Posts Tagged ‘Conditioning’

Love and Chauvinism

Posted: 23/07/2018 by zandtao in Education
Tags: ,


I have never fully confronted my chauvinism, and it is an important lack that I haven’t. Usually what I do is draw comparisons with racism which I believe I have quite a good handle on because of the great support I got from black people in my 20s. My shins got the racism kicked out of me – a reference to a time when I got kicked under the table in a pub by a quiet black friend who I was shamefully trying to antagonise – even though he was helping me.

One problem is how much sexual desire controls me, and this is different to racism in that the only difference between black and white is culture – pure systemic conditioning. People who claim any difference are simply applying cultural conditioning and putting it in a natural context. However there is a fundamental natural context that differs women from men, and that is far from being understood. As an aside I do however need to consider how my sexual preference relates to my understanding of racism. I prefer black women so I could never accept any form of inferiority because they were black, mind you that doesn’t stop the patriarchy from treating women as inferior.

I found this clip and listened to it briefly, and noted with some dismissal that there was a coming together of love and feminism – I will expand on that later. But before I really got to look into the clip I happened to watch the movie “The Girl from the Song” (imdb ref), a remake of the Orpheus and Eurydice myth. I felt such a deep empathy with the pain and frustration of the male character, it was like I had lived it. But at uni a big trip was from England to Wales, and I was afraid to go to Europe with the lads – more because I was afraid of missing out – let alone Nevada. After hitting bottom , I felt my time in London was plagued by a failed search for the cosmic – a mixture of love and the spiritual. In truth in my 20s lust was not the driving force although it was present, lust took over later when I had given up on the cosmic, and then lust and companionship particularly in Botswana, and finally just lust which is slowly waning with the ageing body but is still there in the mind.

After the search for the cosmic had been driven away by Peyton Place, there was only one time I ever felt the pain of love and rejection – not rejection unfulfilment with the Zim lady.

But the cosmic – love and spiritual – is what I related to in “The Girl from the Song”, and I note it might not have been a male fantasy as the writers were women – the director was male. 50 shades of grey was written by a woman, but as bell hooks points out in the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy it is all who are conditioned. For me my period of search for the cosmic was dominated by a deep sense of giving love but not receiving. However to be fair, in a relationship between two people it is so difficult to reach a detachment – an objective assessment. On reflection I always felt that I was giving out a deep and powerful love, a love that was probably perceived as all-consuming. In the film I could feel the love and fear of the insecure young male, Eric, the paradox of that possessive love in which he loved her free spirit but his fear wanted to control it. This sentence is what I want to take into consideration of this clip.

In my late 20s there was my first love. It was never destined but whilst this was not a powerful reason for separation I came away feeling that a home should not be the place where I became the object of anger because of the appendage between my legs, the anger was never personal is how I recall it. I watched a movie, “Something New”, with Sanaa Lathan and Simon Baker (the first time I watched it he did not have the feel of a white man to love such a black woman but the second time I did not notice that). In the storyline he walked out because she was giving him “the black stuff” all the time. She lived “black stuff” all the time so that is the price of loving a black woman. Isn’t “feminist stuff” a price I should have been willing to pay – a woman is a woman all the time? Yes, but I was too young. However I can never recall being the white skin that was the focus of black anger, but there is probably nothing to be drawn from that. Or maybe there is. Maybe there was an unspoken recognition in the black relationships that I had sufficiently come to terms with racism, but had not come to terms with sexism.

The clip begins with the lady, Sara, asking that there be some kind of therapy/encounter in which the men stand their ground and accept the rage of the woman – described as a 3-hour process. This has a positive ring as with the “shinning process”. At the end of this process the woman then makes the man an object of her unconditional love. There is a disjointed interaction. But then I have buts …

1) A woman can discharge her rage and a man sits there and accepts her pain.

I like this because the woman is able to discharge her pain body hopefully to a greater extent. One of the points of the exercise is for the man to be able to accept that he has been part of a toxic culture. The rage teaches the man that there is a toxic culture because of the justified anger. But beyond that, what does the man learn? In my own case I would want to know what aspect of me was part of that toxic culture, since I was being the object of non-personalised rage.

I am part of a racist culture because I am white, I am part of sexist culture because I am male, I am part of an oppressive culture because I am western and have the privileges associated with that as well. I am also arrogant at times so I am MAWP. But I have also spent all my life fighting these injustices. If you rage at me because of the system, I could sit and soak it up but then come away thinking how unjust the process was. However if I could be personally shown how I contributed then I could learn and change.

We all live in the conditioning of an imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. That conditioning applies to all of us. The woman who is raging, apart from lessening her pain body significantly, how much has she learnt about how the conditioning has affected her? bell says educating about patriarchy helps men, it does; it helps women as well. I don’t know the male statistic but 53% of white women voted for Trump. Is it also right to tell women who are satisfied with a home – what appears to be a natural drive/instinct – that they are weak and conditioned for wanting this? All people, I include myself, need educating about the conditioning they receive in the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. When I watch the snowflake response to Trump-puppet baiting I just see conditioning – female as well as male.

I like to see that there is #MeToo awareness processes happening involving men and women but doesn’t this first stage need refining?

But this next stage is what concerns me with regards to Orpheus and Eurydice. Love is the presence or grace that is beyond conditioning – beyond the feminine and masculine. Love is most often spoken of in terms of relationships between women and men – appropriate gender relationships; but I understand that such explosive passions awaken love and that love can then be beyond the daily interactions. In Buddhist terms it is beyond atta – beyond the khandhas:-

What is the relationship of the feminine and masculine to the khandhas? Evidently there is a difference in body – rupa. Then there is yinyang, feminine in the masculine and vice versa. Are the feminine and masculine the same with regards to feelings – vedana, perceptions – sanna, and sankhara – mental actions? I think there is difference but it appears that many do not; but whilst I accept there is difference I do not accept inequality.

I think this discussion of love and khandhas is relevant to Sara’s second stage. Love is described by Sara as something that women do. Women try to control relationships by empowering their relationships with greater love, and then to keep themselves from getting hurt they withdraw love.

I do not know whether all women do this, I certainly accept that this is something that Sara has come into contact with – herself, friends or discussion groups. Because there is the toxic environment of patriarchy does not mean that some men do not love and that some men do not suffer pain. It would not be very positive for me to be raged against by women for not loving given the pain I have experienced through unrequited love.

But for myself this pain has been healing, the pain and experience has helped heal me from some of the toxic aspects of conditioning that comes from the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. The pain and experience has helped me move beyond conditioning to love, presence, grace, sunnata, …

Sara doesn’t get her needs met. If the relationship is a loving relationship then those needs are khandhas that need to be mutually arrived at, two people have mutual needs.

Sara also doesn’t feel safe. I have never felt safe and now live alone – that is me. From what I observe in relationships, I see some needs being met for both women and men. It appears to be a balance that couples come to terms with, I never could. However the field of this balance is biased by patriarchy – in general by the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. There is a danger now for some that instead of looking for this balance an absolute ideal is sought. When I grew up the man was master of his own castle, and for some men this maxim became an absolute. Is there now an opposite extreme of #meToo balance? There is no doubt that the alt-right believe this – or at least that is what they espouse. This balance has to be mutually agreed, and if it can’t be agreed then maybe there is no living relationship as Jo decided in the movie The Girl from the Song.

There is nothing greater than love, if you have this then to allow something to get in the way is for me the greatest crime. Within that love the balance of daily life needs to be found – and that is not a given, ask Eric and Jo. The balance is based on conditioning, and it becomes necessary to help each other understand their conditioning. The imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy determines that conditioning, and all people are subject to it. In nature we learn through instinct that produces a conditioned ego, and as we mature we get rid of that ego. However for many people they never see that ego and so as they get older, instead of maturity getting rid of ego, ego entrenches itself.

Love is beyond conditioning but if we don’t see the conditioning of the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy we are unlikely to have loving relationships. #MeToo does not change that, nor does the guilt of men as that is conditioned response in some.

“MAWPs Fake News” <– Previous Post “G3 NATO ?” Next Post –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

MAWPs and Fake News

Posted: 15/07/2018 by zandtao in Freedom, Struggle
Tags: ,


In this blog I examined a history of “fake news” in which sound people have always seen the news as “fake” – controlled by media moguls of the 1%. Trump’s approach to Fake News is different, he trying to control what his supporters accept as news – news is fake unless the news supports Trump. This is not a question of Fake News but a propaganda exercise that has worked well in deluding many of his supporters.

I have already described a while back why MAWPs are a particular target group or demographic of Trump supporters. There is an obvious corollary to Trump’s control of Fake News that I had not pointed out; I was aware of it but it was not central to my understanding. The A of MAWP is arrogant, they know what is going on, they don’t need to learn anything because they already know. So when they are told the news is fake, they already know it is. I was quoted Denzel Washington “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you do read it, you’re misinformed”; but this was used by the MAWP as an excuse not to learn. And that is awful.

As usual this MAWP was set in his ways, and like another MAWP recently – not the troll, he can listen and agree to the most significant aspects of being a genuine socialist:- the problem is the 1% and they make profits from war. After the previous MAWP I was aware of how much agreement there was. With this MAWP there was good banter as well – as I was a snowflake and he was a fascist bastard. But when there was serious discussion he agreed with the main points – as did the other MAWP who had shocked me so much when I became aware he was a Trump supporter. The point is that these guys have a good sense of Unity with the main issue of 1% and war, but have been completely conditioned into the neoliberal bipartisan created schism of fascists and snowflakes.

When I described neoliberalism and the way it works he didn’t disagree, but he immediately mawped up when I talked of media conditioning saying something like “my ideas are my own” – his A. This is the problem with MAWPs – his ideas are not his own but the way the 1% want MAWPs to think, and he is not listening to anyone else who is saying differently because they are speaking “Fake News”.

The right wing has never been willing to listen. When I grew up the right wing were comfortable with the news occasionally ranting about the socialist bias of the BBC. So they got their steady flow of right-wing propaganda at 9.00pm. People of my generation rejected this propaganda and they made minor changes to the BBC, such changes of course moving away from the right-wing post-war propaganda of the 50s, 60s and 70s but never telling the truth. For these right-wingers, left-wing means centrist (Blair) but by then the Liberals had become powerful elsewhere under Blair’s government. And they became a target. It was correct they were targeted but the reasons were wrong. These snowflakes adhered to their ideals eschewing the other, and so the right-wing became alienated and have backlashed with Trump, Farage and Brexit. I apologise for seamlessly moving between the US and UK, but the dominant forces in both countries are similar. In the US however there are more extremists and more money to create them, hence the emergence of Trump, however there has always been the ilk of “Brittania Unchained” and Dominic Raab in British politics.

The point of this blog is how do we educate MAWPs? By their nature their arrogance prevents education, and this weakness has been utilised by the money behind the move to the right. The answer for educating them is not through the bleating of snowflakes as they just heighten their arrogance. Whichever think-tank decided to empower snowflakes under Blair and Obama certainly knew how to push MAWP buttons, how long will we have to pay for this manipulation?

For most of my life the answer of educating has always been information, present the facts and anyone desiring to learn will understand the truth. Now that we are in a situation where such information cannot be controlled by the media 1% they have a new tactic – Fake News, make these MAWPs think that they are being lied to by all who disagree. In the US the MAWPs fail to see how the 1% and their Trump-puppet are simply enabling further exploitation perhaps because the Trump-puppet spends time decrying his masters to make himself popular. The arrogance of these MAWPs that they can believe a politician is absolutely staggering, and despite so much evidence to the contrary believe he is working in their interest. However this is in line with the small business owner who arrogantly considers themselves to be part of the 1% until they are swallowed by the Big fish.

Convincing these “fooled” has gotten harder with access to information, all they see with the new information is snowflake foolishness because of their own MAWP arrogance. This is why the recognition of conditioning globally is a Unity-strategy for moving forward.

“cultural transgression” <– Previous Post “Love/chauvinism” Next Post –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

My cultural transgression

Posted: 11/07/2018 by zandtao in Freedom, Insight
Tags: ,


In this clip (see below) bell hooks discusses transgression initially in terms of rap music, then white appropriation and so on. As usual she is a walking enquiry (see this blogNowhere to hide“), and I began thinking of my own cultural transgression – involvement with black people. Was it a phase? I am not now living in a black community so in that sense it was a phase, but I am not living in a white community either. So was it a phase, and does that matter?

Ultimately my history with black people ended when I finished work, and decided to retire to Thailand to seek peace, a peace I soon found there – fundamentally in isolation. In a sense this peace is “outside community”, there is limited connection to my personal history, and limited connection to the community I live in because of my limited language. It means that I must find peace in who I am and peace in nature. I question whether there is peace with people – necessary support but peace?

When she spoke of transgression it was not a word I fully understood – when I looked into it I was surprised how little I had considered it given my personal history.

First of all this analysis might fall into the arena of sankhara – over-intellectualising, because I did what I did. But the purpose of any analysis has to be to see whether my actions were conditioned. Is my cultural transgression a conditioned cultural response? That reminds me of my father who claimed I would soon grow out of my socialism. That socialism was based in compassion, and compassion is not something I could grow out of – many do.

In my family’s white middle-class suburbia I knew of only one black person; he was in school, big and he was always fighting. Now in retrospect I am not surprised given what he had to put up with, but it just invoked fear in me. I met only one black person at university. She ended up being the girlfriend of a person in the hall of residence and she wouldn’t speak to me even though her hometown was 5 miles away and that meant I wanted her as a holiday friend because we were “uni”. It didn’t happen, I suspect I said something crass – racist – when drunk. The only other image of her I have is that she was nice and quiet.

When I first started work I met a few black people but they were not in my life. I do remember an incident in which a friend said that this lady would sleep with me. To me this lady was way too powerful and overbearing. She was overbearing, American, loud black and older (early 30s), by comparison I was weak, talked only when drunk, white, shy English, and young for my age at 22. I was also very sexually immature, she obviously wasn’t. I can’t remember what I said but I thought about it and weeks later told my friend I would, and was laughed at by my friend who said this lady had moved on.

My first real encounter with black people came in my first teaching job. Between the above immature experiences and starting this job I had hit bottom – Ch 21, and had spent 30 months resurfacing on the path. In the care home I had a passion for a black houseparent but again I was scared – and she had a boyfriend. I had several passions that year, and what dominated those passions was a complete sexual immaturity; I was scared of the black woman more because she was a woman than because she was black – I think. But she was black and beautiful, which mattered more?

At school I became more familiar with black people both as students and teachers, and as one black friend took the time to educate me I unlearnt a lot of my white supremacist conditioning (in this clip (4.33) see why bell uses this terminology). At the time I was an educationalist, and did not have a full view of education in terms of the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. I saw education as offering the possibility of leading out the true self, and I started teaching to see if I could do that. Because it was so soon after hitting bottom, spirituality was almost singular and the priority.

Once in the school I saw how unjust the treatment of the black kids was, and they became a focus. Because I saw the institution was contributing so much to the disadvantage I began teaching in the evening in a black community education project. This brought me into contact with black educationalists outside school.

Starting on the path I was desperate for experience. Although I was fortunate to have started on the path and therefore had some wisdom, I was socially and sexually very immature. This was not helped by the alcohol-induced view that I could meet people when drinking, anomaly when I thought of myself as spiritual.

After a while that desire for experience turned to women, and I fell in love with a woman (white) – for a number of reasons this didn’t work out after maybe two years. It was then I became interested in black women forming a close non-sexual relationship with a colleague. At the time my social life was also “around” the black community, and I was then continually seeking a black woman – between the drink.

As an after-school activity I began work on a magazine through the youth centre, and being disillusioned with education I took this up full-time producing the Young Journal. In my mind it was a magazine that could present the creative talents of black youth – without being focussed on music and hair. The content however was driven by the young people who came across the magazine so my bias doesn’t show in it.

Towards the end of the 3rd issue I started my tempestuous relationship with a black woman that lasted two and a half years and disrupted my life. This love ended the magazine and I was in Brighton working and trying to survive the relationship. With the magazine I had met people, mainly Africans, who put meat on the bones of my understanding of imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy – with limited emphasis on patriarchy. My understanding became far more international in perspective, and was evident in the political life I turned to. My time in Brighton was dominated by my love, the failed relationship and its aftermath, and I left for Africa. One friend gave me a nudge and a wink saying that once I had tasted chocolate … I don’t know but by then I was 40.

This friend might have been correct but in my mind there was experience and reasons for leaving Brighton with its relationship and aftermath. I had experienced black family life. Whilst in the relationship I had made my drinking far worse – because of my weakness, the particular black woman and her family, but in part I had enjoyed living with this black woman; she was the first woman I had lived with – when younger I had fallen in love but I was too independent to live with her.

So this brought me to dabbling in Africa. For half the men on the teaching programme relationships with black women became the focus of living there, for others it was travel; as were many, women and travel became my focus. However by then I was not drinking so women and travel were not enough, I did an M Ed, mid-life review and moved towards Buddhism.

But I dabbled with African women living with me – on and off for nearly 7 years, and because of their cultural upbringing this worked well 90% of the time and the other 10% was tumult. Although one time I was close, I never fell in love in Southern Africa, and moved away from Africa to private schools to try to get a pension. Once I left Southern Africa there were never any further relationships with women, although 5 years later I returned to West Africa to teach. Once I finished with that contract black people have been a rarity in my life.

So was all this transgression? On reflection I have always thought of my gender-type as “white man attracted to black women”; after the time I fell in love near 30, I have never had a relationship with a white woman. This is why it could be a gender-type so I think of it as more than transgression. But is it?

For 12 years I have lived alone in a country of beautiful women. I came here thinking that relationship could occur through religion, but there hasn’t been a glimpse. For 7 years after Southern Africa I wanted only meaningful long-term relationships, and it became clear that could only happen if I lived somewhere. But it hasn’t happened where I live. In my last job I enjoyed working with black people and the students although the school situation was horrendous – and that had some cultural origins.

Am I any nearer answering the transgression question? To begin with I thought no but now I feel I am. At the time of hitting bottom I had rejected conditioning but I was still conditioned. This meant that transgression was still part of my privileged conditioning. I felt that I had the right to go out there and experience. It was never my intention to return to the privileged background that bell refers to, but there was still the privilege that I felt I had the right to go out and experience.

But one can’t ignore the fact that this is also nature’s path – young people going out and experiencing, getting old, reflecting and finding peace. But there is no doubt that I benefitted from privileged conditioning. I should also note that I was so immature that I was 40 before my desire for experience risked the world. In a way this was good because by then I knew enough of myself to be self-reliant instead of seeking solely from the community.

Cultural transgression is a conditioned response. Privilege entitles people to move out and experience the different, and once they have had a few knocks, return home and count the pennies. This is similar to nature’s conditioning. The young person leaves home gets some experience, and then returns to the womb-community recreating the family culture for a new generation. When I consider my early adult life in London, I think of people exploring – the 60s and aftermath, yet these people have turned back to their womb-community, and in Brexit voted with community. Emotionally that feels like a betrayal, but backs up bell’s view of transgression.

Sometimes social conditioning and natural conditioning combine and it is difficult to discern. One can never be absolutely certain where the boundaries lie, but it is good to investigate – learning that includes learning about our conditioning is the purpose. Thank you again, bell, for the spur to enquiry.

Below:- bell hooks gave a talk on Cultural Criticism and Transformation, and there are 8 parts to the talk. Unfortunately part 7 is considered unsuitable by youtube so you can’t find it. Part 8 starts on about rap music, and then about half-way through this clip she discusses the transgression of white people “getting into rap”.

“snowflake confusion” <– Previous Post Next Post –> “MAWPs fake news”

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.


This could have been a continuation of the last blog, but that then could have been long and missed the point about the New Fact of Life.

Understanding and seeing racism as conditioning is a way of working – campaigning. Making demands in terms of identity is not helpful, there is no education – no communication. Just an ideal, a set of ideas that is agreed with or disagreed with. You are racist, no I’m not. You are racist, no I’m not. You are racist, no I’m not. You are racist, no I’m not. You are racist, no I’m not. You are sexist, no I’m not. You are sexist, no I’m not. You are sexist, no I’m not. You are sexist, no I’m not. You are sexist, no I’m not. You are sexist, no I’m not. There is no meeting here, no communication, no helping each other.

But understanding conditioning recognises that it is not a switch, yes or no, it is a spectrum – a continuum. I will always have to be conscious of racism because there are always conditioning forces that want to make me racist again – even despite an awareness that was a pinnacle as editor of Young Journal and was never really lost teaching in Botswana and Nigeria – lost now 12 years in Thailand?

As discussed throughout the esp. Ch 22, the process of conditioning is ongoing and pervasive. Conditioning is the agreements that get made from generation to generation, and this conditioning is the basis of the ego that can be so divisive and destructive. When bell hooks describes an imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, she is describing with a verbal hammer a significant proportion of the conditioning we are processed with. But what she is not overtly describing is the ego that we are also conditioned with. When you put all of these together we can begin to understand conditioning, and begin to understand what all of us need to move beyond – and moving beyond conditioning could be a manifesto for Unity.

It is important to consider the current political realities in terms of this conditioning. It is quite clear that we are all conditioned to some extent, and it is equally evident that this conditioning benefits the 1% who accumulate whilst our different conditionings divide us. If we don’t keep our focus on those who benefit with our divisions we end up contributing to those benefits. If we accept that there is a conditioning both natural and systemic, then we can begin to experience freedom whilst at the same time become aware of how deeply exploited we are by the 1%. We can then see that being divided only hurts us.

It is so important to understand that this conditioning does not singly apply to those who are privileged within the conditioning. In bell hooks words it conditions privilege to imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchs and withdraws privilege from those who are not. All people are conditioned to accept the privilege of the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, not just white men, but women – all genders, and people of colour.

What is also important to note in this description of conditioning is that of the conditioning of the ego, to move beyond conditioning is to move beyond ego. This is significant for a group of intellectuals known as the IDweb. These people demand freedom but this freedom is limited and conditioned, it is really freedom to exploit. Genuine freedom is freedom from conditioning, freedom from ego, freedom for all. In the US and increasingly in the western world this freedom has become freedom from government regulation, and as Noam Chomsky discusses here, the purpose of Trump flim-flam is to create a public charade whilst removing regulations that benefit business and disadvantage people – all done in the name of freedom.

A key component of the IDweb (article not link site gone?) is the promotion of the individual intellectual – the cult of the individual intellectual such as the ego of Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris, and significant in all of the IDweb is that lack of freedom for ALL, the lack of compassion for ALL. This is the intellectualism of the ego, of competition, of self-aggrandisement, of capitalism.

Also try to see where identity politics fits into this process of conditioning. This creates an identity or ego around certain ideals such as fighting the privilege of white men in favour of non-whites, non-males etc. These are ideas that the ego attaches to and makes demands for. This is a conditioned response to the exploitation by the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy but in itself is still conditioned. When the ego clings to an ideal as a conditioned response it creates division. If instead it was recognised as conditioning then it would be more clearly understood that moving beyond conditioning is not holding to ideals but educating an awareness that is beyond conditioning. In other words identity politics is a divisive conditioned response of the ego, needs to understand its own egoic conditioning, needs to move forward in its understanding of conditioning, and begin to recognise the importance of Unity and the need to develop awareness.

Whilst a step in the right direction Marxism has got stuck as an ideal that more and more people are rejecting. It came about as an explanation as to how working people were being exploited by the capitalist/imperialist owners of the nineteenth century. Marxism was however limited to an examination of finance, and by limiting the ethos to finance it has left the proletariat vulnerable to exploitation through finance and by accumulation. The level of accumulation of contemporary super-wealthy is far beyond that envisaged in the times of Marx, and the ease with which many of the proletariat can be bought off by the super-wealthy makes any organisation by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie virtually impossible if they are fighting for equality of finance.

Continuing with an emphasis on finance is now a conditioned response because it has been controlled by the powerful – by the 1%. In moving beyond conditioning we have to try to establish what is beyond the conditioning, beyond the ego, and when we recognise how conditioning works we can see that what is beyond is compassion and freedom for all. This I discussed in the Treatise as pathtivism:-

When I discussed this as being esoteric – a bit beyond, I was not exhibiting a clear analysis. Where we are going with a class analysis based on finance is outmoded and has been controlled by the 1%. Class based on the global interests of all people would end the competitiveness that divided the first from the third world. But a position in which the global class interest is placed in the context of Gaia would bring sustainability to an interest that is limited to humanity and its lack of sustainability. These last two positions are not contradictory for Gaia’s interest and the peoples’ interests are identical if thought through. It is capitalism that focusses on exploiting resources to increase profit, that is conditioning, and is not in the peoples’ interest. Pathtivism or indigenous wisdom is the only practical way forward, a way that is beyond conditioning.

For a fuller development of the recognition of conditioning, addiction and the need for pathtivism in the context of Gaia, consider the last section of the – Ch 21-25.

“New Fact of Life” <– Previous Post “Snowflake Confusion” Next Post –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

New Fact of Life

Posted: 29/06/2018 by zandtao in ONE planet, Struggle
Tags: ,


When I grew up people were racist overtly, much use of racist language – as a child and teenager I used such language; it was just my upbringing. On reflection I would say that I was never being intentionally racist but more importantly I was making no effort to be anti-racist, it was just what people in a white suburb in the 60s were like. I was fortunate. As a young man I met people who taught me not to be racist, I particularly remember a black teacher who later became a friend taking the time to teach me not to be racist. Over time I began to explore how deep this racism went – in me and in society, and as I got older I grew to understand more and more of the racist conditioning that is endemic in British society.

To think someone is “inferior” because of the colour of the skin is something I now find completely alien. When I was young I can’t say I thought black people “inferior” in any way, but it was just the done thing to use racial insults.

Institutionally to treat someone as being “less” in any way is completely unjust. For example the housing practices of Lambeth council in the 70s and early 80s disadvantaged black people, and was unacceptable – it was just white people favouring white people; in other words institutional racism.

As I grew older my perspective widened, and I began to see the treatment of black people as “internal colonialism”. Overseas the tactics of the ruling colonial government was always to divide and rule. I particularly remember two African guys (friends) who took the time to educate me on how this worked in their countries of Cameroon and Uganda. Whilst divide-and-rule was not limited to Africa, it was very effective there. I was also recently taught that divide-and-rule as a tactic has existed far longer by Indians – in the caste system.

With such powerful forces in place it is hardly surprising that British people grow up with racist conditioning.

When I was younger things started to change. In the 70s and 80s there was a move to change this racism. It started with language because misuse of language towards black people was so prevalent, but at that time it was perceived as a two-stage process – stop the insulting language and then educate as to why the language was so inappropriate.

Over the years this process changed, mainly under Blair (I was not in the UK then), and it became acceptable that racist language was censored – without any educational component. Those critical of this approach call it PC-authoritarianism, and I completely understand why. With the focus on the superficialities of PC and language, the awareness of the problem has been lost, and many people just accepted the censorship seeing the language as unacceptable without developing any awareness. Although there was an improved environment because of the lack of such language, there was not really a change in racist attitudes – they were just hidden. For this reason it has been so easy for the racism to re-emerge as right-wing forces have become stronger. The new fact of life is that such racist opinion that had been hidden has been emboldened by politicians prepared to express such opinions. It now means that I have to be prepared to meet racists who are prepared to express their racism, and I have to live with it. At the same time there is still a powerful PC-authoritarian lobby for whom censorship is acceptable. This means that there is unlikely to be a change in awareness as there are just two opposing opinions being expressed, and no attempt at communication and no attempt at developing awareness. In fact trolling as baiting snowflakes has become popular, and such arrogance can never be helpful – however tempting.

What has to be understood is that racism is part of the conditioning that western countries deliver – it is still part of our upbringing. How it is experienced differs from family to family, from white community to white community. I have no idea how it is experienced in society now, I don’t know how just the teaching of racism is. But it is fair to say that all white people grow up conditioned as racists to some extent, it is just part of general conditioning in white society.

Conditioning is powerful as discussed in Treatise LINK – Ch22 and elsewhere. It is just part of the experience of growing up in a western society. Although society and education is similar throughout, how racism is perceived is very different depending on family and community. But it is emotion and conditioning that determines how racist you are. My own increased awareness came from meeting black people who took the time to help me. If in your community you don’t meet such good people then the racism is likely to be far more entrenched.

What has to be understood is that racism is conditioned, it is not rational. We receive attitudes in our upbringing, and emotionally we attach to these attitudes – they are not based on rational thinking. At the same time we cannot use observation to support a position. For example gang culture, one cannot deny there are black gangs deeply involved in drug culture and who kill each other. Equally it cannot be denied that there are not such white drug gangs although white criminality is prevalent throughout all strata of white society – and rich crime is far more dangerous and lucrative. One can observe however survival behaviour amongst poorer people whatever the colour of the skin. Simply by observation one could make any argument for or against racism simply by selecting the observations you choose. To try to change racism by rational argument alone does not work, awareness is more than just rational – it needs to be emotional and political, an understanding of conditioning. Like all forms of conditioning it takes a long time to undo all the harm our conditioning brings us.

I recently met a lady whose views on race were very different to mine. Ten years ago she would have been unlikely to express her views to me even though we would probably both been aware of each other’s views. I do not expect to meet her again whereas previously we would have had a socially acceptable relationship – she was the wife of a friend. The friend and I disagreed over issues but were still able to be amicable – not close. That is fine, that is Unity. But now we are divided, that is the prevailing ethos.

The New Fact of Life is that racists are being emboldened by the move to the right. At the same time this emboldening is of people who do not object to separation, do not see the necessity of working together. In my life I have always been seen as extreme – left, but I worked with people accepting that the system was unfair but there was a need for compromise. Centrist-right teachers did not compromise and as it was their system they didn’t have to – but there was a tolerance. The new fact of life is that that tolerance has gone.

I don’t like PC-censorship, and tend to agree with right-wing crits that it is oppressive. However right-wing oppression is always far worse. They have no problem with being hypocritical, criticising liberals whilst being far more repressive themselves. But right-wing repression usually brings with it the law, and if not that force then the bullying that goes with right-wing ignorance. I think Antifa violence going on the attack cannot possibly win, and gives credibility to right-wing bullyboys. There does need to be defence but …

I fear the increasing right-wing oppression, that kind of mindlessness I was glad to leave behind in the UK. I suspect it will now follow me. Will I still be able to blog nearer my death?

And in talking about this New Fact of Life I am partly shamed. 24/7 blacks, Hispanics and Muslims have to live with this, most of the time I can let it pass me by.

“Brainwasheds” <– Previous Post Next Post –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Love and Self-esteem

Posted: 19/05/2018 by zandtao in Insight, Struggle
Tags: , , , ,

In the car I have been listening to bell hooks, such an interesting writer. I have downloaded a series of audios on bell hooks – it is readings from several of her books. I had to check the USB because I wasn’t sure even though what was being said sounded like her. But there is a problem, unlike Russell’s conversation podcasts there is too much content for when I am driving.

But it is about love and self-esteem, and she said “go back to your childhood”. This is a strategy I like, and on love and self-esteem again I feel incredibly lucky. I have to assume as context what I have described in the , in this case especially Ch 21 – My Path. I am unwilling to be specific about my home as my mother would not have liked it, but I can describe it in general as I have in being middleclassed as described in the chapter on My Path. Characteristics of being middleclassed are emotional repression and a focus on education leading to house car and education for children. As I have said previously, from my upbringing I emerged middleclassed but, significantly, relatively undamaged and with sufficient bits of paper for passports into life. When I look around this is more than I could have asked for.

In terms of self-esteem being middleclassed makes it easy to understand. I had the arrogance of academic success and as the middleclass straitjacket only really measured this my self-esteem was well intact.

As for love, self-love and other issues that Bell discusses, in my childhood these were de rigueur. In middle-class homes there was love but it was not expressed as emotion, passion; it was expressed as the straitjacket. The first thing I did when I hit bottom was to run back to the straitjacket, this is what being middleclassed provided. When I went to uni I questioned this straitjacket because I was beginning to remove it, but now I don’t – it was a comfort. I cannot advocate the middleclassed home but all-in-all it served me well.

With regards to teen and young adult relationships I was incredibly shy and awkward – undoubtedly in part a product of being middleclassed. In my early teens I dropped opportunities for relationship learning until I left new possibilities behind as too difficult. At uni I was drunk and most undesirable. At these times wanting a relationship was a conditioned thing, it was expected to have one; the “alpha males” I looked up to at that time flitted through relationships (people I later derided as Martin Smoothchatter). I say this in part was due to my being middleclassed but I also feel the path saved me – no idea how the path did it. I can think back to times where my awkwardness prevented me from relating to some wonderful women, but women who that underdeveloped self would have adored and left that adoring self very distant from the path.

In terms of self-esteem I had that in spades because all that mattered was education. Self-love never rose at that time because I so identified with the self-esteem of academic success. But then came the upheaval that started me on the path (again I refer you to Ch 21 for details). As path is unconditional love, this of course changed everything – including with regards to relationship. I became the wandering compassion at the time confused in terms of conscious awareness, but driven by path I was just learning. To begin with love of an other wasn’t the priority although the conditioning to have a relationship was there, I still had the conditioning of the cosmic love of an other. This conditioning confused me especially as in terms of the world I was so immature but the path priority drove me through the conditioning; I still had my awkwardness that prevented formation of relationships.

Once I settled into teaching a self formed. This self was based in the path, I knew who I was and relationships happened because of who I was – the self that the path had formed. There were two women I loved, and they are important in understanding the love that is now me – now part of my path. My first love happened when the woman was still in a relationship. You have to remember that I was immature and did not understand the world. The three of us spoke about this love, my lover’s relationship fizzled out, and this erstwhile lover who I thought was a friend didn’t want to know me – I am sorry it was my immaturity. There were further barriers on my lover’s part in this love, and by the time she really started to respond to my love my love was waning. And my path and independence took over until the relationship petered out and she left London.

My second love was an absolutely intense disaster that I described as worse than Peyton Place. I deeply loved this woman and I got absolutely hammered by pain. By the end of the relationship of nearly three years I was very much an alcoholic – the relationship did not cause the drug dependency but made it worse, much worse. When we separated she still agreed to see me, but very rarely and that petered out after a further 2 or 3 years.

With both of these I had deeply loved an other, but neither lasted a lifetime. Love however did. I had experienced love and that experience meant I knew love, love was always there. And that love can best be described by this Eckhart Tolle meme:-

It was only when I was mature (since retirement) did I realise that I was grateful for how I came to know love. The pain of the second love had been internalised and lasted a long time. Maybe 8 years after the start of that relationship I was in Nyanga and managed to dig out a significant part of that pain, relived it and let it go. And then maybe three years ago I finally came to the realisation that I had loved, love was in me and that I was grateful for the women I had loved – especially the second one.

To return to Bell’s books. I never really had self love. Because I started on the path so young, there was the love that belonged to the path. The path and conditioning and lust took me into relationships (2 significant loving ones) – my path had not matured enough to go beyond this conditioning; remember, this is how I describe path:-

I never loved when I was still relating to self-esteem. When that self-esteem blew up in the upheaval there was path, I never had to love myself as Bell describes. Path is unconditioned love, to think about loving it is a dichotomy that just doesn’t apply. I developed a love of others, but the love of self didn’t apply because the path was beyond self – anatta – no-self. I can relate to the love Eckhart describes but Bell’s descriptions are based in self and in terms of love I bypassed that self mostly – I of course had self in other ways as described in Ch22 on addiction.

The following is speculation as I did not experience it. I want to try and relate to what Bell says – as she is my feminist guide. Because I was middleclassed I grew up with self-esteem but I was completely awkward – lacking in any self-esteem in terms of relationships. My conditioning turned me to drink at uni, and relationships became secondary. I had many passions, a combination of conditioning and intellectual constructs that I should love, and occasional near misses where I was lucky that my awkwardness did not allow adoration. And then came the path. I never needed self-love because I had the path. Self-love conceivably is a stage before anatta. Many never move to anatta, and self-love is an important instinct for survival as Bell describes. For me this is conjecture.

Because I loved, once the pain had passed there was conscious love in me; love that was always there emerged without much pain – intense pain for a short time.

“Native code of ethics” <– Previous Post “one Family” Next Post –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.


Data mining is the latest tool used by the system to condition us. It is what you might call “bespoke advertising”. OK it’s harder now but years ago I learnt “do not listen to adverts”. What were adverts trying to do? Get me to spend money on items I didn’t necessarily want.

Let’s be clear, I do buy items that are advertised but I don’t buy because of the way they are advertised. I buy a car. From the occasional adverts I do see, is there any information in those adverts that could help me make a better decision? Am I really going to find the woman of my dreams if I buy a Lamborghini?

The political point about advertising is mindful consuming. Mindfully choose. Facebook ads – don’t click. Why am I getting all this spam? Because people click. Mindful people don’t click.

To my mind all of this furore concerning data mining can be strategically overcome by mindful consuming. What does our class control? Consuming. They want us to spend money in a certain way so don’t. If data mining puts an ad on your facebook page, never click. It is simple.

But mindful consuming as a class is far more powerful. Why does the Israeli government spend so much effort fighting the BDS movement? Because boycotting the other apartheid in South Africa contributed significantly to the changes there.

Mindfulness as mindful consuming is an attribute of the path that is beyond conditioning.

Why does this affect liberals? Because they are such avid “liberal” consumers. They want to be free to consume. Where is their sustainability when their “struggle” means being free to consume? Click-bait only works for ill-disciplined minds, be mindful of what you are doing, of how you are consuming.

The above is not contained in this excellent BAR article LINK on Cambridge Analytica. The article is good because it shows that the 1% are into data mining. It shows that what is going on with the Trump strategists is no different to Obama’s strategists, no different to Blair’s strategists, and only a development from Thatcher’s Saatchi and Saatchi.

Confront people, make them mindful, make mindful consuming a political startegy. Data mining only works with the conditioned. If we are a class in struggle then we don’t wimp out with feeble-minded click-baiting. Let facebook waste its money giving me a BAR advert ….

Or skin-lightening cream??

<– Previous Post “Frankie” Next Post “Osho and Bhagwan” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Desire, self and ego

Posted: 27/03/2018 by zandtao in Freedom
Tags:


There is much that is confusing about Eastern religions, this is not surprising as they can help people find the path that is beyond conditioning

Most significant on this path is desire, the more we desire the more potential there is for control. We want drugs, we need to buy them, we get addicted. We want alcohol, we need to buy drink, we get addicted. We want a house, the more money we need the more work we need to do, we get addicted. However deep the addiction the more we become conditioned, the less control we have.

The key to all of this is desire. Buddhism is distinct from most religious practice in that its primary purpose is to end suffering. To achieve this its two most significant dogmas are the 4 Noble Truths and paticcasamuppada, both of which are concerned with desire. It depends on which branch of Buddhism how much emphasis is placed on these dogmas.

The 4NT put simply say that there is suffering, suffering is caused by desire that leads to clinging. To end suffering we need to end clinging and there is an 8-fold path to achieve this. Paticcasamuppada looks at the situation differently by considering self and conditioning. It says self starts in ignorance. Desire attaches to an event that develops into clinging which becomes part of the conditioned self. Removing ignorance and not attaching to desire ends conditioning, ends self.

Russell’s next talk is with Frankie Boyle. The conversation is personal and professional as they are both comedians, if you like that sort of thing listen. Throughout many of his talks I hear from Russell a continued desire for addiction but a strength that says I will abstain. This abstinence is commendable but is not the solution. The solution is when there is no desire, no desire, no addiction. I don’t know whether the 12 steps contains any consideration of this.

Desire is a biggie.

However it is written down, in dogma whatever, ending desire is just so hard. But abstinence is not an end, it is an end to substance abuse but it still leaves the desire and therefore leads to some form of conditioning.

The phrase that many use is “letting go”. When the desire comes let go of it. Unfortunately the desire comes back so with substance abuse you need an additional abstinence approach. But that still leaves desire. But when desire comes back let it go again; over time the desire reduces.

Now there is additional knowledge that can help. In Russell’s case with substance abuse he has seen what it produces so that is a deterrent. Russell has seen addiction causes suffering, knowing that suffering can return is the deterrent. But desire is also part of addiction (coming before clinging), there is greater peace without desire. And it can begin to happen if when desire comes you let go.

Ayahuasca interests Russell. Buddhism has a precept that says to avoid substances that affects the mind. Russell is interested in ayahuasca because it has apparently helped people on consciousness. I suppose because of my own substance addiction, I don’t want such substances. But I trust in the path and aspects of Buddhism that help. I trust that the path will guide me so I don’t want consciousness-altering substances.

At the same time I have a feeling that such mind alteration has possible repercussions. I do feel that too much acid adversely affected some 60s people.

But I trust enough in the path and its discipline meditation.

I have desires, I am still addicted to self. But I know addiction means conditioning, and I want freedom, control so when desires come I try to let them go. It doesn’t always work but it gets better.

The second issue that distinguishes Buddhism from Hinduism has been touched on already – anatta – no self. Hinduism has a belief in reincarnation, in Buddhism reincarnation has a mixed reception. The teacher I follow, Buddhadasa, does not believe in anything, and because he cannot experience reincarnation he does not believe in it. He explains the Buddha’s teachings as existing in a milieu. The Buddha was teaching Hindus and trying to revise Hindu teaching. As such he used the same words but the concepts at times were different. Samsara can be seen as birth and death of self (paticcasamuppada) without considering reincarnation and transmigration of souls. The Buddha never tried to “explain karma”, the workings of kamma are beyond the understanding of humans. Hinduism sees reincarnation as coming back with a better lot as a reward for a previously exemplary life. This better lot is often associated with wealth and the perceived ease of life for the wealthy, and equally the difficult life of the untouchables. I am not sure of the theory but is the heinous caste system connected to reincarnation? With Buddhadasa only trusting experience and for him there being no reincarnation, kamma becomes something that can be managed. Past life trauma need not weigh us down through this if we look at kamma as something that can be detached from.

Self in Buddhism is distinct from self/Self in Hinduism. Buddhist self is a broader concept than ego but is still temporary, ego is an issue Russell knows he has to deal with, perhaps he could extend ego to self if he considered attachment to khandhas and anatta. But it is very difficult for him because of his career. Even though I like his books Revolution and Recovery, I don’t like his stage persona. My main reason for calling him a dickhead earlier was the Andrew Sachs thing, and whilst he didn’t explain in this podcast apparently it was a misunderstanding. But I still don’t find his stage persona funny. It is narcissism – ego. But that is a stage act, it is his professional career – income.

Teachers have ego leading to “better than me”. Teachers are known for “teaching” in their personal lives – it is their ego. Once I stopped teaching that ego can also disappear – although not completely as I have just alluded to. How much does Russell cling to his ego because it is his professional persona? And here is the big question, does he need the money? Does he need to cling to the ego? Could he become the Russell Brand of Revolution and Recovery? Could Under The Skin podcasts not contain all his ego-rantings, be more considered …. and perhaps Naomi would not have to pause so often? Apologies if there is judgementalism. These are not issues for me to judge, but only for me to ask questions?

But here is the rub. The ego of teaching held me back, of course wage-slavery – the world of work and its impositions – held me back far more. Being freed from that slavery gave me a chance to become who I am as I had sufficient money to survive. It must be hard for Russell to decide on this – with all that goes with it. I wonder whether there would ever be answers for him with this baggage he carries around?

But this ego is not self, self builds up from khandhas. Russell has a self that is beyond his ego that he has attached to through his conditioning. But his ego is so huge because of all the baggage that he carries with his ego, wouldn’t it be too difficult to see self? And then difficult to detach from self? It is worth considering what the khandhas are to see how we can become addicted to self. My worst is sankhara. I have always tended to overthink so was loved in academia. I was attracted back to academia to write an M Ed in my 40s, and now I wake up with a blog in mind that I must write. Yet the natural state of mind is peace, stillness and calmness. There is a place for khandhas, we cannot live without them, but as Buddhadasa promotes “remove the I and mine from the 5 khandhas” – no attachment. Am I paying too much attention to the khandhas:-

Rupa -body
vedana – feelings
sanna – memory and perceptions
sankhara – mental processes and proliferations
vinnana – consciousness (attaching to be I or not attaching to be free to follow the path?)

Do you recognise the possibility of being addicted to self? Addicted to khandhas?

When I retired early I accepted less money because I was so far from the path when working. But Russell has to be attached to far more and the decision is far more difficult. But Russell, the path is always better.

Perhaps I should be selfish, would all the good guests he attracts for Under the Skin be there if it was not the public persona of Russell Brand?

Just a final note on Frankie, my knowledge of whom is far more limited than my limited knowledge of Russell. I remember comedian Bernard Manning whose career might be described as built on racism and sexism. He was unapologetic because he was funny – most people found him funny. Frankie draws back the barriers of comedy by being shocking. I get the feeling that he would say anything if he thought it was funny – though he is correct about racism, sexism and LBGQT. Should that be enough? Especially when teaching I have found myself saying things that I shouldn’t have said because I was trying to be funny. I still do that a bit. Humour is an amazing gift, laughing is an amazing experience, should the boundaries be considered? Personally – although it doesn’t matter – I like most of Frankie’s humour but sometimes it was too much. That is of course a personal view and matters not one iota.

<– Previous Post “New or neo narrative” Next Post “data mining”–>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

[Warning – the theme of this blog u-turns.]

We are a long way from most people following the path. As a political strategy I have proposed “following the path”. All those that follow the path will not be subject to conditioning, and such freedom will be increasingly recognised as the natural human freedom.

But that will take time, and meanwhile the need for a narrative is glaring. The dilemma of automation is upon us. How can we live in a consumer society in which the 1% accumulate based on consumerism when people don’t have money. Robots have no desires, they have no self, no conditioning, they do not consume, and therefore the powerful cannot continue to accumulate.

Therefore we cannot continue with profit alone. But we cannot just make demands when we have no power. The power we have is in consuming, and that is because the powerful allow us to work, earn money and become consumers. We agree to that conditioning, and that is the normal narrative:-

If we are not working because the robot is doing our job, there is no consumerism.

1%, people know this, they are not stupid. They might knee-jerk, make stupid decisions like Trump and blaming immigrants because it is easier, but they know if the 1% don’t change and the 1% continue with the profit motive there will be no jobs no consumerism and society will implode.

If there is no consumerism then there is no wealth, where will your power be? You will continue using your wealth as society slowly withers. You will continue to pay your security, the robots will make your products, the military will fight off the 99%, and then your wealth ends you cannot pay for military, you cannot pay for robots, you wither and die.

1%, if you don’t join in the new narrative you will wither and die. Davos there is no future for you in isolation. Davos, you have to know you need consumerism. Davos you have to know you must involve people not sycophants. You want consumerism, you want profit and you want automation. It just doesn’t work.

End your addiction before it is too late for us all.

Serious disappointment. In meditation there came a neo-narrative that works.

For a narrative to work there needs to be consuming, expansion and accumulation. In the current narrative expansion and accumulation are enabled through fiat mechanisms – unsustainable currency, it is the imaginary economy that is creating new accumulation. It has been a long time since money was connected to available resources even the gold standard was not sustainable, and even that minimal protection has long since gone. Money as exchange has long been surpassed, and now money is printed that just disappears into the accumulation – as apparent wealth. We now have crypto-currencies which are completely unsustainable, and even have no pretence at sustainability; they exist purely on the basis of confidence. But then much of our economic system is an act of faith – ask Yanis.

There is a traditional illusion in our current narrative that money is connected to productivity but there is no reason for faith in that illusion to continue. With robot automation there is no need for productivity only the skills for maintenance and creativity for development. Most people would be allocated “entitlement” probably chip-based (RFID). This entitlement would have two properties – survival and choice. The survival entitlement would provide a certain amount of stability, money flowing into government paying rent etc. Then there would be choice to enable crime (enterprise?).

Entitled people would live in ghettoes (projects council estates) that would be intentionally divided to create tension and division – probably based around race but these ghettoes would include white people; deplorables LINK know they are heading there. Crime would be a way out of these ghettoes for a few. Miseducation (conditioning) would ensure the continuation of these ghettoes (in much the same way that wage-slavery is continued now), but there would be a way out for the creative; that would be the secondary purpose of this miseducation – to find the creative and enable their escape.

They would escape to the middle-classes – Liberals. These would be the people who would enable production through the maintenance of automation. They would be rewarded with greater entitlement and greater choice over their money – probably still RFID-based. These middle-classes would provide the enterprise and expansion and therefore increased consuming that would enable the continued accumulation.

There will of course be wars. These wars would be resource-based such as with the Congo and Middle East now. And with the increased ghettoisation will be targeted on “other” ghettoes. Whilst there would be continuous Liberal outcry at these wars, this will just be rhetoric as the Liberals will continue in their separate middle-class enterprise habitats.

The accumulators will have their enclaves protected by private security.

This neo-narrative can be conditioned and is not significantly different from our current narrative.

There will always be the path, and there will be far-off places – communes where people on the path can take refuge. Many on the path would of course work to improve humanity (as they do now) but to what avail? As now.

The call is still:-

Accumulators, end your addiction before it is too late for us all. But sadly that call has no immediacy as I had hoped for when I first started this examination of a new narrative based on the robot imperative.

<– Previous Post “Beyond narratives” Next Post “Frankie” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Fear Delusion and Responsibility

Posted: 10/03/2018 by zandtao in Insight, Struggle, War
Tags:


In this blog I attacked the white middle-classes that I grew up in, and whilst they need a jolt my criticism was not accurate. I accused them of contributing to the war devastation of the 1% because of their greed and delusion. I think the accusation of greed is unfair.

OK the white English middle-classes have more than their fair share when compared to the poor in Bangladesh, this is an unreasonable comparison. And to be honest the money that most middle-class people have accumulated is not the issue. Whilst they might well be greedy and seeking more, the money they have does pale in comparison to the 1%. Just one of the 1% has the wealth of 100000 or maybe a million of the middle classes I am critical of. No matter what the egos of these middle-class might tell them the interests of these people lie with the class that is not 1% – 99% or proletariat.

It is much fairer not to describe these people as being particularly greedy but more that they are afraid of losing their bit. It is this fear that dominates their approach. Their fear of losing their bit formulates their political approach. They accept the devastation the 1%-economy creates globally for their two up-and-down, sanctuary from the poor, sanctuary from starving and sanctuary from racial disharmony. Their racism is institutional or cultural. The system provides them with a set of myths that threaten their homes and way of life, big black guys raping daughters, hordes of Muslims riding camels through their backyards, swirling scimitars and stealing garden gnomes. For most of these people they have not been hurt by the results of racial tension, bullying at school, mugging etc, but the fear for their home translates to fear of blacks – racism etc.

This fear fires acceptance of the delusions that enables the stability of the current system, enables the continued accumulation by the 1%. Their fear connects change with loss of their way of life so whatever change is mooted on whatever moral grounds it is rejected, they accept delusional arguments for stability rather than change.

A major consequence of this fear and delusion is what is done in their name. It is governments of western democracies (NATO) that are spreading war and terror globally. Whilst I consider Blair an evil man – and guilty of war crimes, he only did the same as every other British leader; he got the British people sufficiently in line to support the Americans in the Gulf. The middle-classes didn’t particularly want to support the Americans but they went along with it because it was the system and stability that mattered the most to them. The deaths were not as important. Their fear and delusion allowed them to give responsibility for their actions in a democracy to a government that was not acting for them.

The whole basis of their way of life is tied in with this abdication of responsibility. They would never do such things but the Americans can, soldiers can, mercenaries can. Their fear is disenfranchising, their vote has no component of compassion, their view is limited to keeping their way of life at almost any cost. As a result they hand over their moral integrity, their human responsibility to governments whose actions enable 1%-accumulation primarily through war-for-profits.

Greed is a small factor in sourcing the problem. Whilst many middle-classes would choose greater wealth and would be prepared to work for greater wealth. It is more a question of losing what they have that drives them into accepting the delusions stability offers them. For the promise of stability they give away their moral integrity and human responsibility to leaders who enable 1%-accumulation. Middle-classes are not free from greed but that is not the primary mover like I said here.

<– Previous Post “Middle-classed” Next Post “Embracing path” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.