Posts Tagged ‘compassion’

If I were Bill Gates ….

Posted: 06/01/2018 by zandtao in Finance, ONE planet
Tags: ,

In a recent Mandtao blogpost I discussed the amount of money people like Bill Gates have, and how it is equivalent to the amount of money of countless lives. It is a sickness that these people keep such amounts of money when that wealth is far beyond anything they can purchase. They should be giving back.

But effective giving back is not easy.

There is the Gates’ Foundation, and with good PR this is perceived charity work – giving back. But is it? Foundations have become a way in which the 1% can appear to give back whilst maintaining the system.

Consider the Clinton foundation. For the first time foundations have publicly come under question for all the wrong reasons. The Clinton foundation was questioned by the Trump campaign as a means of undermining trust in Hillary. To my mind Hillary was a typical political in-fighter whose background is murky. But that murky background is no different to the usual in-fighter who manages to get through the party machine. I place her on a par with Blair, neither of whom I trust but both of whom are better than right-wing alternatives – but only marginally. Almost any candidate would have been better than Trump whose nastiness has turned out to be a 1%-Godsend in that he can do whatever he wants to ordinary people and still maintain his electoral base; the people of the US are at the complete mercy of the 1% at present.

The Clinton Foundation is not however any different from any of the other Foundations that have appeared. They pretend they are charitable but in reality propagate the capitalists’ system.

In Aid – Rhetoric and Reality, Teresa Hayter and Catharine Watson discuss the way Aid is manipulated in order to propagate the interests of capitalism. The subject is complex because even with Aid money it is difficult to find ways of doing good. Caring is not enough, it requires intelligent compassion in order to find a way through the various mechanisms that have developed to protect capitalism.

To become successful Bill Gates used Machiavellian practices, has the leopard changed his spots? I don’t think so. I suspect his Foundation is just part of the establishment foundations who propagate the 1%-system whilst appearing to be caring.

However, suppose Bill Gates is genuine and wishes to give back, it would require wise compassion. There would be sufficient money to invest to make a difference but there would have to be intelligence in how it was invested. There is little point in trolling off to Africa with an open wallet expecting the world to change – see Aid Rhetoric and Reality. What is required is discernment. Giving money to a puppet dictator is a waste of time, wandering into a village with handouts would only benefit in the short-term, there has to be long-term benefit to the project. Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and give him a fishing-rod he has a job-for-life is a step in the right direction. But that fishing lesson is still not making a major contribution.

Bill Gates’ money, genuine Foundation money, could make an impact, but the 1% know their biggest danger is those of their own who turn. Gore Vidal turned and was attacked. Al Gore tries to do some good but the system is too powerful. Foster Gamble promotes good, but I am not completely sure about Thrive. Simply having the money and good-will is not enough the 1% has too much control. It requires intelligent compassion.

Bill Gates has been successful in the system, he is probably used to “winning” and “getting his own way”. If he has a change of heart and expects benefaction to produce good results he will be disappointed, caring is not enough, his compassion has to be intelligent.

Whilst they have not had Bill’s money there have been many NGOs (non-governmental organisations) such as Oxfam who have tried to make a difference; in small ways they do. They are allowed to have minimal effect but if they become sufficiently effective that they will affect profits, then government measures at 1%-instigation will curtail their operations.

The issue comes down to personal responsibility. For many people Oxfam fulfils a function. Whilst people need to spend all their time working, many want to give back. They care but they do not have the time to use their intelligence with their caring. To fight the system requires caring but caring is not enough, it requires intelligent compassion and a commitment to that compassion that most people are unable to offer. The 1% know this and manipulate it. As a result caring liberals give money and accept the stereotypes that the rhetoric of the Aid industry offers when the results are minimal. Quite simply these liberals are more committed to their finance, work and lifestyle than to give the commitment to apply their compassion intelligently. Sadly it does require that commitment now because the 1% has such control and influence.

That brings me back to Bill Gates. If his foundation is based on caring it is not enough. He needs to apply intelligent compassion. He needs to work with people who over the years have turned their caring into intelligent compassion. These people would know ways of making a difference on the ground. They would know the people on the ground who have integrity and who genuinely care for their people. They would know the ways in which their caring would be effective. Bill would have to listen to these people and even then it would be hard – far harder than it was to become rich in the first place. That only required Machiavellian single-mindedness, fighting the system takes much more commitment than that. The rewards are greater but not visible.

<– Previous Post “Valor” Next Post “Truth?” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Advertisements

Wise Compassion

Posted: 05/01/2018 by zandtao in Democracy
Tags:

Caring is an emotion, compassion is intelligent or wise. When I am asking for compassion to be the benchmark of electoral decision-making it is not simply caring that is required. There is no doubt that liberals care in some way, and it would in their terms be reasonable to say that the compassion benchmark means vote liberal, but I am not supportive if that liberalism lacks wisdom. It is unintelligent liberalism that has been used to divide us in recent years. It was the recognition that much liberalism was satisfied with caring yet being unintelligent that became the mechanism that the 1% have used to divide us. Race, gender LBGQT are contrasted against white privilege, working people are divided and Trump gets in; this is unintelligent liberalism. Compassion is the benchmark but we have to be clear that this benchmark of wisdom is not the same as that of being an unthinking do-gooder.

I met a Dutch racist and he described situations with regards to Muslims that to me sounded like blind liberalism. I am unsure about the truth of what he says because of his racism, but it is worthwhile to consider what he says in order to clarify what I mean by wise compassion as opposed to divisive, liberal do-gooding.

But before I discuss anything to do with Islam, refugees and racism, I have to place it all in context. All European peoples sat back and through the NATO alliance have allowed 1% wars-for-profit to decimate Middle-Eastern countries, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and drone-bombing of Pakistan. The money, Americans and Europeans earned, were taken as taxes and used to bomb these countries, and their countries gained wealth accordingly. This Dutch racist is not innocent, he was quiet whilst the Dutch did this. What could he have done? A life of struggle against his government is the only answer, he did not do that.

Here are the myths the Dutchman presented to me, I have no idea how true they are:-

• In Holland they have a welfare system which gives Dutch people a certain amount of money each month, plus a settling-in allowance that apparently refugees buy cars with.

• His attacks were primarily laid at Moroccans who he claims takes these grants, own cars and sell drugs. He claimed the Somali people were similar. I don’t understand any Moroccan refugee status.

• Because they are Muslim the Dutch have to accept a month, in which Muslims are fasting – Ramadan and then celebrating the end of the fast – Eid, as a month in which Muslims don’t work.

• He said that there was an adequate education system that enabled second-language students learn Dutch if they chose. He said there was a combined programme of attending an integrating school (for language) and normal school, but these Muslims chose not to learn.

I want to be clear, these sound like typical racist stereotypes. But if they are true they also sound like typical Liberal stupidity and are very sound strategies for dividing the working-class.

It is stupid government practice to give non-indigenous more money than indigenous, this can only cement division. Refugees unless there are legitimate reasons must go to a new country and find labour to provide for their families. As immigrants it is incumbent on them to learn the language sufficiently to be employable. When I think of the situation for refugees in the UK schools I was in, there was no adequate provision. This Dutchman whose Thai child did learn sufficient Dutch argued there was provision in Holland; I am not sure. Lack of language is not an excuse, lack of language provision is.

I have heard this Ramadan argument before. I have no idea what efforts are made to legitimately accommodate this religious practice but I could imagine liberalism would go totally misplaced. From an Islamic point of view I understand that Ramadan is fasting to cement communion with Allah. Despite fasting Muslims in their own countries are expected to fulfil normal working practice without complaint as part of their devotion. They fast from dawn to dusk, but like Xmas religion has been taken over by commercialism and within their own countries there are celebrations at dusk during Ramadan. But this dusk celebration is cultural rather than religious and is frowned on by many devoted Muslims. It is not a religious requirement that time off be given for Ramadan. At one time in the desert in Oman it was a hot day during Ramadan. I met this man who was on his last legs, refusing water and barely capable of doing his job. But he did the best he could. No favour was asked, an element of human tolerance is of course reasonable, but no favour should be obligatory.

In Oman they gave me Xmas Day off, if the school had been open I suppose I would have had to work Eid – quid pro quo. I had to work Saturday and Sunday, I had Thursday and Friday off. There was no question, if I did not accept this then I didn’t work there. In Thailand I am not sure but I don’t think Muslims work Friday but maybe they do. Using Muslims on Sunday save companies double-time!

These are religious issues that need to be addressed by government, it should not be at the discretion of the employer. I am certain that in the UK the issue is fudged and as a result causes much division. There was no division in Oman, I worked Saturday and Sunday or I didn’t work. I didn’t get a handout if I didn’t work.

This problem of liberalism is far from new. Being out of the UK I thought this problem had dropped away but in fact it has been cemented as a tool of division especially under Blair. Race became a big staffing issue in my Brixton school. It had been a girls’ school and when I arrived it was run by what I called the fur-coat brigade, there was a need to turn the staff male and multi-racial – more than half the students were black. The issue came to a head when a black chair of governors was appointed. Soon after there was a black appointee as deputy-head. In her job practice she demonstrated that the appointment was because she was on appropriate race committees. She was targeted for her incompetence. As an individual she might have merited such attacks, but the reality was that there had been many careerist appointees in the school whose competence should have been questioned, but none of who were targeted because they were not black. Intelligent compassion appoints based on merit, and if policies of positive discrimination or affirmative action are to be applied than they have to be followed up with appropriate professional training to ensure that the job can be done. Unfortunately the issue was just divisive, as there was no training and competency was an issue.

What is important is that the situation concerning race be clear. Liberals are not clear. Ultimately if they have their jobs, their homes and a good education for their kids it doesn’t matter. Liberals are not usually employers, but they apply regulations for government. As a consequence they might well be in a position of confrontation with employers. What they will not do is confront Muslims as they would be afraid of being seen as racist. So what is a clear practice in Muslim countries becomes an issue with a prevaricating Liberal regulatory system.

Issues concerning women’s clothing are ludicrous and again could be resolved with intelligent governance. Personally I think calls for removing the headscarf are racist. French lunacy over the burkini is horrendous. In some families they wear facial covering, I am unsure about this, but it could again be sorted out by clear intelligent governance.

With all of the above issues, behind is the huge problem of white racism amongst some whites – too many whites. Racism is a relentless division in western societies. Even if there were intelligent compassion concerning government regulation, racists would seek to cause trouble. But if intelligent compassion was the benchmark, these racists would be seen as the troublemakers they are. Because of prevaricating liberalism these nasty deplorables have got a foot in, and the rising populism on the right is making it far harder for these woolly-headed fools to cope. And the increasing bleating is obvious.

In our societies people take where they can, if they don’t they don’t survive. This is the way of the 1%-system and its conditioning. If a refugee comes to a country and can survive without working, it is reasonable to expect they will. If indigenous people can get away without working, they also will. The 1% make huge profits and spend their lives on yachts, in men’s clubs or in the golf club. Government has no control over the 1% who refuse to pay taxes, but they should make it clear to refugees and other immigrants that they are required to work, and should apply considered intelligent compassionate non-racist regulations as conditions for work. Work regulations should not be racist but fair, and seen to be fair by all people if they choose to see. Intelligent compassion, intelligent regulation.

In Holland my Dutch friend said there were less and less opportunities for work. His 1% are taking huger profits through automation, are giving less and less job opportunities, and the refugees are becoming more and more a target. 1% wins again because the Liberals are happy with their jobs, are just do-gooders and do not apply intelligent compassion in governance.

<– Previous Post Next Post Valor –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Revisiting Confusion

Posted: 23/12/2017 by zandtao in Finance, Freedom, Insight, Science, Struggle
Tags: ,

In this post I discussed the role of confusion, I would now describe it as the new internal strategy of divide-and-rule colonialism. If we are confused we cannot unite against the 1%, it is that simple.

There is no confusion in Unity against 1% but we have been turned against this Unity. There has always been one-issue campaigning such as anti-racism, feminism, and pro-LBGQT, but this was usually done under a leftist umbrella that was vaguely socialist. But liberals have lost their socialist base and see their campaigns as more important than fighting the 1%, more important than fighting wars-for-profits, more important than fighting wage-slavery. As a result Liberals bought into the neo-liberalism of Obama, laying the grounds for disgruntled white working-class privilege that swung the balance in favour of Trump. I think there are sufficient indicators to say that it is not just a racist backlash against Obama, if these people had jobs they might well not have swung to Trump’s fascist populism.

Once the 1% got beyond Trump’s unpalatable populism, they found that they could gain from his rhetoric leading up to this horrendous tax bill. This article describes measures to promote support for this bill even when it has been passed. I suspect worse in the New Year as the GOP misuses their control until mid-term changes will perhaps alleviate their misuses of power. If such an analysis is correct then it is unlikely that Trump will get to a second term unless the 1% concertedly provide the jobs Trump has promised. In which case there will be further problems. What is worse for me is that the Democrats remain totally neoliberal, so if mid-terms go as predicted money will be put into democrats for Hillary. And she has become such a divisive figure. There needs to be a Bernie-backlash to turn back all the Trump “legislation”, the 1% will not allow that.

Trump has a “deplorable” support base who are becoming more entrenched against the liberal whining in the media. Whilst 1%-MSM fan the deplorable-liberal divide, both entrenched camps don’t get out of their comfort zones of Breitbart and righteous liberalism respectively. No Unity there.

But so far I have not considered the confusion. Fake News has become a popular slogan, and it is a major platform for confusion. It cements the new deplorable-liberal divide as Trump and Breitbart continue to define MSM as Fake News, and liberals accept 1%-MSM as mostly truth. But the strategy of Fake News does far more than cement this divide, the strategy creates a confusion where few know where to stand. Most people stood by an ideology but Fake News has undermined ideological standpoints by creating doubt. And this doubt has been fanned into hate – PCpolice-hate, feminist-hate, Liberal-hate, anti-SJW, Marxist-hate, collectivist-hate.

Concern about political bias in news is of course not new, but there has never been such a concerted strategy to cause such confusion. The BBC is well known on the Genuine Left for its bias as typified by its banning of Liar Liar by Captain Ska; plausible banning but biased. The BBC falls in line with MSM when discussing Occupy or the 1%, but on liberal issues they tend to be OK. “War-for-Profit does not exist and people are not exploited as wage-slaves” BBC The BBC offers liberals a place of employment, and is regularly attacked by anti-liberal sentiment such as the right wing and racists – to whom they give time because they are unbiassed. How long did they take to come to terms with Corbyn? But if you knew what they were about they were reliable. With Fake News everything is questioned. Previously the right accepted the BBC bias that was in their favour, and played the game. Trump has ended that game with the confusion he has caused. The right want the BBC to move to the right, to end the generally-accepted degree of supposed unbiassed BBC reporting, and just support right-wing bias. I am sure the establishment are as dismayed by this confusion as anyone else. Confusion is destroying an accepted fabric of society. Personally I don’t mind the confusion as the liberals will have to question what their whining achieves, and at the same time right-wing intellectuals who have some compassion will have to question why they are in bed with deplorables. But with the prevailing ignorance and lack of understanding of the right-wing and the power of its funders, there are major risks with this confusion. Prevailing social fear reacts to anarchy with military oppression, if the ensuing mass confusion turns to violence then there might well be increased daily military presence. What will happen to right-wing libertarian freedom then? Where will be your revered choice at any price?

As usual in education there is the unquestioning mainstream acceptance of liberal righteousness. Here:-

is a student methodology for examining Fake News. As described in the third and fourth steps news is not fake if it is accepted by consensus. But why not take the opportunity to question the fakeness of education – the degree of conditioning, why not examine our histories to see their bias? However in the current climate I would be a fool to advocate this because 1%-funding of views would just lead to a lurch further right. It is claimed that young users can see fake news in facebook, but do they really? Or can they just see the fake news that liberals see, and ignore the fake biassed infrastructure that I have been aware of all my adult life?

But Fake News is only the tip of the confusion strategy. Sceptics are legitimately questioning science, questioning is a legitimate part of scientific method. But instead of that questioning adding to the scientific process, it has been turned into a destabilising mechanism by finance. With Koch investment, climate deniers have gained a limited amount of credence. Trump supporters have been deluded into thinking Trump’s 1%-position over the Paris Climate Accord is in some way legitimate.

This 1%-undermining of science is a serious problem because instead of science being seen as a bank of knowledge there is now confusion as to any form of scientific verification. Science is now FAKE SCIENCE. But what is worse is that because scientific verity has been undermined ignorant pipsqueaks who have seen a youtube clip think they are equipped to discuss science. Whatever indoctrination occurs at university the level of academic knowledge that makes up a degree does compare somewhat favourably with a youtube clip.

Unfortunately science has already been hijacked by the 1%. Medicine was hijacked by Rockefeller and Carnegie towards the end of the nineteenth century (culminating with the Flexner Report) so that natural medicine was eschewed in favour of profit-oriented patented medicine as part of any medical degree. As a consequence of the confusion vaccines have been questioned, and right-wing intellectuals offering people the choice over vaccines is very dangerous to global health. Science should be questioned and resolved in-house amongst qualified scientists applying scientific method rather than entering the populist arena of profit. Scientific method is sound and needs to be respected. People need to return to accepting sound scientific judgement.

Unfortunately science has equally allowed itself to be hijacked by finance. Scientists wanting jobs are directing their research towards what will be funded, and as most funding comes from the 1% through technology for defence or gadget-profiteering, BigFood, BigPharma there is little genuine science-for-science’s sake. Knowledge per se has no value in the 1%-system.

Quantitative method has been extended to qualitative method especially in social science. Case study methodology is being promoted and whilst there are checks and balances desire for funding status or simply job-retention can leave issues of integrity behind. A case study draws inferences from what a few people say, is it science to draw inferences from what Trump says, from what Breitbart says? Is it science to accept a funded professorial watchlist such as Turning Point?

And then we have the absurdity of science-based medicine’s rejection of acupuncture because the research is too compelling and potentially unsound because it is non-western.

Confusion is now being blamed on the Russians by the right-wing. Obviously I have no personal knowledge of so-called Russian meddling, I am not sure what they will gain. I suspect it is just a tactic for the 1% to remove Trump when they choose. There is a rule of thumb in social analysis. Look at who it benefits. Confusion is benefitting the 1% and their main current stooge Trump. Confusion is lurching the world to the right, and again the 1% benefits – more war, more wage-slavery.

To end this confusion good people have to stand together with their only common value – compassion. End ideologies, just stand for compassion. Why do compassionate people hate liberals? Because they perceive ideology before compassion. Let’s end this divisive support for ideals that divide – be compassionate. If we are compassionate we are not compromised by ideals that put us in the same camp as deplorables. If we are compassionate we do not fight wars-for-profit, if we are compassionate we do not view fellow humans as wage-slaves.

End confusion, be compassionate.

<– Previous Post “Class War Lost!!” Next Post “Wise Compassion” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Class War Lost!!

Posted: 10/12/2017 by zandtao in Freedom, Struggle
Tags: ,


Boy, have we lost the class war!!!

The 1% are having a field day in the US, look at the tax bill. That is such a big win. And barely a Liberal whimper, just the usual ongoing Liberal bleating.

When did they realise that promoting Liberalism would be so effective?

Post war death of the youth had led to a necessary leftwards move in the UK, becoming the hegemony would have to have great trickle down benefits in the US. But all my adult life I have just seen a worsening of the situation as wealth increasingly accrued to the bourgeois. When I left the UK at the beginning of 93 I lost a continuity with the UK struggle as travel became a way of life. In the UK from 93 the Labour party Blaired and there was the rise of liberalism in the UK, wiki describes it as moving the party to the centre but really it was the rise of liberalism in Labour – new Labour. Until the crash in 2008 and the move to austerity under the Tories.

There was no internet then so I was much less conscious of the US struggle – albeit recognising the hegemony. The presidencies oscillated through to Obama where there was the major rise of US Liberalism. In the US the crash produced the great hope of my lifetime – Occupy, but rather than cementing a change in the worsening situation it fueled a powerful right-wing backlash as the 1% became fearful of being the target of Occupy. Funding of right-wing organisations on the internet proved to be such a powerful move as we can now see globally the impact of this funding with the rise in right-wing organisations and their populist filth.

The key overt characteristic of the Liberal power under Blair and then Obama was the failure to deal with the jobs situation amongst the traditional working-class. Whilst the Republican and Tory homeowners (middle and upper-class voters) tend to ally themselves with the 1% because they think the 1% will have their back, a significant proportion of voters amongst the working-class moved away from the Liberals.

When these working-class people claim the Liberals have taken their jobs there is an element of truth, ostensibly there has been a move from manufacturing and cloth-cap jobs to Liberal employment. The nature of the workforce is changing because of automation where more profit is made in the first world by using machines than expensive human labour. The increase in employment of the Liberal bureaucracies became the target of this working-class anger rather than the source of the problem – the 1%, who throughout my lifetime have vastly increased their wealth. America’s economy has for a long time been based on cheap migrant labour so racism has always been a factor but with the loss of working-class jobs that has also produced a racist backlash.

In the US that focus turned on Obama but the problem with Obama was not the colour of his skin but the failure of his two administrations to address the issue of the loss of white working-class jobs. The failure lay with his promotion of Liberal values whilst ignoring the two issues Liberals always ignore – war and wage-slavery, the two essential platforms of the 1%. Whilst Liberals now bleat about the good times under Obama, the reality is that his time of continuing neoliberalism promoted war and did not address the issue of the changing nature of jobs. And we are paying for it now.

Trump’s populism promotes the racial angle because of his voter-base but his rolling-back of Obama liberal policies is not because of personal racial animosity (that he does have) but because of their limiting the profits of the 1%. Everything he does promotes that interest but the Liberals bleat away. So there is the tortuous public display of Trump’s deplorable behaviour that appeals to his fanbase – the deplorables. And the MAWPs buy into the 1%-lies, lies funded on the internet.

When Trump came to power there seemed a hope that the 1% would not back him because of the instability he causes; they were wary. But the confusion Trump causes enables the 1% to move in and grab. Defunding of liberal agencies and watchdog committees, the tax bill and moves against net neutrality and deregulating Wall Street are in the pipeline.

Meanwhile there is the Trump-orchestrated bleating that is deafening in its silence about the real issue – the increase in 1%-accumulation caused by Trump’s supposed anti-Liberal policies.

A deafening silence about the 1%. Especially just 6 years after Occupy such a deafening silence.

There is no power in Liberalism just the chimeras of intellectual ideals. When the 1% wanted to wipe out Occupy it just happened overnight – no power. Where is the power? In collectivism. But Liberals are not collective animals, they stand up for individual rights or human rights – again ideals. They do not understand or believe in the power of the mass movement – the only threat to the 1%. So in my lifetime with the rise in liberalism there has been a decrease in the only power that has a chance of working against the 1%.

Why am I writing about losing the class war now? There were issues that triggered this understanding. The main one was the tax bill, and the manner in which it was passed – before the vote did we know what was in it? The second is the increase in the acceptance of immorality as characterised by Roy Moore’s upcoming election. And for me the control of free-thinking at universities through Turning Point was frightening. It is clear to me that there has been a coalescing of right-wing forces using Trump as a figure-head since the beginning of his presidency. What began as a voting alliance has now turned into a united right-wing platform. The 1% has seen the confusion caused by Trump, it has not affected their profits especially now with the tax benefits so they can go with it. In the past it was accepted that stability was needed – Theresa May’s sound and stable mantra, but confusion is not affecting their profits so they have allied with Trump.

Why am I also talking about losing the war now? Amongst his supporters are the deplorables, Republicans voting against Liberals, and balance-voters – good people such as MAWPs and some of the “53% white women“, they have got to be thinking of change. Since his election good people have got to be having regrets, however Liberal bleating is maintaining their voting position; there has to be doubts. And overcoming these doubts would be so easy now – the 1% giving jobs. After the gains the 1% have made I have no doubts in the final year of 4 there will be a notable increase in jobs – despite what Trump has said there has not been an increase so far.

So it comes down to brinkmanship, how far can things go before they will stop allying with Trump? Look at the NRA. To maintain their profits they will stop at nothing. The almost unique characteristic of US mass shootings don’t lead to a change in gun laws and control, so the death of Americans does not matter to them – only the death of their own; school shootings do not occur in private schools, they are not politically-motivated. 1%-money funded both sides of the war that grew out of promoting fascism in Germany. Such a war I think is beyond the brink. Civil war in America would be beyond the brink but shooting black people by police is not. Wars in the Middle East are fine by 1%-standards so alienating favoured Muslims by promoting the zionism of Israel through Jerusalem as US capital is also not beyond the brink. Further Middle East war is not beyond the brink; Iran?

Where do we go from here? The traditional understanding of “our idealism is better than yours” is a failure, it is just division. I think the answer lies with compassion and morality. This comes from the deep understanding that we are all one together underneath, and that oneness is compassion. But we are a long way from that compassion. At present the compassionate are divided by their ideologies, and compassion uses ideologies to divide. For example I am a committed socialist as a series of ideals but within socialism there are people who put the ideology first before compassion resulting in the 1917 Soviet revolution. What it produced was better than the Tsar but how much? Communism has at its root compassion but not how it is applied? Capitalism putting profits before people does not have compassion at its root, neither does accumulation to the 1%. With adequate funding it is always possible to find fault and focus on that fault.

Compassion is difficult at times. How do we consider compassion when science tells you that a baby cannot feel until 22 weeks yet US law now says sperm at conception has life. I have compassion for life. Farmers can be compassionate people but actions such as mercy-killing appear without compassion. The issue for me about abortion is the rich (right-wing) telling people what to do, they are not taking responsibility for their actions (as well as the young woman). If a young woman in difficult times cannot look after a child and wants to lose it, then the rich could pay. But forcing the woman to have the child and for it to then become a burden on a burdensome life lacks compassion. The decision-making has to be compassionate, ideology has no solution.

Nothing publicly that is happening now is compassionate. Trump shouts anti-liberal rants, he has power, Liberals bleat back; it is just confrontation – intentionally. Meanwhile 1% are raking it in, and we will pay later. None of this has compassion.

NOT FINISHED

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.


This is a rant. A rant is an emotional release and as such is a bit meaningless. In the next blog I look at helping the conditioned, that gives this more sense and context – not just a rant.

We are living in the worst time of my personal history. There is an intended high level of confusion created by the 1%-funding and their puppets such as Trump and Brexit. There is so little clarity, and these conditioned leaders duck-and-dive to avoid any form of commitment to humanity. This is the collaboration the 1% depend on.

This rant has grown out of weeks of frustration because of repeated arguments with collaborators, one of whom is so quietly complacent it is irritating – beyond tedium. When I describe conditioned he says we are all brainwashed, when I say 1%-system he says everyone knows that. His response, “what can we do?”; not what you do, Mr Complacent – NOT THE COLLABORATION. His complaint about me is basically a feeling of contrariness. He describes me as taking the opposite position. He fails to see that I take only one position (even though I have said it) – to make people aware of their conditioning; if you are properly aware of your conditioning it is not possible to collaborate, compassion prevails. I spent my life fighting in education, in a sense it was a wasted life as described in Matriellez, but it was never collaboration.

Because of his complacency he sees everything in terms of where he stands, sometimes I am agreeing with him, sometimes I disagree. Because he does not see his own high level of conditioning and collaboration, he cannot see the consistent position of “making people aware of their conditioning”.

There is another collaborator who adds to these weeks of frustration. This collaborator comes from a nation of collaborators – he is Swiss. He is a pleasant man but a Swiss national. From that position of nationalism, he looks at others and sees how Swiss life and nationals compare with the weaknesses of those less privileged. He sees stupid conditioning of peasants but fails to see that Swiss life is predicated on a compliant nation of people bought off with a higher standard of living, greater social benefits and such a level of blindness that they do not see their banking institutions as being the home of global catastrophe. Both the complacent and the Swiss national are nice helpful people whose conditioning leads to such a level of collaboration that if the world is like them there is no hope. Both are differently conditioned so that they don’t see that they are the problem. They are more likely to blame me as the problem because I alienate people, and there is probably some truth in that. But I try never to lie something the complacent accused me of (over some verifiable fact), simply because it was easier to criticise me as I confused him through indirectly confronting his complacency – the lashing out of the intellectual.

My small world is not a microcosm, although it is the stimulus of this rant. In this time of confused crisis few recognise their own conditioning. Few can see that if we manage to step outside our conditioning we can see how the 1%-system operates and how different people fit in – how they collaborate. So it is important to see who makes up these collaborators.

And I want to start with the self-righteous liberals because in this time of confusion the self-righteousness of Liberals is the biggest stumbling block. Chomsky describes the problem of liberals as neoliberalism, and that the greatest problem of neoliberalism is the apathy, ask my complacent friend. Why is he complacent? Because he thinks reasonably although not correctly that nothing can be done anyway. This is a practical example of the neoliberal conditioning that is apathy.

When Marxist analysis first appeared on the scene, his analysis clearly noted two opposing classes – the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie as owners of the means of production exploited the workers who actually produced the products. This clear analysis was not convenient for the bourgeoisie who were easily targeted. Confusion was introduced so that the unity amongst the proletariat was removed. Educated people wanted to feel superior so a middle-class was introduced. The bourgeoisie paid their foremen more so they wanted to be considered middle-class with middle-class management jobs etc. So by the latter half of the 20th century, there were all kinds of divisions amongst the proletariat.

It should also be noted that the bourgeoisie was changing. They began to prey on their own. Small businesses accumulated into corporations, first perhaps willingly and then through corporations preying on the weaker. As such, owners of small businesses are now more aligned with the proletariat because corporations are their enemy. They of course don’t see this alignment because of conditioning.

Corporations and finance are now those in control – the 1%. Corporations and finance work together and accumulate money, both real and imaginary, and withdraw this money out of circulation into private accounts. Without countries such as Switzerland offering havens for such money against the interests of the rest of humanity, the current exploitation of humanity could not occur so it is no wonder that the Swiss people are bought off.

This class realignment was highlighted during Occupy where “we are the 99%” was a clear rallying cry that united the proletariat. Whilst right-wing populists were marginalised because of their divisive approach there was great unity in Occupy. And this frightened the 1%. Once the police demolished the Occupy encampments, finance proceeded to demolish the unity Occupy created; the 1% needed to divide the 99%.

This was done through the internet by funding right-wing populism. Marxism and collectivism were attacked as these individualists were funded to promote their liberty and choice at all costs. Easy targets were the PC police. These people had been around a long time – at least 40 years, but had been developed as part of the neoliberal mainstream by Hillary and Blair. In other words the neoliberal system created the antagonism between PC liberals and the right-wing liberals following Occupy as a means of dividing the 99%.

This antagonism is being blatantly fought out on mainstream US with Trump acting as a catalyst. Every public tweet and action can be seen as an attack on Liberals, and off they go bleating away at the Trump atrocities. Meanwhile two things are happening. Behind the scenes Trump-picks are promoting the interests of the 1%, so what was initially a weak alliance between Trump and the 1% has now become consolidated as the 1% are accumulating well under Trump. Meanwhile the Liberals are going off on rampages using all the diversions Trump throws at them deluding themselves that they have some control over his impeachment and otherwise. Liberal delusion.

Under this Trump neoliberalism the second consequence is the dissolution of the 99% through the sheer ignorant analysis of these Liberals and the right-wing. Liberals are concerned with right actions such as anti-racism, anti-sexism pro-LBGT and civil liberties; Trump is attacking all of these effectively. For Liberals this is the battleground and you see outrage throughout mainstream media. Meanwhile Trump supporters are satisfied with Fox news, fake news and the internet. Complete division, and 1% accumulation is having a field day.

The ignorance these Liberals show is key to my anger. First of all Liberals tend to be educated, so they know the problem is the 1%. But the 1% provide them with a living. Typical are my teaching colleagues who are a good source of liberalism. In general they are caring people, interested in the welfare of their children. They are mortgaged up to the hilt so they cannot afford to rock the boat. They know that what is being taught is not good education – even though they could probably never agree on what is good education. But they do what is required of them in the hope of getting promotion. Instead of education being awareness of the war their society perpetuates and the wage-slavery their kids will suffer all their lives, they deliver the curriculum which perpetuates the 1%-system. They have been bought off with a mortgage. Yet if you ask them who is the problem? 1%. If you ask them what to do? They say “nothing can be done” and politically lurch into apathy. Complacency.

But the real point of Marxism is the symbiotic relationship between capital and labour. Money is needed for the plant and infrastructure, and even though so much money is now imaginary there would be no confidence in the supposed stability of capitalism without the collaboration of labour. Most workplaces are directed by owners, but this direction only works because the workforce collaborates. If people stand up together, there is no need to accept wage-slavery, no need to have endless war. Education should begin here but it cannot because of mortgages and ….

Across the Liberal spectrum you will see people compromised into collaboration one way or another. Yet they know the source of the problem but somehow delude themselves they are doing something.

Meanwhile right-wing intellectuals also know that the source of problems is the 1%. But the 1% funds their right-wing propaganda so instead they attack liberals.

All problems can be solved with the proper finance. If the money available was recirculated in the economy and if transactions returned to trade and money returned to representing value for trading, then we could live in a sustainable world in harmony. Who would suffer the most? The 1% – so it doesn’t happen.

But change can be made. Pressure can be brought to keep money in the economy. If there is more money in the economy there are more jobs. With the changing Liberal emphasis of neoliberalism more jobs are going into the liberal sphere and traditional white jobs are disappearing. Society needs both but the 1% divides society by removing the money from society so there is not enough for both. This needs to be the target – not fighting each other but demanding the release of our money. This is of benefit to liberals and right-wing intellectuals but it does not benefit the 1%. This is the problem that all should be addressing.

But instead we have conditioning. Trump triggers Liberal bleating and off they go on an outrage and Trump supporters laugh at them. Amidst this confusion 1% get obscenely wealthy.

Let me be clear, it is not the liberal values that I am attacking, it is the conditioned response. With the increasing attacks from Trump and others these Liberals are becoming more and more entrenched, and a deeper and deeper wedge is being driven into the 99%. This emotional wedge has no power attached to it. With the rampant abuse being exposed by #metoo, how many men are being punished? A few liberals are losing their jobs but they are not being incarcerated. However ordinary men sympathetic to the promotion of equal rights are being punished by the extreme emotional reactions, and a wedge is being driven between those men and the men who lack sympathy, who are more comfortable with the sexual abuse than they are with making change.

But in the end without unity the 1% will just exploit. Amidst the chaos and confusion that exists between the confronting conditioned idealisms, the 1% now have a tax plan for the 99% only, and various other 1%-laws that were snuck in the Republican tax plan. Now the corporations will be demanding similar globally, no 1%-taxplan no corporation. This does not bode well, and it is caused by the conditioned reactions, by the failure to act on the awareness that this is a 1%-system.

And the right-wing conditioning is perhaps far more destructive. These funded right-wing individuals are promoting their individualism first. Pre-Trump Alex Jones, whilst always a bombast and an egotistical loose cannon, used to attack the 1% – Bilderburg. Why is he not attacking the 1%-taxplan? Because he has become conditioned to his lifestyle, he has been bought off by their funding and his own popularity. “Make America Great” need not be as destructive as it is. If corporation money were being returned into circulation, then there would be enough money for the Liberals to have their jobs as well as white people. But Jones’ funding (and the funding of other right-wing individuals) demands attacks on Liberals. His funding demands attacks on collectivisation – the 99%, it demands putting the individual first. And when individuals are put first it is the biggest bullies who win.

It is straight-forward conditioning. And what about the right wing who support these individuals? What are they doing? Traditionally the wage-slave-owners favour their foremen, they buy them off, and give them a better standard of living. These wage-slaves want a return to this. They believe that the wage-slave-owners will help them and the funded individuals will continue to promote that delusion. And there is an arrogance amongst these people – MAWP, Male, Arrogant, White and Privileged. These MAWPs are often isolated as small business people, and they have been conditioned by their privilege. They don’t question because they think they are right. At the same time their prejudices make them dismiss all those they disagree with. If it is PC or liberal then it is wrong. Under Trump these conditioned MAWPs have been convinced that all is fake news except Trump, and have no idea how to determine what is truth. The real problem with their ignorance is there is no “normal” way to convince them of the truth because they are so emotional. They claim to be rational but their rejection of “facts” is not based on a considered opinion but on indoctrinated propaganda aimed at their arrogance. MAWPs do not listen and we have the mess we are in. In the US 53% of white women have followed these MAWPs with their votes, why?

But the 1% have no allegiance to these people, that is simply conditioning – a conditioned delusion. Yet these people continue to support the right because traditionally under the right they have done well. But their selfishness has no compassion, whilst there is compassion in their communities their selfishness does not deliver compassion nationally. This selfish nationalism is narrow, helps their own families but is not Christian.

With the wedge so firmly dividing the 99% these people can never cross over and work for Unity. The 1% can see this so they can continue to promote this rabid nationalism whilst exploiting the left and right (as they have with the tax plan). The traditional middle-classes will continue to vote for nationalism because that has given them wealth in the past. When that wealth decreases they will be conditioned into accepting less and less of the pie because it will always be better than rabid Liberalism.

There is no solution for Liberals or Nationalists working separately, the 1% will continue to take from both. With such a deep wedge having been formed, more money will be taken from the middle-classes because they know the middle-classes cannot now vote for Liberals.

These conditioned egos have been completely duped – deluded, both on the left and right. It is only by the recognition of how widespread is the conditioning that we can begin to unify. When conditioning is removed we can see compassion, when we see compassion we see people. We do not then see people needing to conform to Liberal ideals because compassion comes first. The rabid sexism of the right cannot be justified as a conditioned response to Liberalism because compassion is what matters.

Idealism is not compassion no matter how much the ideals appear to be compassionate. Compassion sees people first – not ideals. Compassion does not see conditioning, it recognises conditioning for what it is – a failure to learn who we are as human beings, a failure to know ourselves as compassionate. Since the mid-nineteenth century class analysis has recognised the conflict and exploitation, but ever since then this analysis has become an idealism that has divided. It is not the ideals that provide the way forward but the compassion that inspired the ideals in the first place. It is compassion that says exploitation by the few is unacceptable, the analysis only explains it.

Now there is only idealism. Nationalism against Liberalism, by subscribing to the ideals people have disappeared. People are now identified by their race and gender, identified by their ideals – left or right. Classified in this way there is no compassion, accepting the conditioning that applies these labels creates a conditioned divide, we lose our compassion, we do not see people first.

And then there are Buddhists. They see compassion, they see conditioning, but instead they apply it in such a personal theoretical way it does not contribute to the Unity of All. Personal conditioning is recognised and hopefully worked on. There is an element of peace, a peace on the margins, a peace in separation, but this is also conditioning. Whilst the conditioning process that is paticcasamuppada includes conditioning by the 1%, Buddhists avoid this under the pretext of detachment, peace or some other ideal. Buddhists whilst remaining detached need to be at the forefront of compassion, of recognising conditioning and helping people overcome the yoke that this conditioning oppresses them with. Whilst it is legitimate that teachers promote meditation and dhamma from monasteries, the removal of conditioning amongst the lay needs to lead to compassion, and that compassion is concerned with people who are propelled into wars and wage-slavery by their conditioning. As leaders where is Buddhism? Where is the compassion of Buddhism that recognises conditioning and can help us work through this egoic control?

Compassionate Unity is the only way forwards. Scrap ideals, scrap the conditioning of idealism, eschew all conditioning and let compassion guide us as people to help each other.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Compassion at Labour Conference

Posted: 13/10/2017 by zandtao in Corbyn
Tags:

Here is that word:-

Jeremy was “Making the case for compassion”.

Every politician should be making the case for compassion, demand it of them. I think Corbyn means it.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Compassion Paradigm

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

I wonder how much we can communicate. [Below}

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

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

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

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

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

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

For me compassion trumps all.

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

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Promiscuity and Monks

Posted: 01/05/2016 by zandtao in Insight, Struggle, Zen
Tags: ,


I tend to feel that there are many issues in society caused by promiscuity. This is intentionally vague as it is so difficult to describe what is promiscuous, and equally it is hard to describe problems whose source is lust.

I can only understand lust in one way – from my own experience of lust and the sex-drive. I would not assess my own experience as being typical nor would I say all men are the same. Nor would I say the sex drive of men is the same as the sex drive of women.

In traditional communities a teenage girl’s sexual needs were repressed, some such communities requiring virginity as a prerequisite for marriage. This tends to be associated with chauvinist societies. In the West now I feel that the fashion is for promiscuity on behalf of both girls and boys. As a boy I grew up just feeling the need “to get my end away”. Without going into more detail than that as I don’t know whether anything can be generalised from my personal experience, this “getting the end away” had no love attachment, and was simply an idea that satisfaction could be obtained sexually with any woman. Now it appears that “hooking up” is the feeling that satisfaction can be obtained physically by both men and women. Both “”getting the end away” and “hooking up” are promiscuous, and I consider dangerous because of the issues that arise.

I do however feel that discussions of sexual conduct need to be increased and dealt with in a more serious manner. My own sexual education was predicated on a shameful titillation culture, typified by “Carry On” films. As I went to a boys’ school I had limited contact with girls, and was completely ill-equipped socially especially because I had a huge shyness. My knowledge of where society perceives sexual conduct should be has come from observation when being a teacher, observing gender interactions over the years. It appears that people grow up and it is hoped they don’t get into too much trouble. In my view so many problems arise from sexual relationships, and this lack of appropriate guidance is reprehensible.

The real problem lies with sila, we are not societies guided by moral integrity. Compassion and sila should have been what guided my relationships, not “getting my end away”. Unfortunately I only got to see that later in life, possibly when the lust was waning. It is often accepted that mothers shackle their daughters but fathers tend to encourage boys to “sow their wild oats”, such male irresponsibility is a disgrace. Whilst I would prefer to see an end to promiscuity I do not envisage that as a possibility, however responsible parents and other responsible adults ought to do more than insist on prophylactics – they need to insist on compassion and sila. In sexual matters there is limited discussion, limited compassion and limited sila, it is not surprising that many young people begin life in trouble.

Spiritual leaders need to see the importance of exemplary guidance on sexual matters because of all the problems caused in society by the limitations discussed above. I support the idea that monks should be celibate and not homosexual. This at least demonstrates that monks can control their lust, showing lay people that they do not have to be driven by these urges. Many spiritual teachers are monogamous although before such relationships they were vulnerable and so therefore was their message.

All Buddhisms have a form of precept which refrains from sexual misconduct, so I do not know how Buddhist teachers can accept of themselves sexual liaisons with women attending their talks. There is no doubt they bring disrepute to Buddhism. Here is a comprehensive list of teachers who have allegedly misused their position and brought Buddhism into disrepute (note this list includes more than sexual allegations) :-

CONTROVERSIAL ‘BUDDHIST’ TEACHERS & GROUPS

By their very position of being a spiritual teacher such people have accepted an authority and responsibility. We do not expect school teachers and lecturers to take advantage of students, whether legal or not, it is even less acceptable amongst spiritual teachers. Equally it is not acceptable for schoolgirls to flirt with teachers, so it is not acceptable for students to flirt with spiritual teachers. But in both cases the responsibility of control lies with the teacher, both in school and in spiritual relations. Unfortunately in both situations there are vulnerable women, vulnerable schoolgirls and vulnerable spiritual students. It can never be acceptable to take advantage of vulnerable people, and all teachers should be aware of this sila imperative.

In the US a group of teachers of Buddhism put out a statement, I would welcome more of such.

On the View on Buddhism page the writer noted that HHDL advised students to confront these teachers. One such teacher was Sogyal Rinpoche, and HHDL has publicly supported that teacher since the allegations have arisen. The writer made a note that they still study Sogyal’s teachings. As soon as I read the allegations I stopped studying him – discussed here (there are pertinent comments). I thought then as I do now, if there is doubt that a teacher cannot conduct themselves properly how can s/he have understood the teachings?

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.


Not everything is in order but I have turned the corner. Yesterday’s realisation was important, and once I had internalised that realisation things changed. Sauna is now part of my healing – I needed the sauna because of my cold body, a body that was cold because although I was doing good exercise with swimming I was not sweating. That was an obvious part but only a part of the problem. Last night I slept from 11-7.00, bitty sleep but sleep – balance at the right time (slightly late as I was out).

During the sauna I developed a chakra sauna (a version of the chakra meditation I often use). Taking each chakra in turn I breathed in the healthy air of the steam “box”, and breathed out detox. It felt a bit good, I say a bit as I don’t enjoy the saunas and feel uncomfortable; I will have to adjust as sauna is now part of my healing. Now today is the last day of my detox diet, and despite the earlier discomforts it was well worth doing. From the discomfort I know there is a need to detox every 6 months, but that should be helped by the detox process that occurs during the regular sauna – now part of my healing.

I have to prepare for sleep, it is evident that sleep can’t just happen at the moment. Answer – meditation and sauna. I put the two together here because when I sauna I don’t think there is a need to meditate as I detox. I need to meditate early evening so that I don’t take the effects of the day to sleep with me, and as part of the meditation I will be detoxing the pineal gland and others.

Hormones are regulators, and of the body the pineal gland is maybe king! And my body needed regulating. Just over 6 years ago I began a healing diet. Whilst I was not in desparate straights as many are because of our toxic lifesyles, I was well on the way to cancer with GERD. As my system has detoxed and healed, the organs have healed but what has happened overall? The body needed regulating. I suspect for many healing that regulating happens without a big problem like I had. But there were two other factors in my own regularising – stopping work and changing climate. I was very stressed at work. I got angry one time when someone said I should handle the stress, and my answer in retrospect is that I more or less did – as far as I could go. I was an educator forced to teach in the corporate paradigm schools (for more understanding of this see Matriellez link below). I had to be stressed, if contemporary teaching does not stress you you are part of the compromise instead of part of the solution. Working in education means an ongoing battle for education against indoctrination, and if that isn’t stress I don’t know what is. And if there isn’t the stress there the actuarial stats for teachers add weight, so many of my colleagues died without having a retirement (only a year or two). Without this stress of work my body had to regularise, was the reason these teachers died because the hormone system was not able to regularise in retirement after the stress? How did my hormone imbalance show – cold body? The hormones showed that way to reflect the temperature change they were forced to endure all year round from Manchester to Jangwat Trat. I am so convinced about this hormonal function I have decided there needs to be a hormone-regulating process included as a stage in the Zandtao Healing Plan.

Finally I come to an issue that I don’t properly understand as yet. This hormonal imbalance reflects a spiritual imbalance as well. During this period of hormone healing I have been thinking about the need to have more compassion and creativity. My creativity usually shows itself in scifi writing (see Wai Zandtao scifi link below), and it is more than 3 years since I have written. Compassion I don’t understand, am I compassionate enough? Insight for me forms a trinity with these two, and insight has occurred throughout. Working out the balance of compassion, creativity and insight can now happen now that I have handled the healing.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.


I woke up this morning with some vague recollection of a dream concerning food and animal rights and the division on the left. I decided to go through a pointless exercise, and it is pointless for two reasons. Much that is animal rights is driven by idealism, and idealism is a regular bete noire of mine because it creates division. And the second reason is something that I always put forward as a priority, and that can never be a priority for these idealists and intellectuals – the need for unity.

To start discussing what we eat there is a principle that politically needs accepting – “you are what you eat”; so first and foremost the position we need to take is that we eat healthily. This is what Nature intended and we are part of Nature. Nature also tells us that it is natural to eat some meat or fish. Why? The scientific indicator for this is B12. Humans need B12 and this can only be obtained from animals or fish. There are some that argue B12 can be obtained from synthetic vitamins, I doubt that, but what does need to be accepted is that because B12 is needed some animals or fish need to be eaten. I would also claim that Nature has animals to provide us with food, but that need not be a political position.

This next part is not tactful but there needs to be some acceptance of the principle it presents. Animal rights positions have to some extent lost a grip. There are people within the animal rights movements who humanise animals to such an extent that they want to save the animals because of their “human” characteristics – or even “more than human” characteristics. Humans need to be caring, that is first and foremost, and so saving animals per se is not a principle; being humane is.

In general I see no need for animal testing. In many cases the animals are being tested with drugs, and synthetic drugs are not a medical means of success. This fits in with the Natural practice that we are what we eat. In other words being healthy is about ensuring our diet is good, and not whether some pills work on animals. As for cosmetic testing that is completely unacceptable, being inhumane to animals in order to be vain is not an acceptable principle of unity.

So having alienated most of the left and animal rights’ people, I now intend alienating the working-class. The typical British working-class diet is absolutely crass, and has no element of intelligence applied to it. There are working-class activists who eat foods that can only be designed to cause illness. When these people have the intelligence to recognise the power and practice of the corporatocracy and yet don’t question their diet it is foolish. However it is claimed by some nutritionists that there are people who need more meat than others, that has to be allowed for because peoples health through healthy eating needs to be a guide for a united position.

But whatever meat we eat we cannot accept inhumane practices with regards to meat. There can only be one acceptable approach to meat-eating and that is that the meat is free range. Nature I’m sure originally provided a balance between free range and the need to eat meat, this paleo balance I have discussed here. What was discussed here as a scientific rationale can also be the basis of a position of unity for the left concerning foods and animal rights. Eggs equally should be free range. How can eggs that are not naturally created – between cocks and hens – possibly be healthy? As well this is inhumane, and the conditions they are kept in to produce these unnatural eggs is also inhumane. Free range is needed.

And the biggest rallying cry for unity ought to be the recognition that in our foods there are toxins, toxins that are placed in our foods for BigFood to make a profit. We have accepted additives for convenience, and have not considered the aims of the corporatocracy. The corporatocracy exploits our labour in factories, why are they not going to exploit us elsewhere – in what we consume.

In the end Unity comes from understanding who we are. As human beings we need to be guided by compassion, and treating animals the way we do is inhumane. At the same time we need to consider that our political position needs to be guided by what is healthy for us. We are what we eat, if we eat toxins then we are going to be ill. BigFood and BigPharma work together in this. BigFood encourages us, often forces us, to eat unhealthy food. When we become ill BigPharma has pills to cure. Pills are not necessary with a healthy diet, so how we eat is a unified strategy for getting rod of pills – and the need for animal testing. Being humane to ourselves – stopping the inhumanity of the corporatocracy – is also the way to be humane with animals.

Do not place the ideas first, this is a tremendous failing of the left. Human compassion comes first, not the ideas of animal rights. Such rights are ideas that create prisons and division.

There has to be a position that unifies left-thinking people. The working-class needs their health, and this health does not come from the diet that exploits animals. Health is a platform of unity, not ideals. Let’s work together.

There are too many ideas and intellectuals involved in this area of discussion, the corporatocracy has its job done for them already. But this is a workable position of unity if people were prepared to compromise in their work against the corporatocracy, unfortunately where they compromise is usually working for the corporatocracy when compassion and not compromise need to be the byword.

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

Other blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.