Archive for the ‘War’ Category

Truth?

Posted: 06/01/2018 by zandtao in Insight, ONE planet, Science, Struggle, War

Since my early retirement I have enjoyed learning from the internet. I got sucked into conspiracies and subscribed to what I assumed were left-wing newsletters that kept me informed. It is only with examining the rise of Trump that I have determined that many of these are right-wing intellectuals. This is understandable as I see their funding as being a knock-on effect of the 1%-manipulations.

However whilst I describe this right-wing intellectualism, it does not mean that this information is untrue – far from it. I consider these intellectuals the right-wing periphery, and have no wish to dissociate from them. Of course that does not mean I have any right-leanings.

For me the issue lies with the answer to this question, how do we overcome the 1%? And the answer for me is very clearly Collective Unity, and struggling as the United 99% against the 1%. It is never clear to me how the individualism of these good right-wing intellectuals will overcome something as powerful as the 1%. In my view they need to overcome their abhorrence of the liberals, an abhorrence I also feel, and somehow find a way of working in Unity against the 1%.

Government and taxation is of course very divisive. When I look at the neoliberal governments of Blair and Obama I understand why these intellectuals are against taxation and government. As a teacher I incline to defend the educational aspect of governance, but I know that the caring aspects are only a subterfuge for the main current purpose of taxation – accumulation of wealth to the 1% through taxation for defence spending on the wars-for-profit.

There needs to be some form of commitment to Unity, and I don’t see these right-wing intellectuals wanting that; I must just accept the bonus of knowledge that the right-wing periphery funding provides. The egos that comes with individualism anywhere on the political spectrum has also to be recognised and defeated, ego is a major divisive factor.

I am old enough for truth to be easy, proletarian struggle. Occupy reinforced that with its simple 1% clarity. But these understandings are interspersed throughout a steady campaign of confusion. Politically for me this has shown itself clearly recently with the identification of the left with liberalism, when I think that people might identify my position with neoliberalism, its wars-for-profits and wage-slavery I shudder. But the clarity of my truth has to be tempered by the obvious failure of the genuine left to unite and be meaningful, hence the ease with which we have been labelled with the liberals.

This blog on truth was sparked by watching this video called “The Republic of Science” from Judith Curry, I absolutely do not recommend this video. In Mandtao I examine science – I am posting this in my main blog Zandtao as well. As a Buddhist I am firmly committed to 100% enquiry (4 Agreements as well). Science needs questioning because science is establishment. Now saying science is establishment for me means that science is controlled by the 1%, and when you listen to Judith she talks of the way science is controlled. She makes a very convincing case, that creative scientists (who she calls mavericks) are restricted by the science establishment and government direction. This is excellent, Mandtao would appear to say the same thing but the reality is the exact opposite.

Judith Curry is on the periphery of the Koch brothers campaign for climate denial. I suspect, although I don’t know, that whatever funding she gets stems from the vast amounts the Koch brothers have used to dominate the internet. So-called independent media. I have no interest in her climate denial evaluation – she might have a genuine position; she does not appear to be a direct definitive climate denier. What concerns me is that her analysis of science is so close to the truth that it is so easy to fall for her line.

The problem is she does not see the source of the problem as the 1%. She talks mostly of the science establishment stifling mavericks, who can argue with that? Her position is then that the establishment is stifling the maverick who talks of climate denial. This is so plausible but oh so dangerous. The question is “when is science stifling maverick creativity?” as opposed to “when is scientific knowledge refuting politically and financially-inspired bogus claims of climate denial?” these are significantly different positions yet so subtle. On the level of daily science, the source of funding that creates such destructive scepticism cannot be traced to the 1%, and leaves blogposts such as this in the realms of lunatic conspiracy. This is the purpose of confusion. And with the current level of collective confusion there can be no Unity to fight.

How can I ask for all to see through such subtle manipulation?

I have a completely misguided acquaintance who can put “likes” on my 1%-posts, and yet can support Trump. How confused is he? He does not have a mass movement base to his understanding. An individualist will examine Judith Curry’s individualist examination of science – the individualism that celebrates mavericks, and can see the partial truth of what she says as truth. The mass movement says “where is the hand of the 1%?”, and immediately looks at finance. Once you apply that paradigm you see the Koch Brothers and climate denial – whether Judith believes what she says or not.

I can support her analysis of the scientific establishment, and I thank the funding that has powered that. I can thank the right wing for the Corbett Report that brings this and other useful information to light. But if I am unsure I ask the mass movement question “where is the hand of the 1%?” …. and there is clarity.

As Mandtao the maths/stats man I am a supporter of scientific knowledge and scientific method. I attack the science establishment for similar reasons to Judith Curry’s video “the Republic of Science”, but in the end she is supporting the 1%, the Corbett Report is supporting the 1% by promoting her. All the scepticism around climate change can only be seen in terms of 1%-industries, the Koch Brothers campaign, and how any doubts that arise enable this industrial establishment to continue with the environmental damage and pollution – whatever “scientific point” Judith or others raise.

It is sad in this world that the 1% are so sick, so detached from the species they are a part of, that they want to destroy the very Unity of who we are – the ONE planet. And they will finance and manipulate at any level to enact their sickness. It is so hard to understand how these people became so sick, I understand why Icke wants to separate them and call them lizards, but they are just sick humans. We have to face the understanding that humanity can become as sick as these people.

<– Previous Post “If I were Bill Gates ….” Next Post “People before Profits”–>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Advertisements

Valor

Posted: 06/01/2018 by zandtao in Media, War


I have been binge-watching TV over the New Year as the beach is crowded and there are drunks on the road. Valor is one of these binges, there are many messages that make my blood curdle, but it is interesting trying to see the plot turns. I was hoping it was another American Odyssey where I enjoyed Anna Friel as Odelle Ballard.

If you watch TV with any amount of credulity, then you are just going to add to your own already-burdening conditioning. Valor is typical establishment pulp. The heroes are the members of the armed forces, in this case mainly two helicopter pilots and the colonel. There was one phrase which summed up the conditioning presented in this pulp. When discussing an attempted rape one of the heroes said something to the effect that the system gets many things wrong but our colonel will sort it out; as yet I don’t know if he did but his actions so far have been commendable (finished s01e10). The programme did not say that the system is meant to get it wrong, in our world justice is not intended although occasionally fought for and won by genuine heroes

The issue for army recruiters now is that it does not have to be mass recruiting, they only need a few to be soldiers because of the huge investment in resources. Only a few helicopter pilots are needed etc. But they want good people committed to the good old US of A. Valor is a poster show for those people because the two helicopter pilots are presented as good caring people, one coming from a “broken” background who the army helped straighten out (something it does do to some extent). Hence Valor is good establishment pulp – recruiting thinking right-wingers for the services.

There is advice that goes round the left, if you don’t want to be conditioned don’t turn on the TV – news whatever. This is sound advice, I recommend anyone to follow it. Yet at the same time it is worth knowing what they are doing. They only now need a few dedicated soldiers, so we have programmes like Valor.

The theme throughout concerns the two heroes, even better that one hero is a woman in the forces. This is part of the recruiting propaganda. What happens around them is the storyline that interests me – the plot turns. The populist right-wing attacks the Deep State and attacks mainstream media (MSM), how do they do this in Valor?

The series begins as a rescue mission with the two heroes defending a prisoner from attack by a CIA man – killing the CIA guy. The prisoner was supposed to be Somali, turns out to be American, and the plot develops around him. (Spoiler) He was CIA, became an ISIS lieutenant, then goes underground and so on – twists and turns. The two heroes cover up the initial killing, and then go through crises of confidence as to whether they killed a man trying to kill a traitor.

Valor does not address the major issues. One of the heroes had PTSD after serving in Afghanistan, as a sideline the plot shows him developping the PTSD following an incident in which he tried to save an Afghan boy from an explosive device the hero had rigged up. Good heroism.

We need those soldiers to fight wars so programmes like Valor don’t question why the US has been in Afghanistan for 14/15 years, why they invaded Afghanistan that long ago to find bin Laden, why they didn’t leave Afghanistan after bin Laden was killed, and why America’s 1% has dropped the MOAB on Afghanistan last year. Throughout Valor it is accepted that US helicopters have the right to be carrying out operations in Somalia, why do they have this right? So the major questions are not asked, but the recruits they want don’t ask those questions. I am slightly too old anyway, but they wouldn’t want me .

There is an interesting MSM sub-plot. There is a captured soldier. I have just realised that throughout Valor this soldier is described as a POW – Prisoner-of-War. How can he be a POW when the US is not at war with Somalia? Of course the recruits they want would accept this POW status, is it accepted that he is POW because of the War on Terror?

The sub-plot is that this soldier is a Muslim. When MSM heard this there was a smear attack on the soldier that he was radical Islam. Of course the heroes rallied around him. There was an appalling media consultant woman in this sub-plot who tried to get the wife to play down that this army hero wasn’t an active Muslim. In the end the wife didn’t – good old army integrity again.

I enjoy some of these yarns because the writers have interesting story lines – at least to me. But when I watch them I know it is MSM, not the MSM that the populist right-wing refers to as that is confusion but the MSM that promotes the interests of the 1%. With Valor they are recruiting heroes, thinking caring heroes. You cannot present war as black-and-white – as in the old black-and-white movies, so a different enemy is needed – the Deep State. But what these programmes do not present is that the Deep State, as with government, as with the military are all controlled by the 1%. They are fighting wars-for-profits which benefit the 1%. At present these wars-for-profits are mainly against Muslim countries, although the War against Terror cannot officially define the enemy as Muslims – so it is only radical Muslims these programmes focus on. They do not of course focus on the damage that is done to all Muslims in these countries in the search for these radical Muslims.

Soldiers are presented on all sides as heroes, in a way they are. But in reality they are also puppets, puppets with some integrity, some caring puppets, but puppets nonetheless. But then as a teacher I was a puppet, a caring puppet, a puppet who tried and failed to make changes but nevertheless a puppet. In this world of wage-slavery when are we not puppets? When do we control what we actually do?

We choose to work or not, is this a choice? Once this choice has been made, we compromise, at many stages we are forced to compromise our own integrity just to keep our jobs. The good part about Valor is this decision-making, once compromised what decisions do they make within the storyline?

Sadly the real decision of going to war in the first place is beyond these day-to-day heroes.

<– Previous Post Next Post “If I were Bill gates ….” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Misery

Posted: 03/09/2017 by zandtao 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.

The Trump Focus

Posted: 12/08/2017 by zandtao 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.

Questioning the News Deeply

Posted: 05/05/2017 by zandtao in Insight, Media, ONE planet, Struggle, War
Tags:


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.

Is Yuval correct?

Posted: 04/05/2017 by zandtao in ONE planet, Struggle, War
Tags:

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.

War has been reined in

Posted: 04/05/2017 by zandtao in ONE planet, Struggle, War
Tags:

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.

Authoritarianism is the aim

Posted: 15/04/2017 by zandtao in Democracy, ONE planet, Struggle, War


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.