Speculators

Transnationals

Conquistadores

In his book Conflict, Culture and Change, Sulak Sivaraksa discusses the notion of structural violence. Initially he quotes Nagarjuna describing Buddhism as "ahimsa", proceeds to describe non-violence(ahimsa) as an active position, and then discusses global structural violence (p8). Quoting, "(e)very day forty thousand people starve to death in a world where there is an abundance of food." This is clearly an act of violence. He then discusses various organisations who contribute to this scenario, he includes the "modern-day conquistadores", WTO (World-Trade organisation) as well as the Transnationals and the mass media promoting consumerism. At no stage does he accredit any individual with the desire or intention to be a part of the cause of the death of the 40,000. Perhaps he could equally have used the term "institutional violence", and paraphrasing the effects of those institutions are violent but the intentions of the individuals within are not.

I began the conspiracy blog with the following:-

A conspiracy theory is a dialectical materialist construct that describes the flows and effects of generalised policies in society.

Institutional racism, and structural or institutional racism, observes dialectically the effects of racism in terms of black under-achievement, and the effects of violence as 40,000 dead. By this description of conspiracy we could equally be talking of structural violence or institutional racism. It is time for us to concertedly move these "Mulder wierdos" out of the murk of internet obscurity, and into mainstream politics where the public face of conspiracy needs to be held accountable for what is observable in their administrations. This is not a request for notable worthies such as Ajarn Sivaraksa to claim to announce that they are conspiracy theorists, but it is asking that conspiracy be recognised as an already-accepted description of social phenomenon. Let us stand up and say that conspiracy is not a bolthole, a void that legitimate analysts need not explain.

Economics is concerning money so economic principles could be considered an oxymoron, but certainly economic principles are practical as is economics. So therefore macro-economic strategies have to be practical. That therefore means that a macro-economic policy must address the powerful. Buddhist economics could be considered as an awareness process for the powerful to be more compassionate, but that is in the realms of pipedream. If a powerful person becomes compassionate then that is good, but can they then do practical good in the macro-economic sphere?

Can macro-economic strategies be more compassionate? Let us examine the prevailing economic situation. We have ST and the Conquistadores - Speculators and Transnationals backed up by the IMF, World Bank, GATT and the WTO (Conquistadores nicked from Race and Class). Basically the ST and the Conquistadores adopt strategies for maximising profits and compassion is not an issue. Speculation - consider what happened in Argentina. Transnationals - child labour exploiting one group of kids after another. The Conquistadores then establish rules of trade, obey our rules or we won't trade with you - and they call this Free Trade. In Thailand now they want to use generic drugs to treat Aids patients because it is cheaper. But they have signed WTO so that they only use drugs from big companies. Compassionate?

Fundamentally compassion and the ST and the Conquistadores are not compatible. OK so you look for change. What happens to the powerful who has become compassionate? He is eschewed. Although these people are powerful they are not autocrats, the system has checks and balances. If someone turns away from the prevailing power direction they are not in an autocratic position to make changes, they might be powerful but they are not potentates.

Can you change from within? Work your way up and then make changes? Sorry, no. They have checks and balances for that. By the time you have climbed the ladder to possibly make an effect you have paid your allegiance in blood and have been totally compromised.

So what about caring capitalism? What does this mean? Does it mean that when they are making their profits they actually care how they do it? No, that is ethical investment. Caring capitalism means :-

When they have an abundance of profits they let some trickle down to the people so that the people can continue to delude themselves that they are in a caring society and it is just unfortunate that Africans kill each other over raw materials.

What does that mean? By the time they have reaped sufficient profits by exploiting one part of the world, they can take their excesses and give them to their people in the metropole so that their society is safe and those people can continue to provide the services for the lifestyle of the rich and famous.

In Buddhist terms the macro issue also tinges Right Livelihood. Can it be right to set macro policy that is not compassionate as a strategy to put one in a position to set policy later? Ends justify the means? No, that is Jack Bauer capitalism, not Buddhism.

At the same time we have to be careful that we become too involved. The world is Anikkha, as a delusion we have to be careful of involvement. Macro strategies within Dukkha have to be Dukkha, if sufficient micro strategies impact the macro it is great - that is unity. Top down within Dukkha will never yield compassion.

I woke up totally burdened with stress, it was as if my stomach was pregnant with it. Now I know I was particularly anal making issues like this mine but burdening myself with this 8 months after I have retired. How much more is there?

How much more of this is there to uncover? On and on I carry this misshapenness. Am I "not letting go" or is it that I just have to go through with all of it and for how long? And then to think how much do other people carry? And how do they deal with it? After all I was supposed to have been coping with this stuff well through meditation and Tai Chi all the way through. I was supposed to have been aware. Is it any wonder we are all so crazy in this world of wage slavery?

And then think of the deck of cards we call economics. It is all an image. Poor Gaia. She wakes up and sees these thoughts flying past. Let go, she wants. She observes. But some prick wakes up and sees the thought. He attaches to the thought, if I can make others attach to this thought I can make a killing. He invests his money and makes a few calls. More invest their money. The prick watches and waits �. and waits, and then sells. Others see him selling so they sell. And months later a factory closes, a weak man cannot face getting up another day to search for money and gives up. He runs to the bottle. That was the child's medicine drunk but he is partly dutiful and borrows. But he had borrowed before, and this time he must pay his debt back quickly. He delivers the drugs. And these drugs were tainted - which was why he was brought in. The idiot at the other end who had long time given up takes the drugs and that night was dead in a pile of his vomit.

And the next day Gaia watches another stray thought ass her by. And a prick who is part of her latches on, and his attachment is another game that he snorts up his nose later. And meanwhile up the line �.

Market forces. Snorting pricks, drunken consequences and life goes on. Gaia watches.

Dear A,

How are you?

In my previous diatribe I missed what I consider the most important observation concerning the conference. It concerned spirituality. It appeared that for some there was a token acknowledgement of spirituality, and for some a parity of spirituality with morality. Again I perceived this as a matter of intellect, an aspect of what I call academic ego. This academic ego fundamentally arises as a matter of academic training. For many this training has led to success, minimally as gaining qualifications, some as professional status, so behaviourally they then start to cling to academic process as being a means of learning. This academic clinging, that I referred to above as academic ego, prevents learning through meditation as it acts as a barrier to the clarity that comes through meditation. However that does not preclude meditators being academic as such clarity can often cut through the problems that exist in academia.

Some people at the conference referred to the inner strength of the spiritual path, this is most substantive. I am not sure what mainstream Buddhists refer to it as. Before being Buddhist I referred to it as soul, I still do although there is some debate in Buddhism on soul. It might also be considered some kind of hybrid of sila and panna. Sila is often translated as Morality but I prefer the translation of Integrity, or better, Moral Integrity, and panna is translated as Wisdom. Inner strength is that which comes from living with Moral Integrity and Wisdom.

Because the conference grew out of sufficiency economics, a term that has been used by the King to describe economics coming from the Middle Path (a substantial part of the 8-fold path is sila and panna), speakers felt they had to give academic acceptance of the spiritual element when talking. For me this was giving token acceptance to what is the essential nub of the development of Buddhist Economics, you need Inner Strength to fight the restrictions that are created by the power of the prevailing capitalist system. Even the small inroads into capital that was caused by the removal of Thaksin from office elicited an outcry from the bastions of capital and its town-criers.

How do people have the clarity to see what capital is doing?

How do people have the strength to fight what capital is doing?

How do people know what to do?

All of this comes from Inner Strength. Academic understanding does not give you that strength, how often have you seen academics turn from the struggle? There is an intellectual understanding that comes from study, but for that study to have substantive meaning it needs to develop into an Inner Understanding giving it Inner Strength. This is the essential spirituality necessary to change, and fight off, the prevailing system, and not a moral appreciation that greed is wrong.

Not so long this time - see you Tuesday 1.00pm.

Actions which are inhumane, damaging to the planet, are repeatedly carried out with varying degrees of commitment - blind greed of the extremely wealthy down to the jobsworth and the family-provider. This is not in any way theoretical, it is happening.

The word, theory, is fundamental to the sceptics and the STC. By implying that Mulder's cartel actually exists and implying that these men sit in their conference room drinking whiskey and designing such an appalling daily life for so many people makes the conspiracy appear less real. But it is not a theory, it is happening. focus on possessions: devotion to material wealth and possessions at the expense of spiritual or intellectual values Look at this definition of materialism, isn't that what is happening? In this world don't we work together to increase profits at the expense of spirituality or intelligent development. Let's try conspiracy:- plan to commit illegal act together: a plan or agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal or subversive action agreement among conspirators: the making of an agreement or plot to commit an illegal or subversive action These definitions fit together fine, except for the smoke-filled conference room. The people agreeing, the players, are the extremely wealthy with their blind greed, the jobsworth and the family-provider. The actions the players perform are subversive to the interests of humanity as a whole.

As the players are most people, what is the point in such a delineation? Because there are people who don't participate in this conspiracy - the virtuous. Can we consider our actions to be virtuous? Not are our intentions virtuous? Family provider. Are our actions virtuous?

Whilst most people who question the prevailing materialism gravitate towards the political left, this does not mean they are not part of the conspiracy. Whilst undoubtedly a political system that is based on equality and the greatest good for the greatest number of people would tend not to be damaging, they are not necessarily not-materialist. A fundamental tenet of Marxism is the redistribution of wealth, and this clearly works towards the greatest good, but it is still materialist just not personally greedy materialism - not accumulation. Whilst clearly being more beneficial for humanity as a whole, in the end it is still materialist. What about a tenet of redistribution of wealth and the reduction of wealth creation in line with the needs of humanity as a whole - sufficiency economics. There is no doubt that a proper consideration of existing wealth together with the needs of humanity would mean that policies of sufficiency economics would have this two-pronged approach:-

- Redistribution of existing Wealth - to help

- Reduction in productivity whose purpose is Wealth Creation

The above two bullets only touch on much meticulous and authoritative work done in the field of sufficiency economics. None of this can possibly happen in a world of conspiracy materialism, and can only begin to work when Virtue is valued. Sila.

The players:-

Speculators

Transnationals

Conquistadores

I have always liked the term conquistadores ever since I read it in Race and Class. At the time it stood for World Bank, IMF, and GATT. These lettered people are the armies of capital. They create the conditions that enable capital to move in and exploit. The main reason I like it is that it is a term which outs the prim and properness of the pinstripe. These pinstripes go to work make large amounts of money, and go home without getting their hands dirty. They claim they are Free Trade but organisations such as GATT are designed primarily to prevent Free Trade and to ensure that the existing imbalance of trade between the First and Third worlds continues. One set of letters that should now be considered conquistadorial is WTO.

Whilst I still have sympathies with the different organisations and platforms that I have previously worked with, I now only have allegiance to Nature and the Natural Path, and for the study and recognition of What is What.

These organisations have all been organised by humanity, and as such have rife ego-domination. The better ones of these organisations have right and proper democracy with appropriate representation and accountability, but with the world's dominant military and economic hegemony professing democracy such a term, per se, is meaningless.

In accord with Nature there are numerous issues that are being worked on throughout the world including some that are being worked on from within the hegemonic power. But the biggest and most significant imbalance in Nature at the present moment is caused by those who accumulate capital as wealth, mainly for the sake of it. These people are willing to exist in a chain that is started with their large bank balance and finishes with impoverishment, hunger and death. Such inhumanity is a major cause of suffering in the world today.

Inasmuch as these people are the cornerstone of capitalism then I consider myself an anti-capitalist, however I would be foolish to say I was against trade as trade is society's means of survival. I would be foolish to say I was against companies as there are many companies who provide a livelihood, without exploitation, for managers and workers alike. I would be foolish to say I was against money as I would never have earned a living as a teacher. But money has legitimacy in representing value for the trade of goods or skills. But none of the people involved in these scenarios are accumulating capital for the sake of it.

Inasmuch as banks provide a service for holding our money securely they are useful. Inasmuch as those same banks make a profit by loaning this money for purchasing a house provided the purchasers have the means to repay it, then banks are useful. But inasmuch as those same banks provide loans whose ultimate purpose can only be gaining repayments and ultimately possession of the guarantee - the credit economy is a source of much imbalance. But far worse than this has been the loans made to dictators and other forms of exploiters. Africa, as do other parts of the Third World, still suffers from an imbalance of debt repayments because their dictators squandered loans taken out in the name of the country, and the people are still repayign through taxes without having received any benefit. Yet international arbitration still maintains that the people of those countries must repay the debt. Why aren't they turning round to the banks and saying that the banks must stand the cost as it was an imprudent loan. Unfortunately most of those arbitrators are western and they know that their country's lifestyle would suffer if such a precedent were set.

And the arms trade, how heinous is that? It is barely understandable to consider the manufacture of weapons, but in such an imbalanced world the need for self-defence is legitimate. But is that the principle of government's armaments policies? Do governments control the arms industry? No. As we live in a world that professes to be free market (when it wants to be), then these companies need to create a market. In other words these companies' profits are made from human misery, but what is worse they create that human misery. A civil war is the opening of a new market. War itself has lost its democracy. Initially war depended on numbers. If a minority were oppressing a majority then they knew eventually that greater numbers would prevail - Natural survival. Nowadays these oppressing minorities need only purchase more powerful weapons. Independence struggles have been repeatedly defeated by those who control resources needed by the West, Natural checks and balances have been destroyed by this accumulation and misuse of wealth.

This Natural imbalance within nations has led to an increasing number of anonymous individual or cell attacks. Oppressed communities have spawned individuals who will commit suicide attacks, and these people are now grouped with the lunatic fringe who commit similar acts of violence. Whilst all acts of violence, whether oppression, individual insurgence, or the acts of the lunatic fringe, are to be discouraged as they are never a solution, at least the actions of an oppressed majority have some credence. How much the arms trade's marketing creates these conflicts we will never know. How much the arms trade lobbying in the corridors of power influences political decisions we will never know. But the very existence of an arms industry that is not 100% controlled by fair-minded governments is an abhorrence against Nature.

And what of conspiracies? I initially called this blog a conspiracy/politics blog because of the importance of the power exerted by these conspiracies. I have no wish to detract from that position. There are powerful people accountable only to their bank balances who have huge influence on the day-to-day lives of individuals, these people are certainly included in the STC, and eventually Nature will lessen their power.

But what of the people who propound conspiracy theories? Whether true or not are these people working in harmony with Nature? In fact far too often they become included within a lunatic fringe whose single issues is not governed by Nature's principles. Whilst supporting many of the positions I cannot support the individuals.

This moves now into the wider political arena. What about socialism? To answer this I only have to mention one name, Robert Mugabe. Listening to this man's socialist rhetoric in the 70s and 80s, one could only be attracted to the care he spoke of for his people and his country. And what is he doing now? (2007). Unfortunately I have met many socialists who to a much lesser extent are directed by power through socialism rather than caring through socialism.

But whilst caring through socialism is admirable if that caring is not placed within Nature's purview then their actions can be misguided. How many times are the interests of trade unionists working to re-allocate the wealth rather than recognising the need to work within the sufficient framework of Nature? How often were western trade unionists pitted against workforces of the Third World as the owners squeezed them into such an unenviable choice?

And as for communism, how many revolutions have moved beyond the stage of "dictatorship of the proletariat"? Whilst many of these dictatorships have made advances for their people, they still remain just that - a dictatorship. The Marxist-Leninist theory declares that at some stage the people take over but where has that happened? There is supposed to be some kind of metamorphosis where the people develop awareness after the shackles of exploitation have been removed, where has that happened? Whilst the ideals are closer to Nature the practice is that the process has been hijacked by egos - often well-intentioned egos.

Whilst a mass movement is more likely to adhere to Nature's principles, a disempowered mass movement usually has accepted redistribution of wealth as the yardstick meaning giving them more is the benchmark. This approach does not control ravages by industry against Nature, the principle needs to be redistribution of sufficient wealth within a Natural framework. At the same time an unaware mass movement is unlikely to accept such a principle, and therefore a vanguard concept needing to guide the ignorance is also doomed to failure. Socialism or communism as a Natural principle is positive but the socialist or communist politics that have come into existence in general do not create significant social change however hard some people try.

Nature's principle is not about subjugating individual will to collective desire but it is a recognition that collectively aware people will act in the interests of Nature. Such awareness often works sufficiently at the grass roots level but collectivising in organisations to combat the powers-that-be introduces its own egos. Whilst recognising the Marxist axiom that individualism will divide, it is necessary to accept Nature's principle that aware people will function appropriately within her ambit.

And before Chelsea - Porto. I remember that year because Porto effectively knocked out Man U. Everyone knocked Man U that year - perhaps deservedly, but Porto won the champions' league. Then Mourinho left, and the next season Porto were nowhere. And now I don't think they win in Portugal.

All the pundits say it - Mourinho has the ability to build and motivate a team. And he had done this at Chelsea. OK the dubious Russian had bankrolled the team but previous money had not won championships. I did not follow the earlier debacles but apparently Mourinho did not want Ballack or Shevchenko. Now both players are quality but do they fit into the team? I have no idea - I am not that football knowledgeable, however I am prepared to say that if that is what Mourinho felt then it is true for his team. Compare with Man U this year. Last season they were riding high and flowing as a team. Bring in players that Ferguson wanted and the team at the moment is a shadow of its flowing best last year. I am not a good judge but I think the team will flow towards the end of the season, but players they wanted still unsettle a team. What do players they don't want do?

Mourinho has a huge ego - and that must contribute to his success within an ego business. And it is quite clear the dubious Russian has an ego, and they clashed last season. Man U played better than previous years and Chelsea didn't quite shine - backroom politics. The team was unsettled because Mourinho was unsettled. The dubious Russian has to be obeyed, so he brought in a football director. Why? To unsettle Mourinho. Eventually he became so unsettled he had to leave.

And the new football director might not even be qualified?

They couldn't sack the special one, he had done too much. But he wasn't wanted any more - money had spoken. They had no option but to make his life unbearable until he chose to leave. This was the tin tack by any other name - a Very British sacking.

British football has just embraced a Thai, waiting to be prosecuted as a criminal, who insisted that the England under-21 manager be sacked before he took over at Man City. What is this world?

Here is a public example of how the UK sacks people - I know it has happened to me.

I don't know the law exactly but it all seems totally ludicrous and sexist. But of course the prostitutes won't complain. They get arrested and that is part of their trade - as is the awful aspect of pimping. Without johns they have no money. But how fair is the law? In other words how sexist is the law?

At all the various points of contact (phassa) the john is participating equally. If the law is designed to stop the sexual act, the john is participating. If the law is designed to stop the sale of the woman's body then the john is participating by paying the money at the time of transaction.

In the solicitation the john has arrived at the place where the prostitute advertises her wares. The two have engaged in conversation, and the john has agreed to pay money for the product -sex. At this point where the john agrees, the prostitute has committed a crime.

How can the law in prostitution become so corrupt? Except of course who is making the laws?

If the issue is that the man cannot control himself and needs protecting then all prostitutes should be arrested because the very thought of prostitution would bring these uncontrolled men onto the streets.

What are the laws on prostitution designed to do?

The only answer can be - public relations. The law is putting on a show that says it is trying to curb prostitution when of course that is the last that the men who make the laws want. After all weren't the johns of the Streatham luncheon vouchers' queen judges?

But where does this money go that you have earned? It doesn't remain idle, it gets spent - it is invested. As soon as the money enters the investment market, ie going beyond trading for items, money takes on an ethical character - OR NOT. This is the issue of this blog entry - ethical money.

I claim to live a moral life - right livelihood, but a significant part of my life, the most significant engaged part of my life, is not moral - my money. I have sat back and accepted that I need money to survive; I have accepted that the minimal investments I have the potential to control are a necessary evil, and that they can be invested by others as they provide the money to live as a necessary evil. Buy why accept such impotence?

Let me examine my money. Offshore current bank account, state pension, teachers' pension, international teachers' pension, saving funds.

Which of these do I control? Offshore current bank account, international teachers' pension, saving funds. I can choose where the money goes in these areas of my finance.

What happened in my choice in these areas? The bank account just happened and I kept it for convenience. The international teachers' pension and saving funds were specified by an adviser, supposedly optimising profits. But why do I let my decisions be so passive in an area of such importance in life? In other words why do I let my money be invested on the market without any form of control?

This is a personal problem. Because of my reaction to my father's misdirection, to say the least, of allowing money to come before humanity, I have in life on a number of occasions accepted that being humane comes before any consideration of money. Together with Western disenfranchisement this reaction has allowed me to slip out of control of my money.

It is now time to control what I can. There is an ethical bank, Triodos, but it is not as convenient as the offshore account. But I have my living expenses bank account in Thailand so I don't need the offshore one - anyway they are now charging exorbitant rates to keep the account. This in itself is part of insidiousness. The War on Terror is the popular expression of increasingly repressive policies in the West, especially financial. It has increased xenophobia, and now sensible people are following xenophobic practices as a consequence of financial regulation. Ecology Building Society does not accept overseas investment because of financial regulations concerning address authentication; this is simply institutional racism formed by legal advice grounded in self-protection - watching your back. How humane is this approach? The offshore account has simply taken advantage of the financial restrictions to increase charges as I don't have the flexibility to create a new bank account.

What about the international pension? On a money level it is a waste, after the fund managers are paid I am getting bank rate. Where is it invested? I do not control that. I could investigate but it would not be invested ethically positive, even if it doesn't support the arms trade. One of the Savings Funds is the same - little more than bank rate, and the two funds that provide share income are financially useful.

But why not establish shares or funds that provide income? Why not control the shares so that the share income comes ethically? Such ethical shares don't require continuous maintenance as they ask for them to be medium or long-term. Once share income has reached a certain level it can be re-invested, but that doesn't happen daily. Stocktrade offers a cheap way of purchasing shares, not requiring the services of a broker, so if I setup an account with them I can buy my own shares.

I am not sure how it works but Stocktrade are connected with Brewer Dolphin brokers who run a Matched Bargain Market. Certain ethical shares, CafeDirect.org, Triodos Renewables and Ethical Property Company, are not available on the stock market but need some direct arrangement through Brewer Dolphin. A little more interaction but hopefully not a big issue.

State and Teachers' pension withstanding, Triodos bank and ethically investing with Stocktrade has much more Right Livelihood attached. This Triodos gif sums up why.

In answer to the question on political systems, CHANGE IN WORLD GOVERNANCE, I have put forward the notion that democracy only needs "tuning"; that was in the context of DIRECT PRODUCTS OF THE DOMINANT LIBERAL CAPITALIST DEMOCRACIES. I also maintained that politics was an issue of power and not ideology, but both positions lack a certain level of explanation.

Let me bring this political argument back into the field of macrobiotics. Many legitimate arguments are raised against big food companies and government agencies connected to them. I would like to consider how interconnected these arguments are with the political system.

Let us begin with the individual who becomes involved with mb, many such make the decision because of health recommendations of a life-threatening variety. The foods most people eat can lead to cancer, similarly our lifestyles contribute to the state of our ill health. Some people make the decision to try to be healthy, others ignore such advice at their peril.

But what about the decisions made by the people who work within the food industry, what decisions do they make? Ultimately they make only one decision, I must earn a living to look after my family. All people in the food industry have to have come into contact with the various health arguments raised around foods, additives, preservatives etc. Can a worker at Bigfood with Preservatives inc.(BP) change the product line? Can they take the preservatives out of the can? No. Can they go home and say to their partners and children "I am sorry, family, we are going to starve because our foods contain preservatives and I won't be a part of producing it." To take such a position s/he would be seen as a fool. Best case scenario, that person looks for another job; we'll come back to that approach later.

One might then logically ask, what about BP's decision makers? So the CEO of BP reads the latest mb magazine, or hears an Oprah discussion? Does he go to work and examine his company's practices and decides that he cannot have additives in his food? How can he? He would lose his job and lifestyle. At best he might placate himself and others that the company would go under if the only foods they sold were healthy, what about the families of his workers might also be a benevolent position he might take?

So effectively the workers of BP from CEO on down are contributing to the downward spiral of ill-health endemic in modern western society and its influence.

Is this a political decision? Not at all, this is just the normal contemporary human action of earning a living; the system for most people is earning a living!

Now BP's CEO is compromised as are all the workers, and once that compromise is in place there are certain consequences. BP requires certain governmental actions (or inaction) to occur. A benevolent government might turn round and say all foods must be healthy, or more feasibly at the moment - no more preservatives. Now the CEO of BP has research workers and therefore they all know that the company cannot continue in the same way without preservatives, so they need to influence the political process to ensure the government does not pass such a regulation. The government legitimately needs research to counter the argument of removing preservatives, so BP's researchers provide some research and BP funds independent studies to produce the conclusions the government can work with. New regulations do not happen.

Personally I would argue that government needs to override such considerations but that would mean that the government would have to override the interests of BP and all its workers, and BP and all its workers are the people the government represents. And all those people have a lifestyle they want to maintain, a family they have to look after.

Simply if BP exists then a government will support the existence of unhealthy foods, whatever the political system.

From the CEO on down the people are financially trapped into creating unhealthy foods. If a typical worker makes the decision that they don't want to be a part of it any more, what choice do they have? Different industries? Defence? Plastics? Oil? If we look at all the industries connected with our lifestyles then we can see that at root they are contributing to our environmental problems, personally or globally. The source of our problems is not only the big business, BP, but all the BP's in the different industries.

But the problems associated with the economies of scale don't stop there. Once that was accepted then profiteering sought other outlets leading to the speculation on the markets; now the manipulation of the capital by the speculators drives much that goes on in the world of business.

But all of this cannot happen without one component, the consumer. If the consumer does not pay for the products of the industries, then Bigfood, Bigplastics, Bigoil etc do not exist. So what can we do? Make them smaller.

And this is not as silly as it sounds because these industries only work by economy of scale. Examine individual lifestyles. How do we consume? Is our consumption necessary and sufficient? Are the health decisions we make concerning ourselves similarly applied in other arenas? How do our lifestyles affect the environment for instance? How many of society's technology demands are necessary? Or are they driven by marketing? Look at the absurdness of "mobile phones", the marketing has created social interaction - a lifestyle. Marketing drives technology drives consumerism, use our minds and step outside of this trap for the long term sake of society, environment etc.

Remove this vicious circle of marketing-consumerism and the demands for big business become less and less, and then their influence on government will start to dwindle. As people make lifestyles more sufficient then they will start to participate more in the decisions that affect their lives because the power will shift from the big money people back towards the individual. A politician makes decisions based on the electorate, change the way the electorate interacts with the politician and the government changes. The democratic system is about how we participate. At the moment our participation is driven by consumerism and the need to earn money for that consumerism, once lifestyles are changed then governance through democracy will change with it. As a whole people get what they deserve.

After writing the last email I decided to read Small is Beautiful, and have posted this as I thought it relevant. On the first page E F Schumaker wrote "We must therefore construct a political system so perfect that human wickedness disappears", and he later on the first page asserts that it is "widely held that if a person is bad it is the problem of the system". He had preceded this asserting that humanity mistakenly believes we have conquered the problems of production. This error arose during the last three or four centuries with changes in Western man's attitude to nature. "Modern man does not experience himself as a part of nature but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it."

My own attempts at relationships have always been doomed to failure, and that is because of my approach to them. I was seeking something from them, initially cosmic love, and then a comfortable home with comforts of the body. But what was missing from this? Children. My main woman knew this. She wanted a child by me because she knew the child would tie me down. I thought this was just instinctive but when I combine it with her jealousy of the schoolkids I now know it was personal. She knew my love for children was satisfied at school. And this was why my relationships were doomed to failure, I did not want children.

So take this further. The comfortable home with the comforts of the body. This was not what a woman is supposed to provide, it is only part. The woman is home and mother, or rather mother and home. The home is the domain of the mother, this is the natural way. So when I talk misogynistically I am not hating women, I am just recognising that in the home I know whose domain it is. The purpose of the home is to bring up children. This was something I never wanted so truthfully I could never have a home with a woman. Of course I could and did try to have women living with me to give me the comforts, but they were always doomed to failure because I never knew what the home was for. Now I do I live alone because I want my home to allow me to follow my journey, and where do the comforts of home fit in with that.

Thoughts of this might be sparked by listening to Isabelle Allende at TED, her tales of grief of some women in this world, her cry for feminism and her call for feminising the male rulers of the world. This now doesn't ring true to me. First and foremost a woman's role is in the home, running the home and bringing up children. Not only is this role important it is the most important evolutionary role, and we are here for evolution - that is Nature. Feminism missed the target. Feminists were miseducated as are all western people, so their proper dissatisfaction led them to demand equal power in the unnatural western system. What was the proper dissatisfaction? In the West Nature can see that the home is not the centre of life, and Nature fears for the upbringing of children.

Let us consider the stereotype for men - hunter-gatherer. What is he hunting and gathering for? The woman, the family, the children. Hence why it was so easy for me to mock the black girls. Because my misogynist jokes were based on natural roles. Women did seek men to provide money for their homes, that is Natural. Contemporising this role, men go out to work to provide for women to run the homes. The error of feminism is that they knew something was wrong, but because of their miseducation saw that the error was that men had social power and women should have that as well. And so feminism has furthered the demise of the western home, and this ultimately will lead to the destruction of western society. Unfortunately the West is reeking that destruction on the world first so whilst western society is being destroyed it is bringing down the rest of the world with it.

Isabelle Allende as a fighter for the rights of women focuses her energies on the appalling behaviour of me within these traditional situations. Men have never accepted that their role as provider is secondary to that of the woman's child-rearer and home-maker. Men have lost acceptance of the importance of the home of their secondary but important evolutionary role as child-rearer. The influence of the male and female in the home provides stability for the next generation of children, but contemporarily in the West always the focus is outwards - on society. The man has unnaturally appropriated control in the home so that the home is seen as a platform for building society. The home is there to provide the man with comforts so that he can go into the world and do wonderful things. The measure of the man is in the world and not in the home. And this is the error of feminism. The measure of the woman is in the home and the role of feminism is to reassert in the roles of men that their primary role is for the home.

Now this has phenomenal implications for society. Change society from the striving capitalist-consumerism into a place where the home is the priority. Think about that. The home is the priority that government is working for, that businesses are working for, that humanity is working for. This is such an insight, it has so many implications - fascinating.

Let's go back to Isabelle Allende. She was talking about feminising men but because of her miseducation she saw this as a kind of making men more feminine but the focus still remained the prevailing power of society. She saw some notion that if men allowed their feminine side then somehow political decisions would be more socially-conscious. Sadly I think the reverse has happened. Women, who have been influenced by feminism, have begun to focus their energies away from the home, and into the power arenas of men. But instead of feminising men as Allende wants the power arena has corrupted these women and they have lost the feminine focus of the home. Thatcher was one of the world's most powerful women, and look at the lack of caring of the Thatcher generation that she provided the infrastructure to produce. Equally there are many dissatisfied miseducated career women who wake up in their 30s to find that they have no home with children. Their dissatisfaction is Natural, as women their maternal instincts are telling them they have gone wrong. But sadly this is often not recognised for what it is, a need to reassert the home, and it becomes fuel for further alienation and the promotion of careerism. Entertainment is showing this lack but it is not fully recognising the social implications. Meryl Streep created that horrendous Miranda character in the fashion industry, Glen Close the horrendous Patty lawyer in Damages, they could both be modelled on Thatcher. Yet neither are highlighting the natural need to change the emphasis to the home.

People are envious of happy homes. Peasant communities are happy, do we really know why? Sure there is a contentment of working close to the land. But that does not tell the half of it. In peasant communities the children are happy. This is the measure, this is the by-line. Joyful children make for pleasant communities, and this shows the balance of Nature. The peasant farmer works in the field and wants his food ready after a hard day's work, but the emphasis is not on the work itself but that the work provides the food for the family so that the children can grow up happily. This is the emphasis that Nature gave birth to feminism for, but the feminist women had been miseducated and lost so their minds turned to social power for its recognition.

What is right about feminism is that the horrendous excesses of power need to be controlled. Capitalism has corrupted the home into a nightmare of consumerism. The children are not happy and they express their unhappiness in appalling behaviour at home being demonstrated as material demands for toys and then later fashion. These demands are fed by the capitalist model, and like a friend once said "the lives of people in Cameroon are predicated on the whims of the western child's desire for chocolate". Western children are not happy. Western children turn their homes into misery. Mothers and fathers work excessively to bolster the consumerism this increasing the dissatisfaction in the home. The children go to school, not to be educated but to create further mayhem.

Consumerism did not create the lack of home but vice versa, capitalism was created by the lack of focus on the home - Nature's driving unit. Nature drives society by evolution, and evolution is the process of creating children - the next generation. Nature's focus is on the children, Mother Earth, the role of men is secondary to this - providing the conditions for this evolutionary role. This means not only providing within the home but providing a proper society for evolution. Governance for the benefit of the home. Welfare for the home is the priority, but good education is a close second. Consumerism is not a target as it is not of evolutionary benefit to the children, but trading and skills are necessary for obvious reasons. Research and development will still occur but controlled by the ethos created by the home. Would Oppenheimer have created the bomb if all around were emphasising the home, the homes of the children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I gave an incomplete answer. I discussed the nature of ideas, and how intellectuals give ideas equal weighting because ideals give academics employment. Working towards what Nature intends is the fundamental proposition, and all ideas for change need to comply with that. Whilst I have included an imperative in this statement, it is a logical rather than judgemental assertion, we are part of Nature and following Nature is our nature if our egos don't divert us.

Recognising ideas within Nature's function is a good starting point. With the academic imperative of proliferation of ideas for ideas' sake (the academic job creation scheme), there is a need to determine a reality, a relative strength to ideas that are propounded. How does one judge ideas to give them strength? Use the tool Nature has given us - insight. An idea is not there to have substance because it can be understood, it has insightful substance because it is important to Nature - to life on earth in all its manifestations. If an idea is simply casuistry, then why bother with it?

Of course ideas that fall into the idealistic category have inbuilt flaws, but there is strength in such flaws. Consider the idea that underlies this blog entry - that we follow Nature, what does that mean? Who am I to answer that? As life on earth we might begin to answer that question, but only if we address it. Unfortunately our combined minds have the attributes of individual minds - confused minds with confusing thoughts. Do we attempt to understand the nature of our individual minds? Do we look at the possibility that we are only one mind? Sadly many people are far from this understanding, and this shows greatly in the way ideas proliferate in our society, and in particular academically . Ideas proliferate as do our individual thoughts in a continual barrage of mental chattering. Is it necessary to grab onto all ideas that come up? Some claim it is. Intellectuals who have an idea that they consider is unique grasp at this idea as a means of personal survival (the academic job creation scheme). But is the uniqueness of an idea a measure of its worth? No it needs to be measured against the yardstick of following Nature. Otherwise it is ego.

But the other accusation of being idealistic is impracticality. As already stated the measure of an idea is if it follows Nature. As such its measure is not whether governments, business or even whether a majority of individuals want to apply the ideal. One aspect of the description idealistic is usually that the person agrees in a forlorn "if only". However if such ideas can be practised on a personal level, then the issue is not "if only", the issue is that of individual determination - discipline. In this world of dukkha, if an idea is easily applied it is likely that its application is not meaningful. Applying ideas is a determined process, it requires disciplined personal effort.

But what are the consequences of applying such ideas personally? Nature will find its way of rewarding. People who follow Paths claim it is joyful, all say this. There are drawbacks but joy is ever-present; this joy is Nature's reward. Before following such Paths the drawbacks take the centre stage of the unsure, but applying Nature's ideas will bring joyous reward.

What about the social implications of such idealism? By applying Nature's ideas we alter the group psyche slightly, the more who apply the more the psyche is altered. This is democracy at work, and it has its reflection in the democratic political system that we are a part of. As our ideas are applied we come to learn of the inadequacy of government that represents us, of government that exists because of our vote. We can use our vote to make change slowly but surely. But it takes time, so be humble. After all we have Nature's joy for following Nature, that is more than many have.

"I am undecided how well my journey is going. Overall I feel comfortable, and if asked say I am happy. But occasionally inside there are doubts, but the trouble is I cannot decide what is the source of the doubt. How would deep dissatisfaction show itself - in doubt? How would the ego try and disturb me - doubt?

Actually I know it is the ego, because my ego tells me there should be more meaning to my life than blogs. But I know that is not necessarily true. I have spent 30 years banging my head against schools that don't want to change, and are happy to be the embodiment of owners' profiteering and teachers' career egos.

So a sensible question is "am I stagnant?", and the answer is a definite no. But the me of old, my remembered ego, keeps challenging me to say "am I doing enough?" That is quite interesting to recognise how much I have slowed and how comfortable I am with that. When I was working and I connected with Nature, I only had a short time to use the connection so it was enjoyably a bit frenzied, now I have all the time I want and take it slow.

Every so often I think I should try, but the conditions are never right. People do not ask to learn, I don't know why some bother. So why bother myself? Learn for myself, and if someone is genuinely interested they will find someone somewhere - I am always available if I can be found.

My email with DF went a similar way. We are far apart, and I began discussing education from the point of view that education for education's sake is real and careerists ruin it. He has never left the UK teaching system, associated me with teachers in the UK, and began to say my position was absurd. No common ground, I gave up.

Maybe there is a need for humility. This is difficult. I know humility is important but then I do have stuff to offer. Where is the balance? Obviously I don't have it right now as no-one is asking me!! But my journey is primary, and not massaging egos of others; maybe that will change."

Firstly there is a clear ego error. "How would deep dissatisfaction show itself - in doubt? How would the ego try and disturb me - doubt?" This is the ego trying to pretend it is the same as depth. If there was deep dissatisfaction it would show by insight a new path to follow, it would not create doubt. Deep dissatisfaction would be sure and certain, and would show me this. Not clear thinking in the email.

I am satisfied with the journey I am taking but it is far from finished. Further if there was a need to change Nature would tell me in no uncertain terms. It is also compassion that creates doubt, but not a level of doubt that requires change �. as yet. Compassion for the state of humanity, and then the ego steps in and says I can help. And the answer is that I can and can't. Better explained, Nature has given me the understanding that has the potential to create change for the better but I can't because I have tried for so long with only limited success.

And where was that success? In teaching, helping others in teaching. Sure I taught, and that gave value to the students, but I also gave value to the people who asked when working. But what was the context - the work situation and coping with it? It was not directly spiritual. My ego wants it to be directly spiritual, but maybe that is not my role. Does that mean my work life is still a possibility? No. That has finished, that context of passing on is in the past. I have moved forward, and in so doing have altered that environment. However it does suggest that a vehicle for passing on spiritual awareness is the workplace, it does not just have to be the pulpits of direct religion and spiritual teachers. After all people talking from pulpits has occurred throughout my life - and long before, yet social evolution has been negative during my life. If people are ready to learn there are plenty of books and scriptures, but those in work are maybe willing to learn but the pressures prevent them. Having contact with spirituality in the workplace can maybe open their eyes.

The more I think about it the more there is a need for spirituality in the workplace. It is the workplace that creates the problems, it is the workplace that government focuses on - as opposed to the home. How can the focus be changed? From without? From the home people can move spiritually. Through reading or institutional religions they can become aware of spiritual needs, but the pressures in the workplace pull them in the opposite direction.

The western workplace has worsened in my lifetime. Whilst there was always a hierarchy of power and an ethos of money, it was not as nasty as it is now. When I started (outside teaching) contentment was recognised as a source of good work practice, even in business situations. Now that has changed, and not just in teaching. Aggression and power battles dominate. Television depicts this through unnecessary nasty personal practice. Whilst management pours out the words of a healthy workplace the practice is not healthy, yet the money ethos has increased - and at any cost. Words as elsewhere have replaced the practice. In teaching caring words have replaced the teaching, in the workplace it is the same. With the government increasingly moving the emphasis from the home to the workplace, the balance of Nature is being moved. Nature wants the workplace to be addressed.

This is also a radical position as is the emphasis on the home. Bringing spirituality into the workplace means that the ethos of money is not sufficient there. People need to bring their spirituality with them to work. How hard is this! But as Nature's power is more and more being imbalanced by the power exerted by corporations in their workplace, the workplace needs to be targeted.

How is this to be done? Who knows? At present workplace spiritual practice would be accepted if the profits were increased, but this is asking more. It is asking for humanity in the workplace. It is asking that the dichotomy of work and humanity not be accepted. How many good people put on a workplace mask? What actions do they then perform through this mask? Such shame! Whilst being sympathetic to the pressures the lack of truth and humanity in such masks is creating such damage. This is asking to drop the masks and find a more acceptable human face in the workplace.

Why not begin by denouncing the "Anne Robinson" mentality? This lady became successful following a mediocre career by vilifying guests - be nasty to be successful. The mentality of nastiness she shows is typified in many other TV shows where basic inhumanity to man is seen as virtue if profits ensue. When I was young TV often fought such approaches, now it creates them. It is saddening to watch.

Having discussed social responsibility this does not alter the question I started in the friend's email - what am I doing about it? There is undoubtedly much more I have to learn, these social issues of balance between home and workplace and what governance is doing about it has only just emerged. What more is there to emerge? Teaching was enough of a giving role and yet how little did they let me give. Whilst humility is an issue, what Nature wants me to do and when will happen; that is far more the prerequisite.

So is there a working-class struggle possible in the first world? And the answer is yes, but it is not the industrial base where such struggles can be effective; it is amongst the professional working-class. So we must first define the term professional working-class, or rather redefine it. Consider my own profession, teaching. Teaching is an essential service industry in a first world nation, without education the class structure and capitalism cannot be maintained. But are the teachers owners of production? Of course not. So in Marxist terms the teacher is a member of the proletariat, the working-class. But the confiscations of western capitalist education has aligned the teacher to a separate class - the middle class, and this class definition has no meaning economically in Marxist economics.

But how does the teacher affect the profits of capitalism? Directly they do not, as the product of their labour, the educated student, is not sold for profit directly. However if the current generation of children are deprived of education, society as a whole will suffer, and the first world of capitalism will become unstable as they will not have the educated staff to maintain the existing professional staffing infrastructure that maintains the capitalist system in favour of the ruling class. At the same time any effective action amongst teachers must include all schools, state and public (public and private), because this two-tier education system still effectively produces the next generation of the ruling and working classes.

So how could teacher action be effective? You might note that there has been a number of industrial-style teacher action that has done little for no-one. The teacher action was token, sufficient to be harangued in the media but insufficient to disrupt the social milieu. And that is the point, all-out teacher action could seriously damage the stability of society if all the students were out on the street. One major function of state schools, conceivably the major socialy-valued function, is that of daycare and youthful occupation of time. If these students were at home for a long period, homes would become vandalised, shops destroyed, parents would need to stay at home because unruly kids were damaging their own homes. Teachers have a powerful weapon in terms of the strike, but they have never used it effectively.

But unless this strike was used in public schools as well the strike would not be an effective weapon of class struggle as it would only be affecting the children of the non-ruling class. However it could be an effective weapon for the improvement of education. Actions that are carried out for the increase in salaries might produce some increase in wage but they also alienate the parents whose children are less educated. When you consider the alienation of parents from teachers that has resulted from a designed strategy since the 70s, such strikes would ultimately not be constructive. Unless the strikes were over education - over a Charter for Education.

Such a charter would not be difficult to work out. Teachers' groups sit down with parents' groups and determine the best way of educating the children looking at all issues including job prospects and access to higher education, and make these the demands of the Charter. With the action being based around the Charter, and that Charter being seen in the interests of parents, the action will be effective in isolating the government, the business interests and the media.

Similar approaches could be worked out in other middle-class professions, work out Charters that will show how their sector could be overhauled in the interest of the people. But I am not sure how idealistic I am being with other professional sectors, although I think in the teaching sector a Charter for Education is viable - however unlikely.

But the real need to revisit Marxism is to examine the use of money. The Marxist analysis I learned - I only learned a little, was an examination of profit margins and where their profit margins went to - the owner of the plant or the producers of labour. It was these profit margins the political action was fought over. In the first world this battle is lost, but what has emerged is a financial system that needs people to be working not just to produce gods to make a profit from but to earn income that is used as the basis of a financial system that exploits the world. The first world incomes underpin the finance sectors of banks, insurance and other finance institutions. Without these regular first world incomes creating a velocity of circulation within the hegemonic countries these finance sectors would not be able to exploit financially the rest of the world. What would happen if this money was not circulated in the purchase of products within the material societies the incomes are earned? What if the money was not spent but put into deep green investments such as Triodos and the businesses they invest in? What if these professional people voluntarily reduced their standard of living by not getting the biggest mortgage their income will allow, by not buying the latest gadgets that technology markets? What if these professional people reduced the number of hours they worked so that their nominal income was clearly less? How would this affect the finance sectors whose credit economy was based on multiples of this professional income?

And what would happen to the lifestyles of these professional people? They would be spending less but does less spending mean less happiness? Their houses would be smaller costing less to maintain, would that be important, would that affect their happiness? What would they do with the increased time? They would not have the money so they would have to seek happiness in things which do not cost - nature or spiritual development. Or they could get involved in charity works - helping those less fortunate - creating happiness for themselves.

The socialist model was ultimately based on an unwritten academic premise - it was based on an analysis of money and indirectly equated increased ownership of money with happiness. Analysing that relationship and recognising that happiness does not come from that ownership frees up many workers in the first world. Seeking happiness through activities that do not require spending not only increases their own happiness but also withdraws the money from the finance sector whose existence depends on that income, having the knock-on effect of creating happiness globally as the transnationals cannot then exploit.

The CPBI - Conspiracy of Powerful Business Influence.

Who are they?

I don't know.

Why write this?

Because I can describe how the CPBI functions.

Is this an outing?

It cannot be for these faces are continually renewable. Kill one, and a similar face will fulfil the same job.

What do we do?

OK so I am back to conspiracy again, and have even given the conspiracy a title - Conspiracy of Powerful Business Influence. But this is a fairly pointless exercise as targeting. There are certain individuals who would definitely be known as members of the CPBI - Dick Cheney for example. The more you read of the 9/11 conspiracy - I haven't read much, you become aware that some form of money cartel that links the Bush family with the Bin Ladens, and is significant in the field of oil. There are other money cartels that meet - who have names - I believe one is Carlton but I am not sure. But outing these as examples would not resolve the problem even with their removal - assassination, because they would soon be replaced. Conspiracy theories tend to want to talk of plots conceived by men, but they are not they are processes enacted by men. These greedy men are not of high intellect, they are just heartless men of zero morality who use all their compassion for self interest, they re-invest their unhappiness in the world, and cause unhappiness for others by influencing the world that their unhappiness is the norm. They are the officers of the conquistadores of dukkha.

The aim of these men is to accumulate wealth for wealth's sake. It is not necessarily the richest men who are active in CPBI, but rich men benefit and are connected. The richest men have accumulated the most capital, and they could influence the CPBI if they renounced claim to their money and gave it away. But it would take such actions amongst many rich men and that is unlikely to happen - we can always hope.

What is the currency - the modus operandi - of the CPBI? Influence. They influence decisions. They influence governments. They influence policy. They get their own way through influence. Influence is very powerful because most people do not stand firm with their morality. At a low level career is a good tool for influence. If the boss wants something done they make their views clear, and then people who want more money and career do what the boss wants. It is not necessary to give a direct instruction or rarely a direct threat, bosses just say. Their power influences people, and people respond.

This insidious currency of influence is all-pervasive and powerful. And it is important because it allows the purveyors of influence to claim that they did not instruct leaving them supposedly free from culpability. In our scientific world of proof this is so important because when it is scientific proof the i's and t's have to be provenly completed, and these men don't leave such proof. Their influence will be clearly discernible but if they leave proof then they will soon leave the CPBI as being too gross. The influence of these men is subtle and powerful but is not measurable. Direct actions cannot be attributed to them.

But they carry the burden of morality. Morality does not measure in terms of money or direct action alone, it measures in terms of influence as well. How does an individual influence the good of the world? However Nature dishes out its justice - Kamma etc., these men will pay. But that is not a resolution of the world's dukkha.

And there can be no global resolution. I do not know the Divine Plan of Nirvana, if many gain Nirvana does the world of Dukkha improve? These are matters beyond my understanding. But efforts at global solution have no future. Suppose an organisation did become powerful enough to threaten the interests of the CPBI then the CPBI would exert influence, up until that moment organisations can exist. Whilst people in these organisations are generally good-hearted, if their objective is global domination by good then the CPBI influence will prevent that. That CPBI influence has no morality, and can lead to all actions including murder.

However good-hearted people need not be concerned for being of good heart they gain in two ways. In this world and through Karma. In this world good people are happy, helping others produces happiness. Unfortunately especially in the West this happiness is countered by their own greed - usually for their own power and influence. Instead of being satisfied with good alone, they might want global good. Such global good brings them into contention with the CPBI and the CPBI has more power to give them unhappiness. So there is an optimal level of doing good which keeps people under the CPBI radar akin to Small is Beautiful.

Be satisfied with happiness, work for happiness, talk about happiness to many people, but if you are successful in creating an organisation for happiness that comes under the sphere of influence of the CPBI then unhappiness will result.

And does happiness come with money? No it comes from having good influence.

I was reminded of the term "wasta" that I met in Oman. I remember the derision hiding outrage amongst western colleagues at this practice. Oman was pleasant family life, a lifestyle that I thought unnatural because of public segregation of sexes, so any advantage of influence would come to family. In truth wasta was gross as ability to perform was never a criterion in situations wasta was applied, but then in the west caring was never a criterion when influence is used - which then is gross?

But does this need to be the case?

Take the bunk out of the alternative health. Eating healthily means not eating processed. Start with that.

Of course the problem with health is that people turn to alternative health when BigFood and BigPharma health have failed them. By that time people will usually have a degenerative disease requiring drastic measures, thus possibly meriting all the supplements. But the real issue that needs to be accessed in the mainstream is the issue of proper food, the food hat Nature provides.

This brings us again to the home. The home has been lost as a unit. The house functions as a place to sleep, and with the lack of emphasis on child-evolution other important platforms of the home don't apply. One is that of the cook determining the health of the family. This was of course broken down by the feminist movement's reaction to male oppression, but because feminists were a product of our miseducation system they never saw some of the values that women had gained through the centuries in the home.

Women determined the health of the family through the foods they cooked, the meals they prepared. These preparations were passed down through the ages by matriarchal lineage, grandmother to mother to daughter. Old wives' tales - OK, this is a derogatory expression, but there is wisdom in the tales. This was an undocumented process. It had no glamour. It had no social standing. It did not have earth-shattering impact on global dynamics. It was a small family-based necessity that the West is now losing. It has already gone in most of the cities, and with urbanisation the villages are losing it as well.

This cooking did not involve supplements, exotic herbs for health, exotic products as staples. It was local veg, fruits, grains and beans that they cooked up to feed their families. I am not advocating a return to poverty, but whilst these people were poorer their health was relatively better bcause they used healthy food - rather than poisoned processed BigFood supermarket convenience. This is the clear message for health - home-cooked. local fruit, grains, beans and veg. All the supplements and alternative practices might improve on this home-start for those who are ill but they are not necessary for a typically family diet. Return to local, return to home.

Politically the two most important professions have been undervalued socially, health and education, as demonstrated by salaries, unless there is clear profit - especially in medicine. State medicine which has been politically undermined, underfunded and appropriated by the business classes through hospital administrations has never had the money it has needed to fund national health care. State education used to be that way. Teachers were never paid. Standards dropped as student behaviour worsened. Now teachers are effectively paid danger money and stress money, probably to compensate for their lack of retirement years if actuarial statistics are to be believed.

But with the breakdown in home health and evolution the state machineries cannot cope. People's health is worse as they are not on the traditional healthy diets. Education is worse as the students lack the solidity of a proper home, and without such strength scholastic education cannot add to the education already received at home.

This process started on false grounds. The arrogant miseducated felt they could do better than parents so gradually they undermined the parents' authority by accumulating that responsibility to the state. This started to undermine the home. Seeing the financial benefits in state responsibility business moved in from 1979 onwards, and started to privatise what the state was doing. So now the home is not the source of health and education but fundamentally business is, our health and education is run in the hands of those whose underlying morality is "how much profit can be made?"

It is time for the home to take back that responsibility. Women, or women-substitutes, rightfully take up the central figure in life, the runner of the home, the organiser of health and education. Society must facilitate this role ensuring that the home is the central locus of western society, that the office and workplace become what it should be, necessary stops to provide goods for the home and governance for the home and when the home fails.

Health must return to the food tradition, knowledge passing through the female lineage of generations, not focused on the cheapest bargain at the supermarket, but focused on the way to provide natural healthy food for families, for our next generation of children.

This focus needs to recognise that women need time to prepare this healthy food, instead of the current western substitute where supermarkets apply poisons in order to make the food convenient - take-home. Processed cannot create health in our children. As for restaurants they are governed by consumerism. A restaurant has difficulty turning round and saying "eat this it is healthy never mind the taste". Restaurants have to provide food that appeal to the taste buds, which have been damaged by sugar pollution and by poisons that have been applied in the needs of profits and in the demands of preservation and fast food necessary to have two production units in the family. Eschewing women from being home-makers, from evolving our children, was a master stroke of capitalism, and it was carried out by women themselves through a movement that saw itself as anti-capitalist. Women and men need to stand up and say it is the family that counts. It is the family government policy should enable rather than the profits of business. It is men and women who need to turn round and say the home is the priority, and hopefully the tradition that our women bore has not been forgotten.

Return to local, return to home.

To understand what happened in the US with the sub-prime market, watch this video from Brasscheck TV:-

Interestingly enough the system, through Eliot Spizer and the attorney generals, could have prevented this, but George Bush stopped it:-

Eliot Spitzer as found at Brasscheck TV

Here is another example of how the economic establishment engineered this crisis to consolidate global financial control:- Brooksley Born Quite clearly George Bush is connected to the real movers and shakers. They were aware of the car salesmen in the sub-prime market, but they needed an influx of money from the taxpayers and they needed a mechanism to bring the "Advanced countries" together. This "credit crunch" has enabled this, and the IMF is in the lead to control "regulation". Frightening.

The easiest way to understand the start of the crisis is to listen to John Bird and John Fortune (<9mins - 30MB) as found at Brasscheck TV:-

Even the system tried to stop these kinds of irresponsible banking strategies. In the US the Attorney Generals including Eliot Spitzer wanted to block the lending that could not be repaid, but the White House had an agenda and blocked them (<8mins - 31Mb).

Download Video as found at Brasscheck TV

The US then insisted there be a bailout package, and it was put under the control of Henry Paulsen former CEO of Goldman Sachs and instrumental in the causes of the crisis. As of 27/10/08 the crisis has not yet been averted, and critics of the bailout package just see it as good money thrown after bad.

This following video draws the connection between the current crisis and the funding of the Iraq war as discussed by former World Bank economist (<6mins - 30mb):-

Download Video as found at Brasscheck TV

Download Videoas found at Brasscheck TV

* - This is Brasscheck TV again ( http://www.brasschecktv.com/ ), he collects suitable clips and emails them out. He is American so there is too much about US politics but �.

At the same time it is quite clear from his report that there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that such rigging cannot occur this time. Apparently to determine whether the software code had been manipulated would take a high-powered all-party committee - far too expensive. It is clearly evident that technology is in place before the matter is transparent. The movie "Man of the Year" with Robin Williams has this as an evident theme, yet the matter has not been dealt with. Crazy - the leading democratic country in the world - a country that will go to war ostensibly to defend democracy.

as found at Brasscheck TV

The Bangkok Post writer is choosing to attribute to Obama characteristics of mindfulness:-

"Looking at Obama's historic campaign, what strikes us most is how consistently mindful this candidate has been." "Obama, as we saw, was always able to remain calm and composed in any situation. He was always mindful of his thoughts, his words and his deeds. He never showed hate or anger. The only time he allowed himself to show his human side is only when he talked passionately about the well-being of his family." Is it unusual for diplomats to be guarded, calm and composed? They are trained for that. Comments that are not made in such veins are often intentional to get votes such as the chauvinist and jingoist statements of recent administrations - intended lack of composure.

Let us take your definition of mindfulness "By mindfulness, Buddhism refers to the ability to be totally aware of the nature of things as they are, in the present moment, without pre-formed judgment or emotional partiality", and examine Obama's position. First of all he is a politician, and in the US system he requires vast amounts of money to run a presidential campaign. He also will have had to serve his apprenticeship to rise up through the ranks, and such apprenticeships do not promote the radical agendas that so many people want Obama to instigate. Before his campaign he had already made allegiances in a system that is corrupt; Obama is not new to politics. At the same time because of his experience in the system he has learned how to work within the system and how to gain the sympathies of potential voters - his job. Maybe he is new to the world stage but for years he has fought within the system of politics and as such must have corrupted himself, otherwise how does he rise to the top of a corrupt system?

Powerful money in the US is not stupid. They watch out to make sure that people they cannot control do not rise to the top. Powerful money did not oppose Obama as they did McGovern and as they did Clinton after his election with continual smear campaigns. Powerful money was not worried about Obama.

Because Obama is new my type of cynical realism might be considered "pre-formed judgment or emotional partiality", but when we consider our own professions how can we possibly believe that a person rising to the top is not corrupted? It is mindfulness of the nature of the world, and more so the nature of politics esp. politics in America, rather than blind emotionalism from a nation/world of guilty people.

Rather than considering his rhetoric or considering discursive counter-argument, examine what Obama has done, the appointment of his team. His chief of staff is Zionist, a reward to the Jewish lobby that supported him tacitly. Will his chief of staff allow him to attack the Israelis for unwanton killing of Palestinians? What might be happening now in Gaza is Israeli posturing in order to prove to the world Obama is on their side! Apparently (I don't know the names and US politics well enough) the rest of his team do not stimulate positive interest. In other words what he has done is same old same old.

There is an air of anticipation. Radical supporters do not want to attack him for his actions because he has not carried out policy yet. However anyone reading the signs can see. But hope is a powerful tool and we can all hope that Obama will be positive. Sadly there is probably only going to be the big positive that he kept McCain and Palin out. Secretly Americans must be ashamed of Bush and previous administrations, how can they stand up and admit Obama is the similar? They attach to hope. Just to note Tony Blair came to power in an air of optimism from the UK left wing.

Interest groups such as the Buddhists quoted are still clinging to the hope that Obama will do something. They are afraid to admit they have been conned. Do Buddhists know the world of politics? In this world of dukkha the only way forward to peace is the peace and mindfulness that we can create for ourselves. The hope of the world's peoples has been invested so much in Obama he can only let them down. All these people need to take that personal hope and invest it in their own journey rather than hoping a man with charisma in the murky world of US politics can change the world. Mindfulness is about what we individually do, and not what we hope someone else does.

In truth Obama is a temporary phenomenon in the world. He will create frustration for all those that hope in him, that is why I remain detached about him. Step back and create permanence through mindfulness in our own journeys.

Read Article

It appears that there is more collateral damage than there are deaths of supposed militants.

I have tried to be detached but this latest round of murder has made me angry. This anger was sparked by someone in the mb groups. Now W has helped me a great deal with mb, but it is very clear that her lack of meditation contributes to her lack of seeing. W uses her deserved kudos of helping others in mb to promote pro-Israeli support. She is part of the Israeli rational presence that is the media plausibility for the horrendous attacks on innocent people. I have become angry because of her blatant use of mb forums to promote the Israeli case, and have withdrawn from such groups.

Israel-Palestine is a western-created problem, again oil. To understand one has to look back at recent history, the creation of Israel in post WWII guilt, together with the need to destabilise Arab power in the Middle East. When you combine that with the pseudo-religious claim that, as part of the Jewish religion, Jewish people believe they have the right to land, Israel. I do not know the full justifications but believe that some of it is based on one of the original tribes in the bible being based in what is now called Israel. So a group of people are forcibly planted in the Middle East with a religious platform that says they have the right to own the land, Arab peoples are forcibly removed from their homes, and war ensues. Is that surprising? And once the war starts it continues because people die on both sides and because people on both sides area attacking each other.

I suspect Hamas is also a huge problem for the peace process but there is nothing in the Jewish-influenced media that can give me a sense of truth as to their position. I accept there are Hamas extremists, and I accept that in the current situation, Israeli people being attacked by their neighbours, that those people launching rockets are legitimate targets. In view of the token Palestinian government's inability to control their own people I accept that an invasion is a legitimate response. But it is the gross inhumanity of Israel in which its troops consider all Palestinians the enemy and legitimate targets - the collateral damage of the title. In this video you can see that a legitimate target in Israeli terms (Hamas leader) became an attack on Palestinian citizens - not a clip during the current round of Israeli attacks.

Download Video as found at Brasscheck TV

The Israeli state is inhumane, Zionist Apartheid. Under siege they have turned their minds away from international criticism, and have developed an arrogance that allows them to murder other people as if they are inhuman. The same happened in South Africa where, in isolation, the apartheid regime considered black people less than human and therefore a legitimate target. Palestinians are human beings and not an acceptable target even though the few who are firing rockets are. Of course those rocket launchers are intentionally mobile so what does Israel do? Their inhumane response is to repeatedly treat Palestinian people as fodder - collateral damage. This started in their history by the way in which they went into the land they now call Israel, and threw people out of their homes. This dismissal of human decency was given a precedent by the way in which the West supported this barbaric attack on human rights, and has continued with the lack of humanity in the way Israel treats Palestinians and the tacit western support.

The situation in Israel is siege, and one cannot expect balance on the part of those living there. They are in a war situation. But what about western arbitration? The West has allowed Jewish domination (of finance?) to prevent a humanitarian response. Instead of the UN motions of Palestinian support being given credence the Zionists through the US have prevented the international bodies from acting to resolve the problem.

And W throws this nastiness in our faces in veganmacrobiotics. If it was in the MacroIsrael or Macrolovers of Jerusalem then I would accept it. What is then worse is that veganmacrobiotics moderator presents a pro-Israeli position saying it is acceptable. I unsubscribed.

Here is a description of life in Gaza prior to the recent attacks from Israel. Again I cannot find the truth about the recent history of events, but it seems likely that recent rocket attacks developed with increased anger at these conditions - conditions created by Israel.

Download video on Israeli blockade and download video on life in Gaza

And the new great white hope, Obama, what is his reaction? He appointed a Jewish chief of staff. What is this man's history?

Download video concerning Chief of Staff

But with his first appointment being a Zionist it is quite clear why the media did not attack Obama during his campaign.

It serves me right for being tolerant. I joined Macrolovers in a spirit of tolerance, not being pro-Israeli but setting aside differences for the sake of learning. But W's agenda so dominates that group, and although it is not clear what that agenda is there was clearly no attempt on her part to change - even over issues other than Israel. So I unsubscribed. But then she attacks people who make humanitarian claims of peace in veganmacrobiotics.

Another hugely annoying irony is the way in which these isolated Zionist aggressors continually bleat about the bias in the media. If the media were unbiased many peaceable Jewish people in the West would be under continuous attack by angry humanitarians because of the Zionist treatment of Palestinian people. It is only because of Zionist control of western media that this has not happened.

Do we bomb US cities because they have chapters of white supremacists in them? Why bomb Palestine for extremists launching rockets?

But remember not all Israelis are the same:-

Download Video of conscientious objectors as found at Brasscheck TV

http://bhikkhublog.blogspot.com/

"Heartless in Gaza

I heard an interview on CBC this morning with a Canadian who is serving as a civilian helper for the Israeli army. I felt a great sadness hearing him say that he was happy about the "operation" in Gaza, calling it "payback" and being "glad to see the other side getting some too."

Where to start about the sick morality of war? The first thing that comes to mind listening to people like that is the stupid tribalism. Can't we get past that idiocy already? My race is smarter and cuter than your race. My god is bigger and meaner than your god. I've never understood that way of thinking. In high-school I wasn't able to summon up the proper "school spirit," not really caring whether we won the foot-ball game or not. It seemed stupid to me then, and it seems stupid to me now.

War is inherently wrong and it can only be justified in immediate self-defence, if even then. Every ordinary human, moral value is abandoned or reversed in war. Killing is good, lying is good, stealing is acceptable. Even rape is winked at.

From "A People's History of the American Revolution," here is a British officer writing to his father after a successful landing on Staten Island;

"The fair nymphs of this isle are in a wonderful tribulation, as the fresh meat our men have got here have made them as riotous as satyrs. A girl cannot step into the bushes to pluck a rose without running the most immediate risk of being ravished, and they are so little accustomed to these vigorous methods that they don't bear them with the proper resignation, and of consequence we have the most entertaining courts-martial every day."

The current action in Gaza isn't even fit to be called a war, it is a plain massacre. We hear all the rote excuses from the Israeli military about not targeting civilians and blaming it all on Hamas for "hiding among the population." "We do everything we can to minimize collateral damage." But that isn't "collateral damage", that is a pile of corpses, many of them little children, and every one somebody's son, daughter, mother, father, brother, sister, lover. What do they expect dropping bombs and shells into one of the most densely populated places on earth?

And they lie, and lie again. The historical record is clear, Hamas didn't break the ceasefire, Israel did by invading Gaza back in November to destroy some tunnels, killing one hundred people in the process. Of course, the Hamas rockets are just as evil in intent if not (by a very long shot) in effect. Of course, but so what? And don't forget the bigger picture, most of the Gazans are descendants of refugees ethnically cleansed from their homes in 1948.

While we are talking about lies and the historical record, Hamas didn't take power in a "coup" as lame duck Bush said; they won an election and resisted a Fatah coup. Yes, they don't recognize Israel but neither does Israel recognize the Palestinian right to a decent life either. Many Zionist apologists even deny that any such people as "Palestinians" even exist. One wonders in that case where the rockets are coming from?

This is not a war, this is a prolonged massacre after a year of deliberate and very cruel starvation blockade. In more civilized times, that alone was considered an act of war.

I believe that the fundamental moral error that lies behind war, and massacre, is the really evil idea that "the end justifies the means." This idea, whether stated implicitly or not, lies behind every invasion, bombing campaign, crusade and jihad in history. Sure, people are being killed by the thousands but it is necessary to spread democracy, the true religion, free-markets, socialism. As Madeleine Albright famously said about another starvation blockade, and the death of thousands of Iraqi children, "it's a price we are willing to pay."

The cowardly response of the so-called leaders of western countries is disgusting, if not surprising. Canada's Stephen Harper is predictably blaming the Palestinians for getting in the way of Israeli bombs and bullets. If the western countries would only speak the truth and call things by their right names, Israel would never dare to go on these killing campaigns.

But whatever Bush, Harper, Brown and the rest of the sorry crew say, slaughter of human beings en masse is a crime, even when it is done by those perceived as on the "home team."

Maybe it is the women who will save us. Here are a group of courageous Jewish women who have occupied the Toronto Israeli consulate in protest;

http://rabble.ca/multimedia/israeli-consulate-occupied-toronto

And here is one incredibly courageous woman in Palestine (wait for it, it's about one minute or so into the clip):

Every blessing on all those who non-violently resist the powerful."

There has been a gathering of forces around Obama's announcement yesterday. As mentioned already the media has backed Obama, this clearly means powerful business interests have backed him from the outset. The IMF, as described in this blog a few months ago, has stepped in and insisted on control of speculators. And now the vehicle of that control has been set on the road - greenification.

And who can argue against it? Capital will be happy as big business will still control its accumulation. Manufacturing industry will be happy as the government will fund the transfer to greenification. Liberals will gush forth in support of Obama, and feelgood will return. Die-hards like me will be pushed into the minority as we point out that previously business blocked greenification, business will still be in control and the problems of capitalism will rear its ugly head again in the future - when the green bubble bursts.

But for the moment brinkmanship has worked. Bush(es) has(ve) driven the world to the edge of disaster. Established American neo-colonialism has passed its sell-by-date as more and more people realise that apparently irrational heavy-handed global intervention is unacceptable, and the Americans have become more and more marginalised. Obama changes that. He is the black human face, he is the liberal that everyone can identify with, he is the media charm who will reclaim capital's losses.

But to be begrudgingly honest this solution will work - for the time being. Business has rejected greenification because of the cost. Look at the case of unleaded petrol in the UK. It had been around a long time. Environment issues were becoming pressing, more popular, and eventually Thatcher of all people became known as green when, as part of her environmental policy, commercially-viable unleaded petrol was introduced. When business could make a profit from its sale it was introduced.

But what about green neo-colonialism? Green technology has been around a long time with many options. But there was no profit in it, because there was no green infrastructure and the commercial cost of change far outweighed future profit. Now that has changed. Yet again business is going to be bailed out by the taxpayer. Firstly Obama has said government will invest in the required infrastructure to remove oil dependency. Whatever that means in practice it is one significant cost that business does not now have to pay - mind you the taxpayer has always paid for infrastructure - roads, transportation systems etc. Secondly, because the cartels have encouraged the economy to fall into such a huge decline the taxpayer will accept any solution that will give them a future. So when the car giants ask for R & D money to look into environmentally-sound conversion they will get it.

As a result the economy will be kick-started again. Employment through the green industry will rise. Americans will become inordinately arrogant again, as they can claim that their liberality in voting in a black president and their green caring approach to the world has improves the environment, and American business will rake it in.

Green neo-colonialism will become the IMF conditionality. They have established control over the maverick coke-sniffers - something that should have been done years ago. Now green democracy will be the conditions for borrowing money. Well democracy is mostly not a condition now as even the worst Third World despots have learnt that it is easier to have their dictatorships whilst pretending they are democratic - like they do in the West. But altering infrastructure and other greenification will not go down well in Africa. Why should it they are not the cause of the environmental crisis? There are no clouds over Africa, the starry skies are beautifully clear at night - except Lagos! But they are still poor and will still need to borrow money for their dictators to stay in power so greenification will become a condition for the debt.

There are two areas of concern - the Military-Industrial complex and the Middle East - closely allied. The War against Terror will still exist but with much less oil dependency Islamic extremism will have less Arab dollars. So where will the military look for conflict so the war machine can make its profits?

The Middle East dynamics will also change radically. The function of Israel as a buffer against the combined might of Arab oil now disappears. It is difficult to see the politics in this issue unless the Israeli power bloc in the US through Rolf Emanuel has already received its assurances. The latest Gaza incursion had no moral basis and yet forces allied behind Israel easily so maybe Israel is confident that this alliance will continue, and so although the need for their destabilising presence in the Middle East will have disappeared they feel they will still get protection.

People will be happy, the economy will be restarted, and the world will become greener. But sadly the underlying causes will not have been addressed, and future catastrophe awaits the next stroke of brinkmanship.

As Obama was discussing oil dependency clearly the car industry is a target for greenification. Here are a couple of clips on how green technology has previously been repressed for profit reasons:-

New battery cars stockpiled and set for destruction, download video I got from Brasscheck TV. More on electric cars including government tax breaks for Hummer in the 90s whilst electric cars are trashed, download video I got from Brasscheck TV.

Here is an example of someone working on converting cars to use alcohol, download videoI got from Brasscheck TV.

Here is an example where business has put profits before health, will these be affected? Let us hope so:-

And part 2:-

Stay Put

A woman whose mortgage rose from $883 to $1500 was unable to pay so she stopped paying. (The fact that the mortgage can rise such an amount also sounds sharkish.) The bank appears not to have the note as it is buried in one of these hedge funds somewhere, explanation contained in:-

John Bird and John Fortune

A congresswoman is backing this type of action claiming why should all the bailout money go to the banks and none to the people. Sadly this is not a permanent solution but is working temporarily. What happens to the foreclosed properties? Are they up for sale? Who is buying?

Let us examine the stages - much as described by Walter Rodney. Africa was flourishing far in advance of Europe. Then with the Chinese invention of gunpowder the European weapons were far in advance of African weapons. When the Europeans began enslaving, the African leaders quickly acceded to avoid destruction, and Africa's youth and dynamism was shipped off to the Caribbean and then to the US. With this lack of youthful vitality African development stagnated - became underdeveloped.

Thus depleted Africa was easy prey to the colonial division of the 19th century, and European troops were resident on their continent. In the mid 20th century the independence movements fought back, and began to drive out the troops. At the same time the 2nd World War had left Europe depleted, and with the intentional late entry into the war of the Americans as described in Bretton Woods the US replaced Europe as the global hegemony. But they also expanded this hegemony as it included the Asia-pacific region.

What was significant about the Bretton Woods plan is that the US recognised the need for Free Trade ie trade that made the goods cheap or free for the Americans and their allies whilst effectively enslaving the producers in their own countries. This was the beginning of the era of neo-colonialism. My contention with the black politicos in my dream is that the nature of this neo-colonialism has changed. When the independence movements kicked out the troops the US and Europe made sure that they installed puppet governments, and the purpose of keeping these puppets in power was to ensure that the raw materials were made available cheaply to the hegemony at the same time keeping a market open for western goods.

But the nature of this neo-colonialism has changed in that African countries have now become complicit in the structure, it is the status quo. Whilst Africans bemoan their lot that they remain poor because of the net outflow of debt, raw materials and human resources because of neo-colonialism and the installed puppets, the reality is they, as peoples, are actually doing nothing about it. They are defeated before they start. There is little western investment in the neo-colonial structure. The transnationals maintain their branches in these countries but there is little local pressure to improve the situation.

There is an almost complete acceptance of the inequities. The rich send their children to private schools that feed into western higher level education. These so-called educated return with their degrees and get government positions as well as positions in the transnational organisations and perpetuate the exploitation. The complicity has expanded from installed puppets to a complicit puppet infrastructure that supports the US hegemony. Meanwhile the poor remain poor and the continent remains in trouble with occasional but regular outbursts of violence especially in areas where there are diamonds.

presents the empathic civilisation as a global solution to the world's ills. He illustrates empathy as a physical human response through the demonstration of mirror neurons, and indirectly suggest that this empathy can exist globally. He makes this suggestion by extrapolating ties that were once family, became religious and finally nation-state ties. At stages in their development empathy exists in these groupings, and he therefore hopes that empathy can apply itself globally. Beyond suggesting this would be a nice thing - an acceptable approach as this is vision, he does fail to address the question of forces that are preventing empathic civilisation. He parallels the development of differing groups with developments in communication, and is therefore hoping that with the current level of global communication there is a possibility of global empathic civilisation. Whilst empathy would be nice there is much that he could have included but which would not be appropriate to his business audience at the Warden school.

Empathy ignores power. Initially he starts with family ties, moves to religious ties and then to nation states, and associated with such a movement is an accumulation of power or wealth. But such accumulation came through overpowering or accumulating, violent or otherwise. The empathic ties that grew within these functioning groups were not at the forefront of the changing group structure, accumulation of wealth and power was. Once a nation state had been formed it became politically sensible to develop a national identity as the wealth of one nation might be re-appropriated by the conquered nation and therefore there is the need for defence. The empathy that is part of the nation-state is often manipulated by the nation-state into aggression towards another state. Whilst this empathy could be extended globally as part of global compassion there are no indications that it would be. Despite increased global awareness and the ensuing knowledge of global peoples there is increased aggression towards different peoples. This animosity is created by misuse of power and misuse of the communication tools. The UK eventually sent troops to Iraq after a number of years of media manipulation concerning non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Iraq initially empathised with against Iran very soon became the enemy. And now any empathy for Iran is being turned to aggression.

So how would global empathy develop? Rifkin suggests communication - the net. He describes the forager-hunter families communicating by shouting, one might see a leader barking orders. The next grouping he called the hydraulic agricultural civilisations he symbolises communication by scribes. His scribal use is trade but it could be equally used as the leader demanding the trade or his invented taxes. In the nation state of industrialised society the book is a means of communication as a book is also where the law is written - the law that controls. He asks what reason is there to stop at nation state, and quite simply his analysis has stopped there; it is not however the grouping that has stopped there. There are two global blocs to consider when examining these groupings, and neither bloc was created by empathy for fellow humans. The first bloc is the transnational corporations. These global organisations are tied together by the raison d'etre of the company - profit. The empathy that exists is loyalty to the company ethos, and their international expansion exists functionally to open up new markets and obtain new resources. The empathic understanding that exists between employees is not stated but nor is it misunderstood, there are rules of the business game of climbing the ladder that lacks genuine empathy for humanity but for which "that's business" hides a multitude of sins. These transnationals have a common interest served by global cartels such as the oil cartel or through organisations such as the Biedermayer group - or the G8 G20 etc. These are global structures who within their own terms have an empathy of mutual interest but whose empathic priority is not humanitarian, and nor is humanitarianism likely to be a consequence.

Until recently 20/30 years - Berlin Wall in 1985, there was a Cold War in which world power was divided into two blocs. Since then there has been one hegemonic nation state with other states favoured to a lesser or greater extent. Recently nation states have suffered the wrath of the hegemony, and look at the internal destruction within Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. At the behest of the US figurehead favoured nations such as the UK, France and other western nations send troops to these countries. The interests of these nation-states are empathically served by government policy but the interests of their peoples are definitely not - whether they perceive this or not. The accumulation of wealth within these power blocs, often guided or at least functioning in the interests of the transnational corporations, is the purpose of these alliances along with the other function - protection of said wealth, this is empathically understood within the policy of such blocs.

And where does communication exist within such a framework? The ability of the world to communicate does not mean that the world is communicating. Far from it the power blocs use communication to cement barriers , and rather than the internet being used as a means of genuine communication entrenched attitudes pervade channels that could have been used for empathic communication.

Because of the oft-demonstrated abilities of these powerful blocs to avoid global catastrophe through brinkmanship I am not as pessimistic as Rifkin but he is one of many who is attempting to apply global solutions - the need for empathic civilisation - without recognising the fundamental source of the problem - in his case the CEOs at the Warden Business School he lectures to.

When whistleblowers talk, you can hear the truth; it is not a political axe-grinder.

Luckily before putting this blog online I read some background on him at Wiki, and I now understand my first reaction back in the 80s and early 90s. In his books he goes on about shapeshifting lizards in human form being these "illuminati" - freemasons. So I am not surprised at the reactions. And then I read about his Wogan interview in which he described himself as the "son of God", I vaguely remember that. What he's saying is only what they say in "A Course in Miracles", I have already warned against that in this blog. In Wiki the article ameliorated this by Icke saying that God is the Infinite Universe, and being one with the Infinite Universe is a genuinely good thing to be isn't it? But tactically "son of God" stank, and apparently his children suffered - and he regretted that.

I have also watched a couple of movies about the Illuminati - freemasons. Their analysis of patterns is for me on the money - just as Icke's talk at Oxford. But the focus is on the masonics. I have no idea how true the power of freemasons is, and these movies do not help as they are conjecture without factual evidence - evidence that by its nature would be almost impossible to get. In fact they make it worse by focussing on the devil-worship aspect of freemasonry. This puts the analysis "out there", subject to ridicule, and makes the point being about freemasonry and their practices rather than the patterns of behaviour of small powerful cartels. These powerful businessmen are not to be dismissed as Dennis Wheatley-type crazy devil-worshippers, they are powerful people doing serious damage in the world. George Bush Jr may have appeared stupid as a President but in his powerful position he caused the death of many - that must not be forgotten. I have therefore not put up the movies about the Illuminati (they can be eaily found on the net).

In other words these movies' approach to conspiracy is freemasonry, equating the conspirators with freemasons. Whilst I doubt this I have no evidence for or against. But it is totally not the point, and that is why I liked David Icke's Oxford talk. He focussed on the conspiracy and manipulation by powerful groups such as the Bildeburg group. It is these business cartels that are so dangerous, and not whether they are practising freemasons. It is the notion that powerful people collectivise together in small groups and manipulate policy behind the scenes - this is the danger of the conspiracy. How they form these groups is irrelevent, the fact is that these groups exist and are manipulating policy for their own benefit and to the detriment of humanity.

All logic tells me that these manipulators do not group together as freemasons. Whilst there are powerful bodies such as the Bildeburg group, the main characteristic of these people is that they insist on anonymity. Freemasons are not anonymous as an organisation, and could easily be targetted; it would be less easy to target individual freemasons. Maybe though?

Anyway that's as far as I want to go with freemasons - and lizards!! My politics are enough out on a limb that any common sense I might use gets lost in the stereotypes that most people use with politics and conspiracy towards me. I stick with conspiracy, with the approach towards conspiracy that I have previously described in this blog. Icke's talk clearly describes the power of these groups and he describes them in a context appropriate to my approach to conspiracy because he avoids overt references to freemasons and lizards. It is these extreme elements and his personal reaction to previous vilification that I above recognised as rant - and ego. His ego has taken him out on a limb and subjected him, and sadly his family, to ridicule - that must have been so awful when clearly all he was trying to do was to get some truth out there. I personally considered he was a fruitcake at the time - it was late 80's even though at that stage in my life I spiritually understood something of being one with the universe, and understood the power of the conspiracy. In the wiki article one writer suggested taking the notion of lizards as allegorical. If you want to describe the Bush family as coming from the planet "Nasty and Evil" and as a family who have manipulated the world stage for their own benefit and caused the deaths of how many?, I am quite happy with that allegory. But lizards?

Watch the movie - Icke at Oxford, don't align yourself with his egotism so that you can get yourself useful analysis, and then get a very interesting Buddhist angle on consciousness at the end (Put in time here or edit the clip).

http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/evidenceofrevision.html

Here is an interview with the whistleblower:-

Wing TV interview

I got the interview from this page:-

Wing TV

Scroll down for the entry "2006-07-13 Terrence Raymond: JFK and MK-ULTRA".

This is enough for me to put the video on my site, I doubt if I will watch it though - there for evidence (of revision).

And how has the West responded to this disaster? Whilst the media focusses on the tragedy and the world's population shows genuine caring, under the global radar they have invaded another oil country whose leader is not sympathetic to their ways - Libya. All I know about Libya is that Qaddafi is a hate-figure for the West, this for me is usually a sign that he is doing good in his country by trying to keep the West out. It has been rather disappointing to see that in Libya there is a dictatorship, how much I don't know.

What I do know is that all the Middle-Eastern states are dictatorships, maybe Qaddafi would claim his state is a dictatorship of the proletariat? In Bahrain the repressed peoples have stood up and have been killed by Saudis without a blink in the West. In other dictatorships the people have stood up, and there has been little furore in the West. Egypt appears to be moving democratically, so does Tunisia, but they have done so without interference from the West. Not much oil there. Ah yes, Bahrain is an island of oil so the West supports Saudi interference. And what is Libya? A country of oil that the West has no control of. So under the smokescreen of the tragedy in Japan, whilst the world's population mourns the deaths of so many people, whilst the media fans nuclear fears that it previously has hidden, western leaders invade a country who has always been a thorn in the side of their capitalist exploitation.

How sick are the leaders of our countries?

Here is a good voice in US politics talking of the US in Libya:-

or download Waste into Oil here.

So to Blue Bloods. What is it? A cop show, a family of cops - 3 generations - police commissioner and ex, detective and rookie street cop, and a lawyer. There is no doubt in my mind that this is part of a genre that "Hollywood" makes to promote the establishment, the status quo. Support your cops because they fight for good, even if they bend the law sometimes. And a police commissioner can stand up and say he is not into politics, and so people can sympathise.

So people will ask why does the law go wrong? In much the same way they ask why don't kids learn? And the answer to both is that neither is ever meant to work. Kids are meant to fail so that the children of the rich get the jobs and maintain the status quo. The law is meant to be inequitable, pit the different arms of the law against each other whilst the careerists feather their own nests. And meanwhile the rich can buy their way out of trouble. The law is not about having a law-abiding society, it is about the rich not being held accountable.

Consider the courts system, what happens? It is adversarial but the rich can buy the best lawyers to find a way out. Or they can pray upon the judges to consider the rich favourably - good character and the like. But just so we don't see the rich receiving isolated favours, abject criminals are released on technicalities. Street cops are not allowed to use natural justice because if they did they would use it on the rich. Of course this aspect of the law is never properly recognised, and we continue to wonder why the law doesn't work. But as in education the law does work. It keeps the working people under control, and the rich continue to be rich and control the power.

I obviously sympathised with the teachers. Given that they don't control what they do, they do the best they can. And I feel exactly the same way about the police. I sympathise with the police because even though they can be heavy-handed they do keep society stable - even if they are part of the repression. Come the revolution I won't be on their side, but when are we ever going to have a revolution in which the majority are actively fighting the establishment? And if that were to happen, the police would soon change. The police are employed as right-wingers now to ensure the political status quo but if the left wing did have the majority of the people on their side these people with their roots in the working people would soon see that all they are supporting is the rich.

Blue Bloods is about disinformation. It is trying to say that the government and police are trying. But the only way to see consistency in the law is to understand that government, police and teachers are an unwitting part of a system designed to support the wealthy and maintain the status quo. So I support police who try to work in the system with their own integrity. Without a revolution only moral integrity can ferment change.

I still don't know how oppressive Qaddafi has been, but this guy Abdul Ruff, based in Ankara, certainly sees Qaddafi as a good leader. Somewhere in the middle will be the truth. Or at least what was the truth as we now have another western-inspired bloodbath. What a hero Obama has turned out to be, as Kucinich pointed out.

More info to show the politics of the invasion in Libya. Not only does Qaddafi control the oil, he controls Libyan money. So the puppet immediately opens a bank, a bank whose capital is backed by the West (I cannot substantiate that). So now the West has destabilised the oil and money, oh they might have killed a few people as well. Good for the western moneygrabbers though.

Qaddafi ought to have known better. He knew the West would take any opportunity, why didn't he create enough conditions so that the western-backed insurgents would not have any support!

So do the following FAQ's:-

FAQ1

FAQ2

I do not believe Nature gives us something for nothing so would like to know what the problem is. At the same time it would be good if we were to get something for nothing so that we don't have to risk nuclear dangers or cause invasions for oil.

A scientist friend sent this New Scientist link describing it as much bollocks:-

much bollocks?

The "much bollocks" as I understand it is the excessive claims of the Italian researchers and not the process of cold fusion itself. It will be interesting to know further.

For me the interesting apsect of this is that cold fusion is safe unlike the fusion technology the world now uses.

Here is a program about Cold Fusion as suppressed technology:-

Phenomenon

This program also claims a lot for Cold Fusion.

It is interesting at the end that the reporter announces that there are many US community currencies.

And here are details at their website.

I know there is a community in Issan (Thailand) with their own currency, Bia:-

Bia Kud Chum

but they ran foul of the Bank of Thailand.

It is free on their website , and there is a trailer plus a lot of other stuff about what is wrong. Good luck to them.

I also downloaded the movie free from Documentary Heaven.

And when this old man says young people are actually saying it, their answer has got to be which generation is creating the mess. I have to say "mea culpa", and yet my generation knew the truth. Look at the hippies they knew what was going on, but how many of them sold out?