Archive for the ‘War’ Category

Misery

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.

Advertisements

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.


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.

Something encouraged me to read Yuval Noah Harari, and I started with Homo Deus – perhaps I am more interested in tomorrow. And then I was horrified and couldn’t get past this “The same three problems preoccupied the people of twentieth-century China, of medieval India and of ancient Egypt. Famine, plague and war were always at the top of the list. …. 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”.

I’m ashamed to say that my first reaction was to think that this man was Israeli, and that the lives in all the wars in Muslim countries don’t matter to Israel. But with clearer reflection he is writing for a western audience, and it is for the West that all the wars don’t matter. The moab – mother of all bombs – is dropped and Trump is described as presidential. Why? Because the deaths are not in America. Many times I read how Vietnam was a watershed because of the Americans who died – now there are a few soldiers, mercenaries who die, but the carnage of war is caused far away. And in the US they can say they have “managed to rein in famine, plague and war”.

But what the US has done is relocate war, the Wars for Profits do not kill Americans and so war has been “reined in”. Yet it still seems so strange to me that an Israeli can say wars have been reined in when in his part of the world there are the huge war casualties of Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and not far away Libya (and this does not include drones in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan). To some extent I know of the propaganda within Israel but …. And of course the deaths are Muslim, and in any war such as the Arab-Israeli war propaganda dehumanises the enemy; Muslim deaths have to matter less in Israeli wars.

But Yuval’s book is for the western market. War has been reined in for the West because with the War on Terror Muslims have been dehumanised and their death toll appears to be discounted by those who can read about “reining in famine, plague and war”.

I have no idea as to figures but for Jews there has got to be a reduction in figures following the appalling holocaust. I can see that evaluation, and despite the ongoing invasion of Palestine there are much less Israeli deaths so he can be comfortable describing war as having been “reined in” – I just don’t know the figures or what he thinks.

I have no idea as to figures but I wonder if the death and destruction in the ongoing wars against Muslims in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan approaches that of the Second World War, that sort of figure would not be produced by western sources.

My reaction to Yuval’s comment is that wars have not been reined in but have been localised. There are fewer western deaths, the deaths are Muslim, western deaths have been reined in.

Because a western life and a Muslim life are not valued the same way – not just by Yuval (presumably) but by the West in general, western liberalism will continue to be able to say war has been reined in; liberals, even the right intellectuals attack all the wars.

I don’t know whether Yuval’s books are worth reading – I don’t know that I will get past this intro.

Will his investigation into tomorrow talk of the increasing blowback because that has to be inevitable? As an English person I am amazed that there are not more people saying America is exporting war to Europe. America bombs the Muslims, Muslims retaliate, and Europe is nearer. It is not only the immigrants who are nearer but also the reprisals. Why doesn’t NATO see that America’s wars are hurting Europe? But the West is the West and continues to benefit from war economy at the expense of Middle-Eastern Muslims so that truth will not be aired in western media.

I selfishly hope that the War against Muslims does not spread as there are more Muslims in my part of the world – Indonesia and Malaysia and Southern Thailand. Of course there is no oil there but in the end maybe the War on Terror will become an all-out war against Muslims.

When Bush first spoke of a War on Terror I knew it was a fabrication, I knew it was something that was designed for the MIC to replace the “Cold War” but then I did not see how they could fabricate such a change in the world. In just 16 years they have created the world the way it is now. There is such a heightened sense of violence, of fear, of racial hatred, it turns my stomach. What seemed preposterous has become demonically all-pervasive – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan.

And yet Yuval war “has been reined in”.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.


Perhaps I need to state (although I am probably being pedantic) the promotion of the 21st century anarchists is a strategy and not an aim in itself. As usual the 1% are only interested in their own gains at whatever the costs, and the obstacle to their accumulation is collectivisation. This collectivisation has to be genuine collectivisation as opposed to the liberal state that is part of neoliberal control. By promoting internet anarchy the 1% are trying to destroy an already-weak collective response as the 99%.

Whilst there is an ongoing battle between the anarchic pundits and the mainstream media, whilst the liberals continuously attack the populists and vice versa, the political leaders are acting with authoritarianism in a typically anarchic fashion. Consider Syria, where is Trump’s consistency? In fact there is an intentional inconsistency to prevent a collective response.

Occupy has these (1 and 2) analyses about neo-fascism and appropriate collective responses. It talks about the end of neoliberalism, I wonder whether that is the case. I suspect there is an element of brinkmanship in what is happening now. I cannot see WW3 being in the interests of the 1%. But whilst there is Trump’s aggression I fear more for what is happening behind the scenes. Environmental protection is being hacked whilst Trump is dropping bombs. Trump is sufficiently chaotic and has sufficient opposition that once the 1% have made sufficient gains and brought the world to the brink, it would not be difficult to remove him – and bring in a new era of relative neoliberal peace.

We allow this to happen.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Tolerance – Ask!!!

Posted: 26/03/2017 in ONE planet, War

I grew up racist in a white middle-class community, I vaguely knew one black boy at school who was always fighting and at the time I blamed him for that – and I was scared of him; now I still don’t know him but the pressure of racism at that school must have been enormous. What I perceived as a black person, black behaviour etc. was completely wrong. My parents, neighbours, schoolmates and teachers they all didn’t know either, that is who I learnt from then. But this is what black people were to me, and I would not have been convinced otherwise. I learnt the truth when I moved to work in Lambeth and met some good black people who helped me through my “educated” racism. I learnt because I listened to black people, and not white people, telling me what black people were like – and what they said was not always “nice”. All black people are not nice, all white people are not nice, etc.

Then what about religion? People believe all kinds of things that are not rational. Christians believe in a virgin birth. I am a Buddhist but do not believe in reincarnation, yet others who cannot prove this rebirth claim I am not a Buddhist. We need religious tolerance but that is difficult. But in terms of what people believe, we can only begin to understand if we try to understand what and how they believe. But even then we cannot do it. Because the Americans started a “War on Terror” following the First Gulf War, sanctions and 9/11, we now have a war against Islam because the war machine targets Muslims. Despite Islam meaning peace this war machine has convinced many sensible people that all of Islam is like the extremists of Isis and Al Qaeda. To me this would be the equivalent of saying all Christians are like the far right God-fearing US white supremacists. Having been brought up a catholic I know this is not true. Having lived and worked in Islamic countries I know Muslims are not extremists, but people who have never met Muslims know about how evil all Muslims are. In Israel, and amongst the Israeli state supporters, there are many with a blind passion that all Arab Muslims are evil yet I know this is not true. And it is also not true that all Jews believe this. Over the centuries religious intolerance has been manipulated to cause war, and yet in our educated times religious intolerance continues to be used to fan the flames of wars for profits. To live together in harmony we have to learn to listen deeply, be tolerant of others trying to understand them, and live with compassion.

Instead of this happening it is becoming increasingly more acceptable to quote opinions about others when those opinions are not based on belief or understanding of that set of ideas. I am fed up of reading right-wing intellectuals or otherwise describing communism, anarchy etc. These intellectuals discuss communism and socialism as if they know it, when they don’t. I don’t know libertarianism. I see good people supporting an ideal “freedom” but then I see ignorance in the way they criticise the left.

And this is also difficult because I criticise the left especially the emergent group of Blairite left better described as a liberal elite for whom socialism and Marxism has no meaning. If you listen to people on the right, you cannot know the left, and if you listen to the left you cannot know the right. If you listen to liberals you cannot know left or right.

What triggered this was this Activist Post in which there are attacks on communism and anarchism.

“As I will demonstrate in this article, this history and paradigm of undermining, attacking and disregarding the American nation state and its rule of law is by no means just an Anarchy thing, it is a long term process carried out and very much planned by the globalist once known more commonly as the Communist Revolution if you go back to the time of the 1950’s and 60’s and earlier.

“Am I suggesting that the Anarchy movement is part of the Communist Revolution long term plans to undermine the US government and the rule of law? While this is not specifically what I’m saying, I do see many possibilities given the world we live in today and what we know about the 1960’s that this could be a possibility. At the very least liberty lovers should be guarded about this very real possibility.

“Before I go any further let me say that as it is with any movement, the people in the movement usually mean well and are not intentionally doing what the architects and purveyors of the movement intended. The same could be said about many groups whose mobilization has been funded by the ruling elite. The movement is often engineered whereas the people duped into the cause and movement are sincere and have no idea they are being used. For example today you can apply this to the Liberal Left globalist movement. Here in Hollywood California where I live there are many Left wing Liberals who blindly believe the Left wing Liberal propaganda and globalist religion without questioning the Clinton News Network (CNN), MSN or any of the mainstream corporate owned CIA controlled media. They mean well but they are deluded. That said, let’s take a closer look at Anarchism in order to put things in perspective.”

These 3 paragraphs contain a confusion of attitudes that make it so difficult to develop Unity</a<. In the first paragraph he contrasts the American Nation State with anarchy, then with globalist and then with communist. As well, anarchy developing from communism?? And in the third paragraph he combines the Liberals with the Left, and associates the Left with Liberals who have supported mainstream media and the warmongering carried out by NATO that the Left have always fought against.

To me this is totally confused. The problem is I don’t know how to unravel it because I don’t know where the guy is coming from. What I do know is that his sources are not anarchy, communism or the socialist Left. No member of these 3 groups could ever associate themselves with the now divisive liberalism, and definitely would not accept neo-liberalism and its warmongering as a political system.

Fundamental to this approach appears to be nationalism. From nationalism develops insecurity (the “Security” industry), protectionism, and racism. With nationalism comes a misunderstanding that people of the nation are superior to people of other nations leading to government policies to protect that nation.

We live on One Planet together, and so arguments about globalist arise. And again we have a problem with labelling. Nature determines that we live on One Planet together. As soon as we divide into nations we have conflict, a conflict that is evidenced in global history. But because I dislike nationalistic jingoism and xenophobia, does that mean I support transnational corporations and economic policies that protect those corporations under the guise of “free trade”? Absolutely not. These corporations are the primary vehicle of the 1%. Globalism vs nationalism are not mutually exclusive, and to create such a division is dangerous. Unity is of the 99% but not 99% of the US or the UK or Europe but the global 99% – international solidarity.

Why does immigration exist? In the UK its history is colonialism. Resources were appropriated and the people followed the resources. Now we have a NATO immigration crisis because NATO has developed a strategy of destroying Muslim countries. Following the destruction of the Berlin Wall there was a need for an enemy. That enemy started with Iraq with all the sanctions between the two Gulf wars, and became national policy following 9/11 where there was a declared “War on Terror” that has not been a war on terrorism (such as fascism and white supremacy) but a war on Islam. In the 20+ years since the fall of the wall the MIC now has global war with a different enemy, an enemy that did not exist during the Cold War; a history of US support for Saddam Hussein in Iraq demonstrates the duplicitous politics the US and NATO have been involved in.

Without the wars for profits there would not be an immigration crisis. Without the war on terror Muslims would not be leaving their countries. With fair trade there would not be national economic divisions – I use fair trade – and not free trade which is a euphemism for exploitation by the corporations.

The complexity of these issues cannot be resolved by intellectuals supporting nationalism. Could we contrast compassion vs nationalism? We do contrast nationalism with globalism, and this is simply an approach that creates a division on a planet where we all live. In this I see intellectualism, the division of definition – black and white. And this leads importantly to activism, what it is and how does it happen? Next blog.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Brexit and Trump have also brought home to me another important issue – what is truth? Speaking the truth is part of the 8-Fold Path, Magga (4 Noble Truths), and never has it been more important to recognise the truth when the representatives of the powerful are lying so much.

The first thing I learned about the truth as an adult was when I started on the Path and began to develop insight. At that time seeing people or knowing stuff was so important. Basically it was a reaction to all the lies that education and upbringing had given me. Developing insight is the most important tool for understanding the truth, and very few people discuss this. Insight is definitely not taught in schools!!! At the same time, in the search for truth recognising insight in others became an important aspect of discerning truth. It is not possible for one person to know the truth in all things. So a pre-requisite for truth is insight and the recognition of insight. One key aspect of recognising insight is that of sila – moral integrity. Recognising moral integrity is almost as difficult as recognising insight but there is an obvious corollary to this:-

If a person does not have moral integrity, then they certainly do not have insight and would not see truth as important.

Having moral integrity and talking about morals is definitely not the same thing. There are many people who use morality within religious institutions as a means of control, and yet they themselves do not have morality. In other words religion and morality are not the same although within the religious institutions there are people with insight and moral integrity.

Compassion is the most important fundamental concerning truth. Compassion means the freedom from suffering for all, and in this I include Gaia. So in seeking the truth the person must show compassion. Therefore a person speaking the truth will be working towards compassion, and therefore someone who is sexist, racist, or does not support LBGT rights is not compassionate, and is therefore not speaking the truth. So there are yardsticks, how compassionate is the person and how much insight do they have?

Of course these yardsticks are absolutes, and applying these absolutes in everyday situations especially in something as criminal as politics is very difficult.

But trying to use these yardsticks let’s examine the political situation but not as yet in terms of party politics. What politically exhibits the least compassion? Quite obviously the first political yardstick is war. Who benefits from war? People don’t but corporations do, the global MIC, Military Industrial Complex does. So we have a political question to ask as a benchmark concerning support for the MIC and the corporations – I will use the vernacular the 1%. The most heinous weapon of war is the drone, these are hugely expensive to make and generate huge profits, a definite plus for the MIC. The immigration crisis is blowback, a huge consequence of interfering wars and the heinous use of drones.

These corporations work hand-in-hand with global finance institutions such as banking and insurance. So for me the 1% of MIC, banking and finance are those that control global politics, and politicians who stand against the 1% are those who I support. I have not mentioned BigFood and BigPharma but these corporations have similar interests as the other corporations of the 1%.

For me Occupy stood against the 1%, so I support the Occupy movement. It is my understanding that the Occupy movement stood behind Bernie in the US and Corbyn in the UK. Whether this is true or not what Bernie and Corbyn say stands against the 1%.

But is what they say what they mean, are they telling the truth? Or is it just rhetoric?

In Corbyn’s case I have sufficient personal knowledge of the man to know that he is genuine although I haven’t always agreed with his tactics. In the UK in London from 1985 through to 1992 I was a political activist, and this brought me into contact with Corbyn’s sphere of influence – he was an MP and community activist in North London then. For me there was no doubt about his moral integrity and compassion, but at the time I was active I felt his tactics were mistaken. Now I support him, times change.

I support Bernie. His rhetoric is good, and I have a general feeling that he is moving in the right direction. But because of the lack of personal connection I cannot be so definitive. My intuition makes me feel he merits support, but I would not go beyond that because of my lack of personal contact.

What is most interesting about these two political candidates is that they are both struggling with their party hierarchies. There is a movie I often recall called Lifting the Veil. Whilst the movie does attack both the Labour party and the Democrats, it is more concerned with attacking the system. It is my understanding that the movie claims that the electoral system has been manipulated by the 1% as a media circus, and that there is never any intention of genuine democracy – government by the people for the people. This is in line with the approach of neoliberalism as most notably discussed by Noam Chomsky (for me).

Given that I accept that the political system of neoliberalism is the problem, the question then is how it is to be defeated and what is it to be replaced with? For me compassion means that I am seeking a system that treats people as equals without regards to “race creed or colour”; I would also now add gender preference. This is fundamentally the rights of all people over the few, the 99% compared to the 1%. At present we have governments directed by the 1% against the interests of the 99% who they want to exploit as their workforce. So the question is how do we organise for a government by the 99% (or 100% where the government treats all people as equal)? In determining veracity I would be investigating whether the politician is genuinely interested in a government of and by 100% of the people.

So far I have avoided political terminology in describing truth. And this is because of problems with the media and education. It is my view that western societies (and probably global societies) are inundated with propaganda that is directed by the 1% for their benefit. The terms 1% and 99% are very similar to the Marxist terminology of bourgeois and proletariat, and there has been continued propaganda against Marxists, socialists or any who subscribe to Marx’s theories. There is much to be learnt from Marx’s dialectical approach. But the main point of Marxism is that all the people need to work together against the self-interests of the 1%. In my adult years I have never seen people more divided, and I think propaganda and obfuscation by the 1%-media are the main causes. Typically I have seen mainstream media organisations described as left-wing when I have always described them as right-wing. In terms of compassion this site might well have the same objectives – healthy people, but in terms of the media our descriptions could not be further apart. In this the 1% have been so successful in dividing us.

There is another reason I have not promoted myself as socialist, I believe that sticking to ideas or an ideology is a mistake. While ideas can guide, holding to an ideal restricts the mind. Adhering to dogma stagnates an institution whether it is religious or political, people also become restricting if others are expected to fit in with ideals. So another point of truth is enquiry. Does the truth hold up to inspection of the enquiring mind? For many years dogma has been thrown at me either from the left wing or in religious circles, but none of this dogma alone produces clarification. It is only with insight that dogma moves beyond the idea. Examining a situation in the light of compassion and through enquiry examining the dogma and situation is a process to determine the truth. Does what is said fit a set of rules is not truth-determining?

I often draw parallels between US and UK politics, typically Republicans vs Democrats and Conservatives vs Labour. In the UK historically the conservatives have supported the 1% with token liberal rhetoric for the welfare of the people and nationalist populism in the interests of the white population, and whilst historically Labour grew out of the working-class its representatives are now simply opportunists. In the UK a nationalist populist, Nigel Farage, has arrived on the scene promoting racism, and this populism has recently been accepted by many people – a significant factor in Brexit; his party UKIP primarily attracts disillusioned working-class Labour voters.

The I in UKIP stands for Independence, and I think this term independent is significant. In UKIP’s case it maybe means independent from the EU – Brexit. But in character UKIP supposedly represents an alternative to the conservatives and labour (the neoliberal system). At the same time it discusses the people’s interests over that of an elite – again appealing to an understanding of those against neoliberalism, but its appeal to the British electorate is because it is white nationalist. In my view UKIP is an appeal to white popular racism, and although sadly they are increasing in popularity their only impact so far has been their contribution to Brexit which also included majority conservative influence. In the UK this populism has divided the 99%, and in the UK I believe that is why UKIP has been funded and given more coverage in mainstream media than is warranted for a small party.

In the US the situation is slightly different but the impact of nationalist populism combined with the conservative interests has led to the election of Donald Trump. Because of my compassion I cannot support either UKIP or Trump because of their racism – and in Trump’s case overt sexism. (I suspect also LGBT issues but I am not certain of that). Initially I said that if a person does not have moral integrity I cannot believe that they will tell the truth, that applies particularly for Trump although I also distrust Farage.

In the US many people rue the election because Hillary was not elected. However in the neoliberal system Hillary represented the 1%-system elite of the Democrat party, and so she lost the populist vote. For the same reason support from Occupy was not strong because of the same neoliberalism, and because of the way the Democrat party cut out Bernie.

In terms of truth it is worth examining how events have panned out in terms of the way they have benefitted the 1%. Particularly in the US nationalist populism has benefitted the 1% by splitting the 99%. The populists have however elected a member of the 1% to deliver an anti-1% platform, can that ever happen? We will have to wait and see. Is Trump a political “whistleblower”?

In terms of truth this splitting is very important because it explains much that goes on with populism. Within the framework of blaming the elite the primary purpose of the populism is division. When you examine much of the analysis in both camps it places the source of the problem with the 1%. Two important platforms of US populism were “draining the swamp” and “against Wall Street”, both of which any left-winger would be happy to support. But then comes the division because the most important attack politically is to blame the left. And here is the inconsistency, the swamp and Wall Street are not the Left.

When considering the populism we have to examine emphasis. The 1% have no problem with being blamed if their strategy of dividing the 99% works so the rise of this nationalist populism just benefits them. For me the main political truth is that the 1% cause our problems, and that we should all fight against the influence of the 1%. In blaming the 1% I seek unity against the 1%, and seek strategies that negate their financial power and influence. This strategy unites all working people, it unites small business owners who are trying to balance their books, but it works against people who manipulate financial laws for their own profit. Such small business owners do not go bankrupt and start up again. Such people pay taxes however unfair the tax system might be because those taxes provide education and infrastructure for ordinary working people. The 99% have all this in common, and if we all worked together then the 1% cannot exploit us.

However divided we become manipulable so it is in the interest of the 99% to divide the left and right. The internet has succeeded in doing this. By investing in the internet the 1% have developed websites that present their divisive populism.

At the same time populism has inconsistencies because the strategy is division and not the interests of the people themselves. The government is described as left-wing and yet a major popular platform is the swamp – the revolving door of the 1% that controls the government. How can the government be left-wing and 1%-controlled? And Trump himself is a major inconsistency, how can a member of the 1% be interested in fighting 1%-control? However these inconsistencies don’t matter if the purpose is division, that division is a consistent purpose:-

Consistency – division
Inconsistency – drain the swamp
– Against Wall Street
– Attack the left
– 1% government is left

Such inconsistency is for me a good measure of the truth.

Where next do I go in terms of the truth? Over the years I have developed mechanisms for determining the truth. These are based primarily on the arena of politics that I know – what has been called the “left”. I know these people, and have developed some insight into their degree of truth-telling. Over the years I have seen how important the truth is to the left wing, if there are any doubts in the veracity of a left-wing statement there is a huge mainstream backlash. More responsible left-wing people are very careful with the truth, but that is not all left-wingers for sure with some of the more vociferous getting carried away with rhetoric; so there has to be truth-discernment from within. Based on my experience and insight I would use certain left-wing evidence and avoid the rhetoric. This can only be a personal approach to truth.

Political correctness is also worth discussing when examining the truth. PC developed throughout my lifetime, and in my view it developed because language was a significant part of racism and sexism. Demanding that people were not racist or sexist in the language they used was a good position when trying to remove the embedded racism and sexism in society. As a result racists and sexists were expected to improve their use of language. This gave an illusion that people were less racist or sexist but in the UK Brexit showed that people had not truly changed. At the same time there has been a backlash against the “PC police”, people who have too vehemently reinforced the change of language without helping people change their attitudes. With UKIP and Trump those people who have been straitjacketed by the PC police have been allowed to express their racism and sexism. Because there was a repression there has been a backlash against PC in general, and as a result truth has suffered because much truth came out of the research those people did.

At the same time it is populist to reject what PC people have said because populism attacks the left wing. As I have said, this is a change that I find hard to understand as the government has always been a puppet of the 1% so for populism to claim government is left wing is difficult for me to grasp. Again this is an indication as to the ability of the 1% to influence. Look at what has happened. The 1% continue to dominate and their profits continue to increase despite the crash of 2008. Governments have applied austerity measures as a consequence, awarded bankers bonuses, and yet populism has divided the 99% so that there is an obfuscation concerning the left wing. The power of money is amazing.

So to conclude how I determine truth:-

1) Overlying everything else is compassion
2) Coming with compassion we need to develop insight and discern those who are insightful
3) Enquiry with compassion beyond received positions (idealisms)
4) Recognition of 1%-interest and the divisions they cause
5) Determine sources that I usually consider truthful and enquire from there.

Finally since this has been mainly concerning truth in politics, I ask that we recognise a political delusion that has been perpetrated. Most people vote for economic reasons ie vote in a way that they think will give them most money. Vote for greed. When greed is voted for we get manipulated by the greedy. Why not change the way we vote to that of compassion, vote for people who genuinely talk about caring for others and the environment. This would change the political arena.

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

Blogs:- Zandtao, Matriellez.