Archive for the ‘Struggle’ Category

Is Trump 1%?

Posted: 20/08/2017 in Democracy, Struggle
Tags:

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
Tags:

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

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

His appeal to these people was that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately the deluded fools are unwilling to do that.

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

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

What is to be done?

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

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

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

The Trump Focus

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


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.

When you look around there is all kinds of suffering, it’s just awful. It’s so sad to see things the way they are.

And our newborn they have to grow up in this suffering, to do this they are helped by their upbringing – parents community and education. But what are they helped to do? Grow up, get a job and fit in. This is the 1%-system we are in – get a job and fit in to their profit-making. Fit in with the wars and wage-slavery. It is understandable if people growing up don’t want to fit into this system, look at it.

Basically the way we grow up does not look at it. We are conditioned to get a job and fit in, this is normal. We are conditioned not to see the suffering – the wars, wage-slavery and 1%-system. Breaking free of this conditioning produces two things. We see the suffering for what it is, we find there is a way of peace through this suffering.

Now the Buddha talked of this suffering with the 4 Noble Truths (4NT). He saw the suffering as caused by clinging to desire, and if we can be free of this clinging there is peace. And he offered the 8-fold path (Magga) as a way through this suffering – as a way of being free from clinging.

Whilst the Buddha was innovative when he spoke of the 4NT, this notion of path is quite common-place amongst spiritual people. The path has been spoken of before and since the Buddha, but the path spoken of has many versions not specifically Magga.

I knew none of this when I hit bottom and started to follow the Path. Within me there was a sense of what the Path was, it was a reality that I was able to follow. And it worked. From the times of total confusion around hitting bottom, with various bits of help along the way I held onto this path and developed. It wasn’t until I was 50 that I saw a formal definition of path such as Magga, prior to that the path was verbally vague although a deep real conviction.

I think the following is true, whatever method you use meditation is concerned with calming the mind and being silent. I have meditated off and on since hitting bottom but it is only from being a Buddhist at 49 that meditation has been a regular practice – my form is vipassana meditation. Vipassana just means insight, the purpose of the meditation is insight and it comes from the silence. From the insight comes something else – an inner guide. The calm and silence that comes from meditation leads also to a clarity of action – a guide to action. At hitting bottom, in meditation or otherwise the guide instilled the idea of the Path as a way of living; it was a methodology of living and as such it was a mechanism the guide could give for me to hold onto in those times of confusion. At hitting bottom the conditioning had been removed and I had found my inner guide telling me to follow the Path until the need for a path fell away as I found the guide in meditation. The 7th and 8th steps of Magga are variously translated as concentration, meditation, insight etc.

In Buddhism there is a dead monk I consider my teacher, Ajaan Buddhadasa. From what little I know of his personal history he was actively explaining the Buddhist dhamma in his late teens. I do not know enough of how he developed to know of where his awareness came from but hitting bottom did not seem to be part of it. In the East there is the suffering, there is the 1%-system, there are wars, but their conditioning enables a soft transition for some into various forms of Buddhism. In the West it doesn’t seem the same, neither Christianity nor Islam seem to offer that same soft transition, and it is fairly common for moving beyond the conditioning to be difficult; typically Eckhart Tolle struggled before becoming the teacher he is.

Whilst my personal journey did not smoothly transcend conditioning, there is nothing in the 4NT that does not compare with stages of my own development. Only the 4NT can be much more peaceful.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

A Corbyn Retrospective

Posted: 27/06/2017 in Corbyn, Struggle


This time of Corbyn has been fascinating for anyone with a modicum of interest in socialism, Chris Mullin (MP author of A Very British Coup) could not have written anything more interesting – apologies

I had been watching Corbyn through a VBC filter, and it is worth making a retrospective now. Corbyn got slated by mainstream media from the word go. Much of the slating was concerned with Brexit but you have to think about that question in terms of socialism. What has the EU got to do with socialism? It is a union of countries designed to circumvent barriers to trade and enable the capitalists to make more profit. What has that got to do with socialism? His position was to stay in Europe because the Tories would try to exploit the workforce without EU regulations to limit their exploitation. That is fair to me but understandably not a strong position because the EU is a capitalist organization yet economically beneficial to UK business. His stance on Brexit negotiations was much stronger, stand up for workers’ rights, ensure trading opportunities, and stand up for individual rights of EU people living in the UK and vice versa.

In VBC terms the Wainwright factor was much stronger because of the Blair manipulations for nearly two decades. By the time the members voted in Corbyn the first time, the parliamentary Labour party was 80% centrist (Blair/Wainwright), far too many to send off to the North of Ireland. It was not surprising there was a vote of no confidence soon after he was voted in.

But Corbyn started to shine for two reasons, the first was the election and the second surprised me – he is an excellent statesman. In retrospect calling the election was a huge mistake, and in retrospect could also have been foreseen as a mistake. Both Trump and Brexit were populist, and in an election it could have been foreseen that after years of austerity a populist alternative would have been successful.
Because the media had to give him airtime people began to see him for who he was. At the same time he was fighting for a socialist platform in a time of austerity, it was a mistake to think that would not be popular. But the establishment was arrogant, they thought the media had given them total control and were confident that May would win an increased majority. But they are not admitting this mistake, what they are saying is May ran a poor campaign. That might well be true but it was primarily poor because the people were sick of austerity and sick of seeing the rich get richer whilst ordinary people got poorer.

But at the same time they believed their own publicity, and did not realise that Corbyn was a superb statesman – I did not know this either. When he was put through the ringer in mainstream television both by media figures and right-wing members of audiences, he coped well with what was thrown at him. One of the issues that was focused on in VBC was the nuclear issue. They repeatedly talked about his views on Trident, right-wingers were asking “would he push the button?” His answer was diplomacy first, by the time he was pushing the button it would be too late. I was satisfied with that answer.

But I was so pleased to see a Labour party with a manifesto (or this link) that was socialist after the years of neoliberal copouts. But of course the real disappointment is that there was not a socialist government. At present according to the polls Corbyn’s popularity is greater than Theresa May’s. It is not certain whether that would translate to a Labour government but there is no way they would risk that. Meanwhile since the election there has been a proliferation of senior Labour figures who have decried Corbyn – Blair, Alistair Campbell, Neil Kinnock – all of whom were figures in neoliberal Labour. But Corbyn has worked with Momentum, and Momentum have worked with the youth. And the youth love Corbyn – Corbyn gave a political speech at Glastonbury to applause including poetry!!

In 5 years time Corbyn will be 73, is that too old to fight a campaign, John McDonnell is perhaps too radical but is only 3 years younger, Dianne Abbott is still a disaster area, there is no-one on the Left who is a statesman and could pull the people together like Corbyn. Maybe they could train Russell Brand? I didn’t think Corbyn could pull them together so maybe there is someone else.

Corbyn will continue to democratise the party but will he be able to do enough in 5 years to get rid of the Blair stench? But what a good few months for socialists?

VBC is concerned with government so many of the VBC forces don’t come into play as Corbyn is opposition. Will we be able to see how prophetic Mullin was with Corbyn/Perkins in power?

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

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

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

click for clip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.


One is a threat and the other is manipulated to destroy the threat.

Anarchism in itself is not all bad. There is a strong history of anarchism that supports working people. There are anarchists who call for collective ownership of companies, this kind of syndicalism I support. Here the principle of anarchism is against government that prevents collective ownership. Socialism and communism are usually governmental structures, and whilst there have never been governments that are truly socialist or communist to aim for such is in my view risky. I cannot see how socialist governments will work, once you have representation power is taken away from the individual and because of that responsibility goes as well. With representation the individual follows instead of being active in a creative thinking process towards action; following benefits the 1% not the 99%. Anarchism is sometimes feared by the establishment because some anarchists choose violence as a form of action but apart from these violent attacks in general anarchism is beneficial to the 1% because it destroys a collective response.

Anarchism is ego supposedly collectivised as a “movement”. This is the delusion that I feel has taken over the internet. Throughout the internet there are individuals who are writing about the struggle from a left or right perspective. These individuals quite often have an angle on the truth. Alex Jones is regularly attacked by the liberals for his bombastic approach, and they then ignore everything he says; they are ignoring some truth because he is a bombast. Yet there are many people who follow him. Why? Because he describes some truths concerning the actions of the 1%. For example, I have no doubts at all that Bilderberg has some impact on 1% strategy. But Alex Jones has plenty of sponsors because Alex Jones attacks the collective response. What has Alex Jones achieved other than discussion, and a certain level of awareness. I would imagine his followers are extremely frustrated because there is no constructive action, and perhaps that frustration became misguided in supporting Trump. Alex Jones has begun to criticise Trump, I hope in the end he will dissociate from this 1%-puppet.

The metier of these anarchists is ideas, they believe in ideas first and ultimately it is this approach which brings failure. Ideas by their very nature are divisive. Academia nitpicks pointless distinctions between ideas, and this is why academia can never be the Church of Wisdom that one might hope it to be. Whilst there are some in academia who are searching for knowledge and wisdom the overall process is destructive because all ideas are given merit and the melee of ideas is simply confusion or worse, conflict. Academia has only one cohesion, providing jobs for intellectuals. As an institution the intellectuals all follow a certain set of rules that enables academia and funding to still exist.

But this post is about the anarchy of ideas and idealism. Let us take the 4 Noble Truths. These are truths but can never be accepted by academia as truths because one “professor” putting forward a set of ideas that dismisses them is given equal merit. There is no benchmark of truth in academia, and at a wider level there is no benchmark of truth with ideas. Anarchism is effectively a collective confusion based on competitive ideas. This is no value judgement on the quality of ideas themselves; it is a comment on the collective confusion that is anarchism.

There is one place these anarchists did not go – Occupy, watch Rise like Lions to be reminded of what collective movements can achieve. The 1% in Wall Street and elsewhere were frightened of the Occupy movement, and as can be seen from the movie eventually repressed the movement. I have no evidence for this but I believe that the sponsorship of internet anarchism was fuelled by fears of Occupy. Occupy did not put ideas first, they put action. In the clip you will hear the constant demand from the establishment for a set of ideas to knock down, and Occupy just said “fix the system”.

Occupy activism frightened the 1% who for the first time recently had become “named” targets. People dismissed governments as the problem, and blamed the 1%. They told the 1% to fix the system. Since then the sponsored anarchism has blamed liberal government for the problems; 8 years of Obama liberalism is the problem …. and before Obama there were no problems? And this sponsorship has been so effective that people have voted for a 1%-demagogue like Trump. And what is worse, there is a high level of following of Trump without any concern for discerning wisdom and truth. They believe Trump will do what they want, and dismiss criticisms of Trump as liberalism – so dangerous.

No idea worries the 1%, what worries them is collective action. Consumer boycotts frighten Israel, criticism through ideas they control by calling them antisemitic. A boycott hits their profits. And this is an indicator for wider political action, hit their profits. The organic health movement is restricted because organic foods attack the profits of BigFood – BigFood cannot make mass-produced organic food. Where did e-numbers and chemicals in food come from? The need for longevity in food so BigFood could make a profit. Consumer boycotts of GM foods frightens the industry so scientists such as Seralini are discredited. Collective bargaining is attacked because it reduces profits and so the anarchists highlight the occasional weaknesses in such collectivism. What then happens? The 1% favour a few and increase their profits to the detriment of the many; anarchist idealism identifies with the few.

This is why it is so important to return to the strategy of collective action. Not only the collective action of demonstrations but the action of collective bargaining and consumer boycotts. Activist Post has some interesting analyses but it is limited to that, it should be called Ideas Post or Anarchist Post because without collective action it is not effectively active. Unfortunately the egos that write for it don’t appear to see this, I suspect their ego is ultimately more interested in followers and internet sponsorship than action against the 1% causing the problems.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.


Early last month Trump attacked Syria – check this mainstream reporting. His ostensible rationale was that there had been a chemical attack by Assad, and he authorised this response. This attack showed Trump’s true nature in my view, and upset many right-wing intellectuals – Alex Jones included. I hope that it started to break illusions his better supporters have.

My first reaction was false flag; I had no evidence for this but just assumed it was true. Basically Trump America and its MIC wanted an excuse, fashioned a chemical attack, and used it to justify bombing. Then I listened to Democracy Now interview with Anand Gopal – has video link here. In this interview Anand puts forward his view that it was Assad who did the chemical attacks. His analysis went like this:-

1) The US in the previous week had said that Syria was Syria’s problem
2) Assad felt there would be no interference for whatever he did.
3) He continued his brutal dictatorship and conducted the chemical attacks.

This also sounds plausible.

Phyllis Bennis on The Real New Network, I always find both reliable did not comment on who committed the chemical attack in her immediate analysis. She criticised the trigger-happy MIC response.

In the CP I learned to err on the side of caution, they took AGES to get a correct evaluation, and even then they made no commitment unless they were absolutely certain of the truth. They used a network of sister organisations across the world, and for an organisation to merit the term “sister” their integrity had to be unquestioned. In these times of funded anarchy, continuing mainstream lies and fake news such a process is essential. The CP were seeking the truth as they saw it, I agreed with their approach mostly, and – so slowly – navigated their way through the lies created around us.

When Trump talks about fake news he has a different strategy. He is playing on right-wing paranoia, and, working within the funded anarchy 1%-approach, is creating an anarchic platform in which his authoritarianism can flourish. His followers do not know the truth, and have been willing to accept that Trump tells the truth – perhaps because the way Trump is resonates with them.

Did Assad commit the chemical attacks? I don’t know. If I had to commit myself I would take the Democracy Now line but I am happy to say “I don’t know”. Do I support the US air-strikes? No. Why? Because the US has no right to be there. The struggle for Syria is Syrian. Keep external money out of the situation and allow the people to resolve their relationship with the dictator, Assad.

That is not going to happen, and the US/NATO juggernaut will continue demolishing Middle Eastern states that do not work within the US hegemony. The term balkanisation is used to describe this process. Again it fits the 1% anarchy model, create anarchy apply authoritarianism allowing the companies to go in and exploit.

Anarchy – Authoritarianism – Exploitation

This is the model the 1% are using in the US and UK now. Are Iraq, Libya and Syria models for accumulation in the US and Europe? If 1%-wealth is held offshore, if 1% live in rural havens – island havens, is the future of US and Europe to be modelled on the lawlessness that is Iraq, Libya and Syria? Is that just doomsday or proper futurism?

It is essential that caring people across the political spectrum work together on a Unity Platform.

What about reaction times? I mentioned the discipline the CP taught me, as part of the stupid left-wing divisions they were always critical of the Trots going off half-cocked. Now we have a world in which anarchists are encouraged to go off half-cocked, this speed is part of the anarchy disguised as youth. It is time we deliberated, took time, not react react react …. uncontrollably. We need to see the way these forces are being manipulated, how we are being manipulated, how the changes that are happening globally benefit the 1% and how we can best counter them. To begin with let us question the news deeply – each and every one of us, following is only for twitter, let us stop following and decide for ourselves. Don’t’ believe mainstream media, don’t believe the promoted anarchy of the internet, question deeply – live a life of insight based on enquiry.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

And yet is Yuval correct (Homo Deus intro by Yuval Noah Harari), has war been reined in?

In the 19th century the globe was dominated by European expansion and colonialism. The slave trade (mainly British and American) that had previously seen a huge death toll was dying out, and was being replaced with colonial wars and occupation. Local skirmishes were dying out to be replaced by a coordinated effort to deal with the invader.

And it was this expansionism that led to the western wars of the 20th century. The First World War might well be described as a war about dividing the African cake, and although Germany was defeated the Ruling Class did not wish to decimate its own, and so the war between colonial powers happened again in the Second World War which led to appropriation of global power to America.

And to me significant in considering the reining in of war was the heinous nuclear bombs. Touch America and look what we are prepared to do – even though the war against Japan was over.

America’s colonial wars continued to expand in the second half of the 20th century but Vietnam damaged the direction of their hawks because of the number of body bags that came home.

And perhaps the most devastated place for war was China in the 20th century, and since the end of that 20th century war in China there is now peace and developing prosperity with their trade globally being welcomed and replacing the exploitation of colonial and neo-colonial practices.

Following the nuclear bombs there has been the US Third World War as described by John Stockwell, but apart from Kashmir there have been few border skirmishes. Global war has been localised to war in the Middle East, and expansion from other countries appears to have ended for fear of exacting the extremism of US nuclear wrath.

So in this sense perhaps Yuval’s analysis could be seen as correct, the nuclear bomb and US hawks have reined in wars but at what cost to the democracy of so many peoples?

But to be fair to Yuval his quote “Yet at the dawn of the third millennium, humanity wakes up to an amazing realisation. Most people rarely think about it, but in the last few decades we have managed to rein in famine, plague and war” concerned famine, plague and war. Plagues have almost completely died out, plague is a global phenomenon now, a plague cannot be localised with global transportation and would affect the hegemony. Famine continued into the second half of the 20th century with famines caused in Africa by “cash-crop” neo-colonialism, but now famine just follows the wars where poverty and starvation follow the wars for profits.

So perhaps Yuval’s analysis that famine plague and war have been reined in has some merit but it is such distasteful reading when you consider the Muslim localisation of war.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.