I have just skim-watched “Crossroads: Labor Pains of a new worldview” and struggled through it. Yet another crossroads that a group of intellectuals or spirituals claim the world is meeting. To be honest my bias almost gave up on it. Then add the other failure of such intellectualism, the failure to recognise that the world does not change with ideas, it changes through power. There is a particular intellectual forlorn hope known as the tipping point. Basically an idea that has less than 10% of the world as adherents has no currency, more than 10% and people take it up. Here is an idea:-
The 1% control the world and 100% should control it, let’s call the idea democracy.
Why isn’t it happening? Because less than 10% of the world believe in democracy? Not at all. But because those in power manipulate that power so that the idea doesn’t happen. Some ideas might become currency if they do not affect those in power. But this movie was about a global crossroads, who has the power, and the effects of that power. So tipping points with regards to this are hogwash. To deal with that problem we need awareness of the ways of influence of the 1%, and certainly at the beginning this movie did not offer that awareness.
As usual in such films the propounders of the crossroads have been personally successful to some extent, writing books, academic positions and so on. As with my own situation as a teacher they have accepted some kind of compromise to earn their living, and any such compromise, including my own, allows the 1% to manipulate the power. Recognition of this compromise is also not part of the film, and we have a typical scenario of bright-eyed and bushy-tailed idealists presenting ideas as if the world only has to recognise these ideas and everything will be hunky-dory.
As an example of the groundswell that is leading to global change, they began with this short clip:-
January – Tunisia
Lost the ability to manage the people? So examine these countries now, what is the state of change there? The repression, the 1%, has changed hue but not substance. I am not belittling the struggles of these comrades, their fights are powerful and the people deserve respect; but 10% tipping point idealism has got nothing to do with what is happening there. Are these struggles not managed? These people are confronting the 1% and the 1% minions through the army or the police are repressing them; this is the reality. The movie’s intellectuals need to face the reality, recognise how much their own compromises help create this reality and begin to face the real struggle. It is far from a struggle of ideas, it is about power. These same intellectuals wield some power as it is their creativity which is often the backbone of academic institutions and publishers that 1% minions exploit. Turn around and tell them, do something within your own compromise and not leave it to others.
There is also something worth considering, and that is subterfuge – a type of false flag. Over the years the 1% have always recognised how academia and reason can be used to maintain their own (1%) position of power. By repeatedly talking about ideas and reason intellectuals can convince themselves and others that those are the precursors of change, and rather than using their positions to the benefit of humanity they simply propagate ideas, their intellectualism deflecting focus away from the power of the 1% onto the supposed transformational ability of ideas. Be clear, ideas create change only if the powerful let them do so – unless there is a powerful mass revolution (a mass far more than the 10% tipping point). This film could be such a diversion – a false hope. Throughout the world young people are growing up to a realisation that the enemy is the 1%. Whilst the level of awareness of this inimical 1% is not high it must be worrying for those in power. The 1% response is not tolerant, peaceful demonstrations globally are repressed violently in a way that has not been seen since the anti-war protests of the 60s, a time when the establishment must also have felt under threat. Beginning a movie on unity with a message that the problem lies with the people only, that the people are in conflict, and that the people are going through a change suggests change can happen through ideas and ignores the immense power that is being used to prevent change.
On this false focus theme I am going to raise a further possible scenario, one that leaves me open to accusations about anti-Israeli racism. Let me first state a position I hold but cannot substantiate. The power bloc that is the 1% possibly has Bilderberg group connections, certainly has business connections including Jewish, Rockefellers, Rothschilds and so on. By recognising this am I being racist? Of course the 1% power bloc would say so. There are good Israeli people as there are good people of all nationalities, but are all nationalities part of the 1%? Here is a description from his website:-
“Joseph Ohayon is a filmmaker, writer and speaker based in Israel and New York.
“Known for his relentless quest to put pieces together and look at the big picture, Joseph directs, writes, and hosts documentaries and talk shows on Israeli television. Joseph also lectures for the ARI Institute to help raise awareness of today’s global challenges and the need to adapt to an increasingly interdependent world.” It is significant that in the movie there are no attacks on the US government nor on the Israeli government, and as I have said an intellectual focus that does not rest on the 1%. Where does this free movie get its funds from?
Even though the 1% are so powerful that is no excuse for apathy, we must agitate for change.
Having got that off my chest there is much in the movie that is helpful and positive and worth considering as primarily the movie addresses the notion that we are all one, and that the crossroads we need to face is that we remove separation and unite.
Posts Tagged ‘Compromise’
Tags: compassion, Compromise, creativity, detox, diet, glands
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.
Tags: alienation, compassion, Compromise, division
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.
Here is a nice lady:-
I contrast her approach with this:-
What is the difference? Apart from discussion of “revolution” in the second clip I would say none, I have not asked Constance nor the French anarchist discussing “On modern servitude” whether they consider they are saying anything different. But I ask you. With our current society the only means for overthrowing the 1% is violence, but I do not advocate violence now because there is no way that the people win as there are only a minority who know the problem. And by the time violent revolution would actually succeed, violence would probably not be necessary.
Instead of violence look at this heartfelt snippet:-
Solutions exist as an individual response, a response that does not compromise nor does it accept wage-slavery.
Tags: Compromise, Corporatocracy, intellect, mindfulness
Political awareness is an integral part of personal development, and therefore needs to be integrated into your way of living. Put another way, political awareness means activity. I have just discovered an Al Jazeera programme "Activate". It is concerned with activity, and the first one I watched focussed on a group of Argentinian women who campaigned against a mining company and won.
Now of course what they did did not solve anything globally, they just protected what was theirs – their mountain, their water. The mining company presumably went somewhere else and inflicted their damage on some other less resourceful community. But what it did show was that their political awareness becoming active had an impact. Their activity had an impact.
When I was active myself we always fought the apathy and arrogance of the “armchair socialists”. Unfortunately that battle was drastically lost because discussion has proliferated leading to “internet socialists” who can point to a signed petition, a discussion on facebook, a pretty website, as a means of expressing activity. Whilst these are better than nothing they are marginally so, having the t-shirt does not fight the power of the 1%. In reality the 1% are more than happy with the majority of the internet discussion as it is mere wind whistling through cyberspace, and has very little to do with the exploitation they perpetrate on the ground in real life. The internet should be recognised for what it is, a means of communication and not a “place” where socialism can defeat capitalism or the 99% defeat the 1%.
In reality no such “place” exists at the present time, and maybe in the conceivable future. The machinery the 1% has in situ through its control of the workforce and the control of politics means there is very little chance that the democratic movement can do anything significant to dislodge it. Sadly the catastrophes endemic in capitalism and its fiat money have to eat far more into the liberties of ordinary people before they are prepared to become personally active. We are left with the activities of those strong people who “activate“.
The term awareness is more a spiritual term rather than political, and as such is often misinterpreted as not having an encumbent practice associated with it. This mistaken approach is much more stark when political awareness is considered. Political awareness is only the beginning, and it is not a beginning that takes great steps to reach. It is quite obvious that politically the world is in a mess, people who don’t recognise this choose not to do so. And therefore those, who claim political awareness as a justification of who they are, are not claiming much. To measure politicisation is to measure activity as it is only in activity that politics is enacted. “Internet socialism” means little because it does not imply activity. Even the least novice who joined the Occupy movement on the streets has gained greater politic than the many sophists who inhabit the cybersphere of internet socialism.
And wherein is this political awareness they speak of, it lies in the manipulation and control of money, those that do not see this are not being politically aware. It is for the creation of profits that wars are fought, political elections are not fought based on ideology but the control of politicians is bought by campaign contributions and this control then leads to profits through government regulation on behalf of the vested interest. Profit-making is the purpose of those that exploit and financial control is the purpose of politics.
For the political aware their first activity is how they earn their money and how they spend it. Traditionally for most people on the left their expenditure is not considered, and whilst on the one hand they might campaign against transnationals, they might do so over a coffee at Starbuck’s. Whilst organic coffee at an independent health food cafe might be beneficial, contributing to the coffers of a transnational however minimally is not an act of political awareness. As with the conclusion of the movie “Ethos” our personal power lies with how we spend our money. And that means all our money especially our investments such as pensions. To live a life of consumerism whilst claiming political awareness shows a lack, sustainable consumption is the mark of awareness.
The actions of the politically aware begin with an examination of their personal expenditure, and then their actions move onto street activity; awareness is not an intellectual pastime, it is not “internet socialism”.
GM foods crop up throughout my consideration of food and its relationship to disease, but I haven’t particularly focussed on GM, primarily because being British and living in Thailand GM foods don’t cross my path. But then I watch this film and I look at the way this movie portrays the connection of some disease with GM, it makes me ask the questions:-
The real issue is of course the US but GM has expanded giving a problem in South Africa and India, and I have seen stuff about South America. How far does it go elsewhere? Thailand has a non-GM policy but there is a Monsanto office in Bangkok. Why? Whilst I would actually trust Thais to fight GM, I would not believe their government would fight it off. And Monsanto throw money at their problems so a Thai government would not get in the way.
I search out organic produce but in truth it is only 50%. But the GM foods affect processed more than what I eat, so I would feel relatively safe. But it is a real worry, watch the movie to see why.
|The movie is also available at Forbidden Knowledge|
This clip was sent by BrasschecksTV, reporters explaining how their news was killed. Not unexpected – just factual:-
Stress is now going to be more of a recurring theme, quite simply I have accepted that the part-time teaching job is important to me and that will bring all careerism and profiteering issues up again. Here’s a good one. I needed photocopying for tests, and was told that bulk photocopying was done at the shop. I asked my principal and she said give the tests to her. I should have argued. Later she was in a meeting and I was marking near her. At the end of the meeting we spoke, and I asked her if she understood what was required of the tests. She checked the envelope to find that two of the tests were missing. It appears that other Principals in her meeting had used my tests as scrap paper. Fortunately a disaster had been averted because if I hadn’t asked her and she had photocopied what was in her envelope 2 of the three tests would not have been done.
This is a clear example of the kind of stress I will have to endure as part of my decision to work in a schoool where no-one speaks English. These tests were a small part of a major stress disaster over the last 10 days. On Tuesday 11th the Principal told me that I had to write an end of term exam and give a term grade 70% classwork and 30% exam with a pass mark of 50%. Now I knew of this uneducational pass mark but I don’t know that a term grade consisted of 70% classwork. For 2 of the classes I had begun the term as a volunteer, and whilst I checked some of their work I had accepted discipline and the lack of marking as part of my compromise. I should have told her to piss off with the classwork side but instead the next day I came up with this:-
This meant I had to check all the books, and I did that this week. Mega-stress. But I learnt that although some of the students appeared to be working they were not, so in the end it was worthwhile. As a volunteer such did not matter, I kind of accepted that the students could volunteer to work with me or not. But as a “proper teacher” I have a responsibility on these matters. In the last 2 weeks I have also instituted a detention system which is effective – more time. In fact it works out well, check the books (one set a week) whilst someone is in detention.
I am actually happy that I am involved in the grading, I had previously considered asking to be so. I don’t know how serious the students take it especially with this pass mark. Every student must get 50%. There are students with no notebooks who behave badly and if I told them to write the alphabet 5 times would still not get 50%. The requirements would then be that the students must repeat the test, how meaningless. I will create a sliding scale of marks starting at 50%, I am not wasting extra time on students for whom the percentage means nothing. If they don’t agree, I will argue and not do it, but then the tests matter so little – after all my tests were seen as scrap paper.
So this week has been particularly hard, and meditation was gone. I didn’t sleep properly, one time I got up at 3.00 am to finish writing a test – I had had 5 hours sleep by then. In my last discussion of stress meditation was reduced, this week none – as with no Chi Gung. But I must get used to this working again – remember I haven’t worked for 6 years.
Interestingly I have been conscious of a need to change my diet to take account of the increased stress. I need to chouai yooi more, and I need to improve my GERD treatment. I now have green juice and apple-carrot juice before work. But I must also have green juice in the evening and kombucha tea as well as kimchee with my lunch – or at least some dong every day. To help with GERD I am starting again the ACV, turmeric, honey and lemon drink.
Concomitant to all of this there are decisions that bring with them sadness. This teaching makes me tired so effectively it is my last bout of work. More importantly it means that I will not be a spiritual teacher or writer. Since retiring I have done much writing with the birth of BlogBill, Treatise of Zandtao, Matriellez on education, and the first book of Apocalopus finished. I would like to teach to Zandtao, but whilst that would be meaningful I have now realised that teaching means subscribing to an organisation such as Buddhism or mb, or it means being a writer – subscribing to that aspect of the 1%’s economy. Neither of these are me so my spiritual teaching will be limited to personal contact. blogs or internet posts; not that meaningful. That is SAD.
Tags: Compromise, Corporatocracy
I am reading the book “The Toltec Way” by Susan Gregg – no free link I bought it (ISBN 1-58063-214-9), it is a nice readable book. It’s a manual but in truth I am not reading it as a manual – I’m not doing what she says.
On p73 I got a bit stuck, here is the quote “Once you remember you’re looking through your filter system you realise what you’re seeing is not real and that you can change your response to it. Once you’re able to do that you’ll be able to experience whatever you want whenever you want. You will realise that you and you alone are the creative force in your life”. In my mind comes the 1%, how does the 1% affect these freedoms? And on it goes. Is my view of the 1% a filter system?
To be quite honest I could imagine the Susan Greggs saying the 1% does not affect her freedom – apologies to her if this doesn’t apply to her. It is not particularly Susan Gregg but all the people on the Path who offer their Path as a cure-all “you and you alone are the creative force in your life”. Because of the 1% no Path is a cure-all. My compassion takes me to wanting to end all wars, world hunger and poverty, can I do that? Can any system that comes from someone’s Path do that? OK Zandtao could do it if everyone followed Zandtao, but then so could Susan Gregg’s if everyone …., so could Eckhart Tolle’s if everyone …., but then so could Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism if everyone …. and so on. So no war, hunger or poverty is not particularly addressed by any Path, it is addressed by all, and yet none of them have an effect – “you and you alone are the creative force in your life”? So my comment is “get real”, where is the proviso “you and you alone are the creative force in your life given that the 1% dominates the world and is so destructive”? But that doesn’t sound so good, does it? What Path is so wonderful when it doesn’t affect the global system? It doesn’t sound so attractive, does it?
But am I decrying Paths? Of course not, one’s relationship with one’s Path is THE most important relationship in the world, it is more important than the love of your partner although obviously the two are connected. This relationship with one’s Path, love, is liberating. It does make you free, it does allow you to travel through 1%-world and do what you want …. mostly. Your Path can contribute to improving the situation with regards to war, poverty and hunger, so long as you don’t think you can make effective systemic changes. You can be free in 1%-world, that is so important, as those who are not liberated by their Paths remain trapped in all the horror of wage-slavery and the rest that are the features of 1%-world.
I had a friend who was trapped in 1%-world. He said he avoided politics, to me that is like saying he avoided reality. Because he was avoiding the truth he was unable to see that it was affecting his responses. I made a throw-away comment that was political, and he claimed that I was being political. Despite my saying it was unimportant, his failure to view reality as it is – 1%-world – ended our relationship which had previously been one of respect for me on his part.
We must face reality. We cannot say “you and you alone are the creative force in your life” without also recognising the proviso that “the 1% dominates the world and is so destructive”. Freedom only comes when we face reality. We are our only creative forces but the destructive forces can be limiting. They definitely limit our compassion as we cannot get rid of war, hunger and poverty, pivotal strategies of the 1%.
But liberating our creative force means that we are not attached to the sadness that can follow from an understanding of 1%-world. Suffering is. 1%-world is. War, hunger and poverty are. That’s it. On our Paths we do what we can, but the truth is we cannot do enough about this suffering; but we can free ourselves from the sadness associated with the suffering – through compassion and detachment.
So the question of Susan Gregg then becomes “If she doesn’t add the 1%-proviso, does she see it?” She is the only person who can answer that. But 1%-world can allow such people on their Path delusion. When people on the Path promote the notion of freedom, they can also give the illusion that there is freedom in 1%-world. For those on their Path there is freedom, but for most people there isn’t. From the outside those free on their Paths might still be wage-slaves but their minds are free. From the outside there is however no apparent difference in this slavery. Susan Gregg is free to write her book. By publishing her book she contributes to the profits of the 1% when her work could equally have been disseminated on the internet for free. Or she could sell it through self-publishing. But then she chose to publish through St Martin’s Griffin, thus enabling profit for her publisher. Michael Moore’s movies and books make profits for the 1% even when they are decrying the 1%. We are free to make compromises, but the question for free people is “have they understood their compromise?” Is it necessary?
It is also important to note that once we follow our Paths Nature gives us financial independence, it just happens that way. Susan Gregg’s Path enables her to write a book, run counselling and generally help – whilst at the same time providing herself with sufficient money – more than sufficient money? Eckhart Tolle is not broke, neither is Gary Zukav etc. Nature provides those on their Path with what is needed. How much they accumulate this wealth is their own decision.
Has Susan genuinely asked the above questions of herself? So far (p73) she has not asked them in her book.
And we have no solution to war, hunger and poverty until the world understands the 1% and what they do.
Tags: Compromise, intellect
Nothing special, just simple straight-forward truth.
But then it starts on about awakening, and it goes off into fantasy. It talks about sustainable development and One planet – as ideas. How can this happen when the 1% have the power? It realms off into futuristic science as if science will provide an answer, when the decision-makers who control the science are only interested in profit – profit is in the financial realm. There are many wonderful ideas around but what ideas get put into practice? Those that produce profit for the 1%. When will they learn that ideas are not a solution. All these diffuse ideas moving into realms of fantasy will achieve little if there is no recognition of the relationship between power and the actuation of ideas. Focusing on ideas through Carl Sagan and TED at the end is typical of idealism without power. The 60s was a world of ideas, they were wonderful – all we need is love. And what did we get because they had no power – increasing power to the 1%, a world with more wars and greater devestation, and many of the aware continue to dabble with proliferating ideas.
It is time that we moved away from the academics who are paid to proliferate ideas, they have been the tools of the 1% for long enough. We need to enact the ideas that promote the interests of people. What was presented as awareness and the future in this movie will not do that, however good many of the ideas are.
The Charlie Chaplin Hitler figure talked about the power of people uniting, and the movie finishes with “We are ONE planet”. Fine, cannot happen without thinking about power and how we contribute to that power. All aware people need to confront the issue of power and see how they can respond. Instead academics in our institutions continue to provide the science and technology that enable the profits of the 1%, they continue to provide business academics who support the finance system with their ideas. They all have jobs and comfortable existences whilst their institutions are part of the problem. Is this not something worth considering? Is this not part of the 1% system?
Tags: Compromise, Corporatocracy, Law, Occupy, patents
Many people are now recognising the power of the 1%, but this awareness is trickling through slowly. The problem is that we have all had lifetimes of indoctrination into a different way of perceiving the problem, and hence why it is much easier for some young people to see the power relationships.
As a retired person I have grown up with the notion of government as power. To be quite honest for most of that time I have ridiculed the politicians but recognised that these opportunists become the public face of the power of the civil service and military. This is a political dynamic that was brought out well in the TV mini-series “A Very British Coup” in which a democratically-elected socialist clashed with civil service and military. Whilst I still found the series relevant, as I previously mentioned it cursorily mentioned the City, a significant part of the British 1%.
Who employs the civil service? The 1%. Who pays for them? The tax-payer. What is the function of the civil service? To maintain a society that exploits the British people on behalf of the 1%. And they have another significant function, they are receptionists. When you walk into company offices you walk up to a reception area, where you are met usually by a pretty woman who directs you to where you want to go. If you are not wanted you are redirected or politely asked to leave. If you make a scene what is the point? It is only a receptionist. If you get beyond the receptionist you have to be in the know, but even then there is the secretary. There are basically echelons of people who keep you from the actual power – I am giving these echelons a generic term “the receptionists”.
At the same time as there are the receptionists there are designated people whose job it is to deal with complaints – complaints managers whatever. And these people have access to security so that if they cannot fob off your complaints security can easily eject you. These roles I include in the generic “receptionists”.
So in the UK the civil service are responsible for daily business on behalf of the 1%, they are “receptionists”, do they make decisions? No, “receptionists”. In the TV series we then have the military. Now they have a dual 1% function. The most obvious is what they were setup for – to protect the 1%. Initially in the UK that protection was for the aristocracy. And at that time they had an inter-related secondary function, to fight wars. Let’s consider the Crusades, here is a documentary that does so. Ostensibly to protect Britain, the Crusades also used the pretext of religion to invade, rape and pillage. Since that time we have used security, democracy, religion as excuses for fighting wars, but in whose interests have those wars been fought in the second half of the 20th and this century. Two-fold interests. The first is obvious – oil industry. But the second almost as obvious – the weapons industry. Do the people gain in either of these interests? No, they were not meant to. The military are there to protect the 1%. Who pays for it? Tithes or the taxpayer originally. Now fiat money. Where does this fiat money come from? Nowhere. Through their revolving door the banks tell the government that they have fiat money to pay for whatever they want the government to pay for. As the civil service the day-to-day government does what their employer wants, and we have the galloping inflation and recessions that cause the austerity policies British people are now suffering.
And who do we blame? Who do we rant and rave at? The receptionists. What for? What can they do? Or we blame the public faces – the politicians or the complaint managers.
We have examined one aspect of security – the military, but there is another internal branch – the police and the law. Let’s start with the law as ostensibly this is what the police are there to protect. So we need to examine the functioning of the law, never examine the theory or ideals because that is not the purpose – that is the disguise, examine the functioning. Once we examine the functioning we see the law acting as a means of maintaining the status quo, and what is that? We have a society run by the 1% profiting from the earnings and labour of the 99%. When the 1% arrive in courts they are protected because the best lawyers can be bought. Parliamentary law does not say we will protect the 1% but through judgements the law does establish precedents which function as that protection. They establish laws for their profiteering such as copyright law and patenting law, when you examine how Monsanto have exploited patent law effectively starting a process of criminalising organic farming – criminalising healthy food, you can see the function of the law in action.
When Occupy wants to exercise their human right to protest, the law protects the 1% and turns these citizens into criminals. In order for the 1% to continue their exploitation they need a stable society, so civil laws are passed – you might consider these as the laws for the 99%. Many of these are common sense laws that would allow civil people to live together such as most criminal law, and through this disguise we accept another instrument of the 1% – the police. These are the security at the office that the complaints manager calls in, it matters not whether the complaint is valid the security ejects you if you continue to threaten the 1%. And of course the security is legitimised when their role is to imprison criminals – criminals that we would all designate as such. But when it comes to fraudsters on Wall Street the police are powerless, of course who employs the police?
But what would happen if all the 99% went to the “receptionists”? There would not be enough receptionists, complaints managers and security to deal with the 99%. So there are two other pillars of the reception area. The first is the media. Now the media makes huge profits out of the 99% through the entertainments industry. But whilst entertaining the people they also make sure that the people are not aware of who has the power and how to access them, in effect they ensure that all activity is carried out in the reception area. Blue Bloods is a cop show that considers the dilemmas of a caring NYPD, and whilst it is good entertainment it never once addressed the issue that the NYPD were criminalising Occupy at the bequest of the 1% (particularly the $4.6 million donation of Morgan Chase).
Now the media deals with the majority of people, but what about those who have the ability to make change? Every generation of society has a lifeblood of change, its youth. If you do not control this youth then their power can overthrow any establishment. Traditionally this youth was controlled through respect for the Elders, but as part of their exploitation the 1% recognised that the Elders were a detriment to their exploitation. Elders knew interminable debt ie a fiat economy was destructive so when, post second world war, the 1% started to increase their exploitation in the West they took advantage of a stagnating post-war culture and introduced a youth culture dominated by fashion. Rather than respect for Elders there developed fawning for celebrity, and those celebrities became tools of 1% corporations promoting fashion and the latest costly technology. This left youth chasing their tails and rejecting the voices of experience.
But that was still not enough because these young people could still effect change. So here is where an integral platform of neo-liberalism (neoliberalism discussed by Chomsky here) was introduced – apathy, the belief that what is wrong could not be changed an important corollary of that – those who are trying to effect change are crazy and misdirected. And if there was still energy left they dissipated through academic divide-and-rule. They rewarded some idealists with positions in academia by buying off the more malleable, and then other idealists promoted their ideals vying for similar positions. Or idealists who told people, follow my ideal this way of change is the best (see this blog for the way such idealism can induce division). Through education they presented a 1%-view of society. For most people this education didn’t matter as they were only to be failures but for some there would be success. They needed to educate senior management who could be bought off with senior positions in their systems – sophisticated complaints managers, others became professor being bought off in academia. Others fought the system as idealists, demanding people follow their framework and creating dissension if this following was not 100%, ensuring that the one thing the 1% feared – consensus amongst the 99% – could not happen. So the media law and education are pillars of the reception area – part of The Receptionists.
You can talk of these people as being Receptionists, you can talk of them as puppets or opportunists, or simply describe them as family people putting their own first or peasants trying to make ends meet. You can talk of them as civil service, soldiers or police. But what needs to be recognised is that until strategies get beyond these fronts and are directed at those with the power there is going to be little change. Meanwhile we can work within our communities. The church group doing good, trade union activism at the grass roots level, these communal farmers in Kenya, Vandana Shiva’s seed protectors, Community-Supported Agriculture, Horizontalidad and the initiatives that are coming out of Central and South America – Beyond Elections, all of these things are change in progress – not change driven by a common idealistic agenda. These are people who are compromising with each other to reach consensus, but not compromising with the 1%.
And what is important is that when these people are doing their “thing”, they are happy. Whilst the wage-slaves work for the new car and lose their souls, community activity brings its own soul and happiness. Compromise for consensus, do not compromise with the 1% and do not compromise with your own Path because that is where there is the greatest happiness.