the actions are little different, but there is not the rhetorical arguing over systems and theories. Don’t be conditioned into believing a different theory, be compassionate.

Remove conditioning, make our first response compassion globally, have Unity through forgetting our theories.

Or have the misery that is continuing.

When we act with compassion there are no wars, there is no slavery.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Is Trump 1%?

Posted: 20/08/2017 in Democracy, Struggle

One of the many lies that Trump put out was that he financed his own campaign. here is how the 1% got their candidate into the White House from The Real News

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Charlottesville – the end?

Posted: 16/08/2017 in Freedom, Struggle

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

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

His appeal to these people was that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately the deluded fools are unwilling to do that.

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

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

What is to be done?

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

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

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

The Trump Focus

Posted: 12/08/2017 in Democracy, ONE planet, Struggle, War

I just watched a pulp movie “Focus” with Will Smith. There was a scene in which he explained how he got the attention of the victim’s focus whilst away from focus crime was committed. There is an often-quoted British maxim that the Royals hit the front page when the government is struggling. Focus!

If we examine Trump’s presidency we see a man whose façade is that of incompetence. There is no consistency when we compare what he says to what he does. His supporters hear that Trump will not expand wars yet in the Middle East there has been increased meddling, a MOAB in Afghanistan, and now bellowing at a minnow in North Korea. He was “draining the swamp” by employing Goldman Sachs in his cabinet. No consistency.

The Liberal media have lambasted his inconsistency, and his complete disregard for the normal respect for such office has fueled much derision. The Russia scandal has also got the media hopping, and there is much focus on Russia. And Obamacare????

So the question is “what is really going on?” Common Dreams put out this piece, and I wished that was all that was being done. Previously Wall Street SEC fines have been reduced by 2/3 – lost the reference. Reduced taxes for the rich are coming.

But “is this all that is going on?” I don’t think the above articles are beginning to scratch the surface of what is being done behind the scenes. It is quite clear the 1% were pushing for Trump from at least mid-year. From the point of view of governance it could easily be seen that he is a disaster area; they knew this. They also have control of the media, and could control that there would be a Liberal feeding frenzy once he was in office – the Focus.

“What is being done?”

It will be years before the effects of Trump have worn off, years ….

And meanwhile how is the opposition lining up? These stupid Liberals can’t come together and recognise that their neoliberalism is how Trump got in in the first place. With such people fighting for us we have no chance.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trust the compassionate not the system.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.