Governments are in power because they control the military, this is beginning to change. Military is privatising and the 1% are employing their own violence – their own security. This is a worrying development. But be clear violence is the reason that people can influence and be influenced. Influence is the major currency of the 1%, and I will go into that. But here I want to talk about how violence influences in another way, the bullying of liberals.

When a liberal uses verbal argument this is not reason. Reason might be the means of the argument but before reason can be used violence has already exerted its power. When we have the rule of law it is not because the law is correct and reasonable that such laws are enacted and adhered to it is violence. If the law punishes by putting you in prison it is because the violence that underlies society has enable the police to arrest you, take you to court enabling the judge to pass sentence , and the crime is punished.

We can see that it is rule of violence and not rule of law when the 1% continually escape punishment.

So when a liberal is being superior by discussing something, it is not the power of the argument that wins the day it is the violence. Good argument ameliorates the situation so that sila can prevail, but the reality is that the prevailing power of society is underpinned by the violence that perpetuates the 1%. It was my job to argue. In school the students were forced to be there. When people say they are there to be educated that is not true. They are there to be kept off the streets enabling parents to be wage-slaves and also fitting the students to be wage-slaves themselves. Teachers in general do not see this, and if as a teacher you do see this you still do the same thing because if you care for your students you want to do the best for them – and they want exams passes.

A typical discussion would arise out of poor behaviour, teenagers trapped in a classroom where there are peer conflicts has got to produce poor behaviour. When I grew up such poor behaviour could be punished by quick violence, but now the prevailing ethos is against teachers using violence although the hypocrisy that the state is using violence to get students to school in the first place seems almost completely lost. Most students will be damaged by the pressures, behave badly and then eventually accept that they should make some effort to conform – learn. Occasionally students don’t because they know they are there because of violence and yet teachers cannot use violence to keep them there. So there is complete disruption, the disruption that is caused as the teacher takes time to argue, and the disruption caused by the occasional who calls the teacher’s bluff. I am not advocating teacher violence but the violence that controls society has not given teachers adequate powers to control the students. This is intentional, the 1% only need their own children to be educated – the rest need to conform to wage-slavery.

I grew up in the generation where feminism first started, and this feminism was needed as violence against women was too common and many women were chattels in their own homes. Whilst there is violence against one woman and whilst one woman is a chattel, feminism needs to continue. But now society’s violence is supporting women. Whilst this is sila because a good society must protect and there was abuse, but such protection is not enough. There needs to be sila to ensure that the violence is not being misused. If violence unquestioningly supports there is potential for misuse. It is necessary to continually question whether those who are being supported by violence are treating others with sila. There are many men who complain. This could be because men used to have power and now the violence is redistributing gender power more equally – and violent men are missing out gender-wise. But are these complaints being dismissed out of hand rather than being given appropriate questioning? Dynamics change over time, when the violence is being used to control wise-minded people start to question otherwise new oppression arise.