billzword STC BLOG - Reflections on what is out there whilst I continue my internal journey. STC means:-




STC Archives       New Zandtao blog here

& means movie clip, f means flv use flvplayer. Download flv player here




3rd World War? (&)


The War You Don't See (&)


Iraq (&)


Nuclear Issue (&)


e-Patients (&)




Confrontation not distraction


Burzynski (&)


Economic Hitman (&f)


Lifting the veil (&f)


Reagonomics Guy


Bin Laden and jingoism


Highway Robbery


Wag the Dog (&)


Mindful Consumer


Not for Sale (&f)


The Price of Chocolate (&f)


Young People Saying It


Ithaca Hours (&f)


Cold Fusion(&f)


Western puppet in Libya


Blue Bloods


Waste to Oil (&f)


Whilst Japan rocks


Ethos - the consumer decides(&)


The Conspiracy Whistleblower(&f)


David Icke(&)


Big Pharma Whistleblower(&)


On empathic civilisation


Complicit Neocolonialism


Black Saturday inevitable


Money Masters Movie (&)


Corporation Movie (&)


Sub-prime loans


World Bank Conquistador (&f)


Business reaction to Obama


Green Imperialism


Bhikkhu On Israel (&f)


Israel's Collateral Damage (&f)


Obama, Awareness and Guilt


Computer Election Fraud? (&f)


Same speech in Australia and Canada (&f)


World Financial Crisis (&f)


The Power of racism


Frightening (&f)


The Politics of Health and Education




Socialist Revision


On social responsibility


Ideas, Individual Revolution, Perfect Democracy


Home - About Men and Women


Making democracy accountable


Right Livelihood - Ethical Money




Squeeze the Special One - the Very British Tin tack


This is now the STC blog.


Materialist Conspiracy vs Virtue


What Burdens do we carry?


Minimising involvement with capital


Macro Thoughts


Structural Violence


Contemporary Class Analysis


Conspiracies against Nature


Conspiracies for the Mind


Conspiracy against Marxism


Race and Conspiracy


Conspiracy Theories

As of 17/8/07 the name of this blog has changed, My STC blog is now my reflections on what is out there whilst I continue my internal journey. STC means:-




For me a conspiracy theory is a dialectical materialist construct that describes the flows and effects of generalised policies in society. I've just reread this sentence; it's right but yuck. The point is that we are not in the know to take a conspiracy theory and point to individuals, and anyway I don't see the point in that either. You can get these people one at a time but the real point is awareness, most people even conspiracy theorists do not examine all aspects of the way conpsiracies work. Mostly they are interested in politics, perhaps even political power in their own individual way so they don't see how the powerful interests have impacted on all levels of society. Basically my opening sentence of rhetoric means "look at what is happening and who is benefitting", then you will understand. Does a policy or action make humanitarian sense? No, then powerful interests benefit - there is just conspiracy.

Comspiracy theiries have a problem "they"; a conspiracy theory usually involves an apparently conspiratorial "they" and this opens potentially sound analysis to ridicule. Various descriptions of "they" can be considered - the Great White Brotherhood, JJ's international moneyed-cartel (cartels in general), the G8 summits, but with none of these bodies of humans is it possible to determine a genesis of the conspiracies and this diminishes the credibility of those that ascribe conspiracies.

Dialectics do however allow for an appropriate consideration of conspiracy theories. Although dialectics will still personalise with a "they" as being originators of a conspiracy, it does not define particular humans as "they". It considers the effects rather than a personal element (they caused this effect). This is so important because it allows for appropriate analysis of the effects, and if as a society we don't examine such effects then we have a social problem - as we do. The substance of this problem is the general compliance with these effects. This might occur within a powerful multinational where an employee might be compromised into performing actions whose morality s/he does not agree with. Such actions increase the effects of the conspiracy.

The very term conspiracy theory is emotively important for the simple reason that doubt can be attached so that insecure people or the it's-not-my-fault-I-have-a-house-and-mortgage genus can allow their guilt to be assuaged. As this is most people the effects continue, and we are left with ever more dangerous conspiratorial effects.

Finally who are the conspirators? And the answer to this is sadly very easy, all those people whose actions per se do not have an inherent morality. Although an employee might be putting the family first, her/his action has a clear morality - that makes the employee a conspirator. So the answer is that we are all conspirators. The way forward is not to denounce people as conspirators, a Trotskyist approach lacking humanity and compassion but to encourage greater morality in our actions. And in terms of this Right Livelihood has a great impact.
Back to blog entries table

Race & Conspiracy
I had a discussion with a conspiracy guy. He was rabbiting on about 9/11 and Oklahoma. And then the next thing he was talking about how blacks and Hispanics were causing so many problems in the US. I had heard him talk like this before, and, I had thought, explained to him in appropriate conspiracy theory language about racial scapegoats but there was no apparent alteration in his viewpoint. This guy does not understand why people don't see conspiracy in 9/11 yet is unwilling to let go of the social indoctrination he has received willingly in other areas.

This for me is why conspiracy analysis and political analysis are interchangeable. What needs to be considered in both is who gains? It will never be possible outside the corridors of power to determine who are the movers and shakers. From outside is essential to determine a dialectical position and analyse dialectically. What is and which echelon gains? These are the questions to answer as ordinary people.

This dialectical process of thinking breaks through the conspiracies. And these issues are very important within an education context - hidden curriculum and received social knowledge. But they equally apply in terms of social understanding. What do conspiracy theories do? They try to highlight that in this world things happen that cannot be explained by transparent understanding. There are factors behind the scenes, powerful currents or interactions if you like, that are the only way of properly understanding what happens in life. In the case of 9/11 theorists describe what happened in order to understand the implementation of policies that benefited certain interests, policies which would have been publicly unacceptable without 9/11 having happened. It is not possible to understand what happened on 9/11 without looking at the political repercussions. To say that every aspect of the repercussions was predicted or planned would be ascribing too much to these powerful interests, but to say that the trends were set in motion by such interests is transparent. Without such an explanation there is no understanding.

Such trends exist with regards to certain incidents, but is that the end of conspiracy as described above? Absolutely not. And this is why I can describe one process of thinking as a conspiracy, or alternatively another process of thinking as breaking through that conspiracy. In either case it is necessary to understand the context, the way people think about what happens is not always an individual choice. We think in certain ways based on our knowledge and experience. We do not think in certain ways because of A, B, C, and D, but a whole series of experiences that it is difficult to specify any causality. To understand conspiracies it is essential to move away from simplistic causal models. Why can people sometimes not determine the cause and effect of situations? Some psychologists would ask us to determine a root cause and ceaselessly seek such a cause whereas there are other terms that describe things such as gestalt consciousness that present a non-causal model.

To properly understand conspiracy theories is to understand that we cannot think causally. We must observe what is, examine what is, and conclude based on observations of what is. That is how we measure for ourselves. But how do we measure for society - by observing what is and who gains? For 9/11 the implementation of certain policies is the gain for that conspiracy, but what about the racial issue I raised? Who gains then?

The same powerful interests. To understand this we need to examine the distribution of wealth, clearly the majority of the wealth is held in the minority of hands whether this be seen nationally or globally. Is it fair to see so many poor people in the world, people dieing of starvation, when others are racking up the zeroes in bank accounts? If business was conducted mano-a-mano, such inequalities would never be accepted. Such interests cannot be picked out, powerful people cannot be recognised individually - they need anonymity. One form of anonymity is to claim that such people don't exist, and to label as crackpots those that point the finger towards them.

Another way of coping is to find scapegoats. And in the West that scapegoat socially was recently the black or Hispanic, the gangs, the drug-users, the stereotypes. And now has been added the Muslim through the mechanism of War on Terror.

History teaches us how this developed. Let's return to Europe when it was beginning to change from feudal kingdoms. Initially the rich landlords took advantage of their peasants but as is a characteristic of greed that is never enough for the wealthy, they wanted more. Soon these feudal kingdoms moved out of their lands overseas.

The first significant group was the conquistadores. These soldiers brought much wealth back to Spain, and then a war was fought to bring that wealth to England. On occasions the French tried to take the English gold but mostly it remained in England.

And the reason that the gold was kept in England was because the rich and powerful in England entrenched their power by using that wealth to increase their wealth through invasion. They would travel to other countries ostensibly to establish trade but that trade was never fair. They found new raw materials that became the basis of their new industrial revolution. On appropriating the raw materials the landowning aristocracy created the climate for the intellect of the industrial revolution to create the machinery of that revolution. But the basis was the raw materials.

But that was never enough. Once goods had been developed during the industrial revolution a market was needed so they went back to the countries with the raw materials creating a market. The collective raw materials and market was the British Empire.

Meanwhile other European countries sought their own raw materials and markets, and developed power. And this led to the wars of the twentieth century. The first war weakened the European powers and the second war completed the transfer of power.

During the period of the Empires of the European powers many sought power and wealth in the United States. Gaining such power they fought for and gained independence from their European masters. But this was never enough for such a person - the expanding landlord, they needed greater wealth. Land was never a shortage but what was in short supply was the expertise and labour to develop that land. And there was an abundance of such labour and experience - Africa. Through slavery they took advantage of the lands appropriated in the United States, and after a period of power struggles within its own national boundaries they were unified enough to claim the world markets for their own. The First World War weakened the European powers but not completely, towards the end of the Second World War these European powers were decimated and were easily manoeuvred into a secondary position.

At the same time it was necessary to alter the power structures within the subjugated countries - previously called the colonies. Under the European powers these countries were controlled by armies, but this was expensive. What was needed was not subjugation but the outflow of raw materials and the use of these countries as a market. This could not be achieved by subjugation but by complicity and the creation of satrapies. Impoverished countries have a regular supply of malleable puppet dictators who once plied with the wealth of the West controlled their own countries to ensure the flow of raw materials and the establishment of the markets.

One essential strategy to enable this control was divide-and-rule. Even when these countries had been controlled by armies, it was not practical to have an army whose size outnumbered the size of population. The countries were controlled by turning people against people, and having superior weaponry that they allowed the favoured group to use. This divide-and-rule colonialism was the legacy of the European powers, and focussing on the economic dynamics only became the inheritance of the current world model of neo-colonialism.

The power in the West has a history of turning people against people so why would they not do so in their own lands. And here we have the situation of the racial scapegoat. This is not a matter of innocence or blame, this is a matter of recognising the use of power, recognising how to divide and using that division in the interests of the prevailing power. Do the prevailing powers predict specific events of racial attack? No but the racial divisions are predictable. Where are the benefits to these powerful interests? Focus. Instead of the focus of the majority being directed towards those that have taken from the poor, the focus is directed towards minorities.

Now undoubtedly such minorities contain elements who are perpetrators of crime, to ignore such a fact is dwelling in the realms of fantasy. To say all commit crime is equally within such a realm. But to focus on race as a solution to social problems is the creation of a conspiracy - the conspiracy of the racial scapegoat. To understand this conspiracy is to recognise that the solution lies in focussing on the powerful and uniting against the enemy that can be defeated because of the small numbers.

Back to blog entries table

Conspiracy against Marxism
Firstly this is not a reflection on considered opinion that rejects Marxism. Whether someone applies their mind and then accepts or rejects a particular theory is of course their own business. But one would hope such consideration would be a rejection based on intellect.

However much concern about Marxism is within the realm of emotional rejection of Marxism. Through a typical western educational upbringing, in general young people reject Marxism. is this because during their educational life they have discussed Marxist theories and rejected them - far from it. Throughout their education they have never been exposed to the theories of Marx or their implications. However they are rejected, and because it is not an informed rejection I call it an emotional rejection.

Communism comes in for similar treatment. Loosely based around Hollywood propaganda communism is rejected. How many that reject it reject from any rational position? It is usually some sort of emotional empathy for the hero and a kind of received position that the West is the Free World and is right, and communism is an enemy.


Now if there is a clear answer to this question then I take no issue. Without such a clear answer I would claim conspiracy and that it is the intention to reject communism without a rational basis. So who gains? And there is a clear answer. Communist countries tend not to be trading with western countries, at best it is because they wish to develop a more subsistent model and apply tariffs or worse they have been refused trade or the tariffs of their trading partners are too high.

Their markets are restricted, and this is a problem to the powerful interests who want to sell their goods in those markets preferably at higher prices. Equally they would prefer such countries to be buying their goods at higher tariffs increasing their profits. I have made a jump - a jump I accept, that these powerful interests become more powerful if business expands and profits increase. It is therefore preferable for these people not to have communism.

What else does Marxism do? It applies an in-depth economic model that tries to explain the necessity of appropriate fair trading practices and analyses who should have the marginal profits - owners or workers. Should such a model cause problems to fair-minded rational people? Perhaps not, but school curriculums in general do not offer the opportunity for reflection.

But Marxism is a threat to prevailing western expansionist business practices. Who gains if Marxism is rejected? And the answer is straight-forwardly these powerful interests. Emotionally, as opposed to rationally, rejecting Marxism is a conspiracy.

Find out for yourself by looking at what Marxism talks about and see what it discusses.

Back to blog entries table

Conspiracy for the Mind
These are the most important conspiracies, because quite simply if people believe in your conspiracy it is so much easier.

The first conspiracy is that there are no conspiracies, and that conspiracy nuts are off the planet. In the X-files we have a hidden cartel in cahoots with aliens trying to hide the Truth from our hero, Fox. In Alias we have numerous hidden agencies working within existing intelligence agencies. Works of fiction presented to the TV audience in an offbeat way. This allays suspicion, and helps create the most important aspect of the identity of the people "responsible" for conspiracies - anonymity. The conspiracy is there to preserve the power of powerful interests, and such TV helps preserve anonymity. With the TV overkill the majority of western audiences ascribe conspiracy to the land of fiction. And when such conspiracy is mixed in with aliens then those supporting conspiracies are of the planet.

The next part of the conspiracy is to increase the consignment of conspiracy theories to another planet. This is done by aligning these theories with the looney left, and the looney left have already been consigned as out there for similar reasons.

Back to blog entries table

Conspiracists against Nature
Conspiracists against Nature In this blog I have looked into the nature of a conspiracy. In general a conspiracy cannot be attributed to a group of individuals machinating in darkened organisations. A conspiracy can be determined by considering who gains? In general such a conspiracy will give gains to a few, this disadvantaging many. Apart from the many losing there is also something else that usually loses in these situations, and that is Nature.

For many such a consideration of Nature would not be appropriate, conspiracies disadvantage individuals - making the rich richer and the poor poorer. But few examine conspiracies in terms of Nature. In much the same way we can consider the actions of the wealthy in terms of Nature. Many ecological imbalances can be sourced at the doors of the multinationals and decisions that profit-makers there take to ensure increased profits whilst devastating raw materials.

There are regular world ecological summits that recognise the need for ecological balance and action taken to control the multinationals. Whilst they define the problem, point at the causes they are often powerless to insist that the problem be solved. Greenhouse gases pervade, the problem mutates but it continues. The world's power source remains connected to oil, and rather than balanced ecological solutions that exist becoming part of our daily life oil products remain the fuel source because the oil industry's profits would lose out and powerful interests in the oil industry would be affected.

Where Nature loses there is usually a conspiracy.

Back to blog entries table

Contemporary Class Analysis
There are three areas of conspiracy and politics that I am considering at the moment. Conspiracies against Nature and conspiracies directed at the mind, and the importance of class.

Class analysis developed after the development of communist theory in the nineteenth century - is that true? Even if that is a correct genesis or not, the importance of class as a concept was to enable people to understand that their vested political interest lay in identification with their class - the proletariat for 95% (or less now), and that in class unity was the means to overthrown the bourgeoisie and empower global humanity.

Now at the time of development of communist theory it was recognised that the proletariat primarily consisted of peasants and industrial workers. In nineteenth century Europe disparities of wealth were transparent, much as they are in the Third World today, but nowadays there are many obfuscations thrown in the way of clarity of analysis. Who do these obfuscations benefit? Yes, of course, so these obfuscations qualify as a conspiracy.

Let's consider them globally in terms of the three types of world economists tell us we are living in developed, developing and undeveloped. In the developed world those that own have moved away from pure land ownership, and that ownership is now the multinationals (or transnationals). These global companies transcend international boundaries, and the wealth of some rates higher than GDPs of middle-sized countries. How obscene!

Much that happens in our Global Economic Order is to facilitate the increasing profits so institutionally I would be quite happy to denote the powerful interests as these transnationals. But of course they have agents to do some of their work, and the majority of individuals within these transnationals are just earning money for their families so as such we have not helped in any form of identification of these powerful interests, but it is good to know that we have an institutional framework for the powerful interests.

Let us consider the situation of George Bush, US President. What is his function? Is he a powerful interest? He is a politician (of sorts?), so without knowing the man it would be safe to assume that a significant part of his raison d'etre is ego - his desire for power. Yet rumours pervade that his family is connected financially with these powerful interests. So maybe he personally straddles both camps, but his policies are the policies of the powerful interests. Understanding that enables us to properly analyse what he does.

Would it be reasonable to classify the bourgeoisie as the transnationals? To all intents and purposes my answer would be yes. But in so doing we have to be careful. Firstly are the workers for such companies bourgeois, certainly not as many of them are the most exploited labour in the world. Middle management - mostly not. Some of them should be chastised for enacting certain policies in line with supporting company policy when they can see the detrimental impact on human beings, but should that chastisement be any more that the individual who closes their eyes to what is happening in the world?

But we could start to consider a target - sizeable shareholders in transnationals. However it is also my understanding that these sizeable shareholders hide behind dummy corporations or fronts making it difficult to identify them as individuals. And that is not my interest. Understanding the nature of conspiracy is more important than the naming of names.

Now these shareholders trade in stocks so therefore one of their media of profit-making is the various stock exchanges. Anarchically one might argue for the destruction of such institutions but I suspect that would damage the Global Order more than the individuals.

As an aside Global Finances contributing to the Global Order are all run on credit. One simple way to destroy the global economic order would be to insist on cash or barter. If that happened the value of the cash we had would soon go down as those with finances based on credit demanded their cash equivalent, money would have to be printed and would soon be found trading-wise to be pointless as the credit created is 10 times or more than any vale money could be given - such as the gold standard. Our Global Financial Order is built on binary digits, and needs increasing conspiratorial acts to prevent the fragile financial structure from snapping.

Clearly then the transnational powerful interests need allies so our smoke-filled cartelries include finance people, not just investors. These bankers, are they the powerful interests themselves? Perhaps not, but they are inseparable in many ways because if their actions do not fit the bill they do not have a job.

There are two other interesting questions. Firstly who goes out and creates the markets? I am going to use a phrase I am hopefully legitimately pinching from Race and Class magazine, the modern-day conquistadores, World Bank, IMF and Gatt. And perhaps I would be right to extrapolate that their generals are the G8?

Now it is essential that transnationals have their market but what use is it to have a market in a country with no money? Yet if poor countries have no money how can they buy? So there needs to be certain wealth in those countries I have travelled in these poor countries and I look at the way the market is fashioned. As examples, there are large forecourt garages and large markets with small stalls, one for the rich and one for the poor. Then you have specialised designer malls and clothes stalls in the markets. These visual displays of inequity demonstrate one thing, there is the rich purchaser and the poor one, and the transnationals are only interested in the large profit margins. This inequity of purchasing power is generated by strategic loans in the name of promoting the economy. One gross example of this was President Marcos who borrowed money on the glut of the oil rich 70s, and the Phillipine people have been paying back for Isabelle Marcos' shoes ever since.

Was this a safe loan? Marcos didn't have the money nor the assets to pay back the loan, who paid back? He taxed the people. How much responsibility for the Filipine national debt at the time lies with the banks that leant him the money? Are the individuals in the bank punished for such a bad loan - absolutely not? Why? Payments are repaid, the bank is happy with its blood money. The ensuing civil unrest and deaths are nothing to do with the bank that leant the money, that created the tax burden, that was not used for the betterment of the country.

By starting with an analysis of class in the developed world, we have followed the money all over the world, and as such have effectively analysed class interests globally. The bourgeoisie could be determined as the transnationals and their allied finance interests, and the proletariat as everyone else. This is a far more inequitable split than 5 and 95%.

As mentioned before in the blog concerning the conspiracy against Marxism these powerful interests cannot let such gross inequities become visible. They therefore encourage class obfuscations. As a house owner are you a member of the bourgeoisie? Does being a teacher qualify you as a member of the middle class? Should a middle class be considered separately from the proletariat?

Now these questions become altered to focus on greed. Do these middle-bracket income workers class earn more money than the low-bracket workers? Come the revolution will you lose money? So the conspiracy plays on fear and greed, and it works. But if it doesn't work we come to the second question. Who protects this financial order?

The war machine of the hegemonic power - the US. And through manipulation - the UN. And the UN is another blog, as are peasant vs industrial mentality, and conspiracies against Nature and conspiracies of the mind.
Back to blog entries table

Structural Violence, Institutional Racism and Conspiracy
To begin this blog which is primarily inspired by the phrase, structural violence, I am going to talk about institutional racism. In the 70s and early 80s, it was a commonly-accepted view that Inner City UK schools were institutionally-racist. It was not that the intention of the schools themselves was to be racist, nor was it the intention of individual teachers, black or white, to be racist (at that time the main victims of UK racism were Afro-Caribbean, or of Afro-Caribbean origin) - at worst any racist views or partly-racist views were not expressed. It was quite simple, the effect of the education system at that time in those Inner City schools was that there was significant black under-achievement - mostly undisputed. This phenomenon was described as institutional racism. There was however disputes as to the causes of this institutional racism, but few disputed the effects. Let me be clear the effects were racist but the intentions of individuals within the institution were not.

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.

Back to blog entries table

Macro Thoughts
I have recently attended a seminar on Buddhist economics, and I became bogged down with the facilitators approach as to Macro economics. This is a development from that. To simplify discussion I will consider macro-economic strategies as being global strategies, as compared to micro-economic strategies as being from the ground up.

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.

Back to blog entries table

Minimising involvement with capital
If I was teaching in the UK now I would be earning and spending in the region of �30000 pa, I could buy a house in Thailand for �10000. With increased velocity of circulation through credit facilities, creation of money not based on any commodity such as gold or oil, the capital investment in the world has shot up. Even more so the West is based on confidence - the Big Boys - speculators, transnationals and their conquistadores, IMF, World Bank WTO and any other imposed trade restrictions that we learn to call Free Trade.

I must investigate the projects which replace currency Complementary Currency Resource Center These are presumably small scale projects where communities trade and barter with each other where the currency represents value of goods and produce, and capital cannot exploit through the stock markets. As speculation on the markets is the essence of the Big Boys' business, these currencies have withdrawn. Effectively these currencies enable those communities to withdraw from the ravages of speculation.

Can we compete with the Big Boys? No, they control the armies and the media - no chance. Macro strategies imply that our egos think that we can join in their league and compete, do our egos think we are more important than we are if we try? However withdrawal from speculation is an option. What does it do? That �30000 pa I could earn in the UK is now not part of their speculation - insignificant. What about 100 teachers? �3000000 withdrawn - beginning to have an impact maybe?

Have you ever taught somewhere where the wages are much lower? I saved �1000 a month in China, I lived in a nice flat, the cost of living was remarkably low. As China's global interests increase so they will increase the wages becoming more involved in speculation. But until then? Seeking employment where the benefits of lifestyle outweigh the financial rewards is a move that can make you happy, and can remove you from the world of speculation.

Some will call me a hypocrite here for two reasons. Firstly I have earned my money teaching western education in private schools - schools for the rich. Secondly I am providing for my retirement by investing a small inheritance and any proceeds from my savings and my pension, all of these monies are open to the use of speculators. Hence my use of the word minimise.

But what about writing? The internet infrastructure is controlled by transnationals but the internet has to be considered a utility now, do we argue about paying for electricity? What about putting books on your own domain for people to read? Or in-house publishing at Third World prices devoid of the huge distribution markups the publishers take? There is much scope within the entertainment industry for withdrawal from involvement with speculators.

E F Schumacher's Small is Beautiful is perhaps more relevant now than it ever was -especially of complimentary currency is involved. Or did he suggest that as well? Not clear - there is a section on local currencies at Schumacher society website

And for the record here is Alec's Community Currency links Much to be done on this.

Back to blog entries table

What Burdens Do We Carry
My stress caused me difficulty yesterday, and I needed time out. And then last night a teachers stress dream. You have to laugh at the pathos. There was some event, and break came along with 3 separate areas for tea, 2 for children and 1 for the teachers. Nothing appeared for the teachers. Off I went in typical tirading fashion to find some genial guy carrying a tea trolley. He laughed at me "teachers are always last", and I authoritatively told him to take it to the teachers now. He smiled and said he couldn't, presumably someone had told him to do it this way. Off I tiraded, and reached a sedate lounge where a genial Mr Norris completely agreed with me and said he would deal with it.

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.

Back to blog entries table

Sufficiency Economics Conference and Spirituality

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.

Hope you are keeping well, All the Best Bill Z

Back to blog entries table

Materialist Conspiracy vs Virtue
Previously I have described myself unashamedly as a conspiracy theorist (check my STC blog), the world functions in terms of conspiracy whether conscious or not. If the world functions in this way then it is not a theory. Consider the notion of empirical proof. The scientifically-repeatable evidence for the existence of conspiracy praxis is clear. The STC, speculators, transnationals and conquistadores (WTO, World Bank, etc.), continue to work together to maintain their profits, the consequences of which are inhumane. Look!

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.

Back to blog entries table

This is now the STC blog.

The players:-




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.

Back to blog entries table

Squeeze the Special One - the Very British Tin tack
I am not a big fan of Jose Mourinho as he is intentionally egotistical and arrogant, but one can respect his craft. For a number of years Chelsea had thrown money at players and even had quality managers. Think of the world class players who had passed through Chelsea's ranks - Desailly, Deschamps, Zola, Gullit, Vialli - the last two as players and managers. Yet with all that class they never won a title, maybe they won cups - I can't remember. In came Mourinho, bought players but more importantly built a team. And very quickly his team won the league twice - and at times were a class above the rest of the league.

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.

Back to blog entries table

Studying Dependent Origination raised the ludicrous laws of prostitution. Ajaan Buddhadhasa's focus is the point of contact (phassa). So what is the point of contact in prostitution? Is it the sexual act itself? No the crime has already been committed. The prostitute can be arrested for solicitation, applying pressure through excessive advertising and then asking for money? If the john is up in the room and hands over the money before the sex, then is it that action that makes prostitution illegal?

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?

Back to blog entries table

Right Livelihood - Ethical Money
As part of my Western education I have become disenfranchised from my money. From the word go, government parts you from your money and over recent years finance institutions have also been an accepted part of this process. As a friend puts it you get up to work to pay bills.

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,, 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.

Theme - Engagement
Back to blog entries table

Making democracy accountable
This entry began life as a forum answer, and I then decided to put it in my blog.

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."

Theme -
Back to blog entries table

Home - About Men and Women
This entry is my most significant socially, Nature's connection between home and Evolution, and the implications for social direction are quite staggering.

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?

Theme - Home, Evolution
Back to blog entries table

Ideas, Individual Revolution, Perfect Democracy
Ideas, Perfect Democracy, Individual Revolution This follows a conversation in which I was called an idealist. Idealist here was used as a slightly pejorative term meaning impractical, and worse it had a pragmatic implication - there is no point in bothering it is too ideal.

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.

Theme - True democracy
Back to blog entries table

On social responsibility
I wrote the following to a friend, and it started me thinking more on the issue:-

"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.

Back to blog entries table

Socialist Revision
So what about socialism needs revision? The battleground. In my time in the unions the battleground was shifting. Workplace struggle was getting less and less effective as the working-class had been easily divided. The ease of global transportation meant that any workplace was struggle that was effective could be negated by moving the plant. Most forms of plant that are labour-intensive are already in the third world, exploiting the cheap wages there. Maybe there will be the opportunity for workplace struggles in the third world, but this is not likely as there are so many places where labour is cheap and the cost of moving the plant is minimal. So this aspect of socialism is effectively dead.

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.

Back to blog entries table

Who runs the world?

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?

Back to blog entries table

The Politics of Health and Education
This is such a big issue, and there needs to be clarity in presentation. Unfortunately instead of clarity of presentation we have alternative marketing, not gross marketing of the McDonald's variety, but marketing of cures that require supplements, courses, counsellors etc. For most people this requires a degree of trust in these people or processes that ordinary people are unlikely to invest, so they continue to go to the home of BigFoods - the supermarket.

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.

Theme - Home
Back to blog entries table

Frightening (&)
Yesterday I saw a frightening clip, the leader of the IMF was coming in and laying down the rules for a new economic world order in which the advanced countries were corralling their wagons in order to prevent the emergent economies from gaining a foothold. The ICPCSA (the International Confederation of Pinstripe Coke-Sniffing Scam Artists) have frightened everybody into submission. Small-scale investors have become petrified that their pensions are going to be hit. In America they have accepted a huge tax payout to the ICPCSA, the UK and Europe governments have put similar packages in play, and now the big guns are coming to restore "confidence". This is frightening. As these big guns ensure the economies of the advanced countries, the emerging economies will get reined in, and the Third World will get dumped on. Meanwhile the Third World in the First World, the taxpayers, will also get dumped on. Bad news all round.

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.

Theme - Credit Crunch
Back to blog entries table

The Power of Racism
In this article A Soldier Speaks, racism was a tactic inspired by the military establishment:-

"Then September 11 happened, and I began to hear new words like "towel-head," and "camel jockey," and the most disturbing, "sand nigger." These words did not initially come from my fellow lower-enlisted soldiers, but from my superiors: my platoon sergeant, my ?rst sergeant, my battalion commander. All the way up the chain of command, these viciously racist terms were suddenly acceptable. When I got to Iraq in 2003, I learned a new word, "haji." Haji was the enemy. Haji was every Iraqi. He was not a person, a father, a teacher, or a worker. It's important to understand where this word came from. To Muslims, the most important thing is to take a pilgrimage to Mecca, the Hajj. Someone who has taken this pilgrimage is a haji. It's something that, in traditional Islam, is the highest calling in the religion. We took the best thing from Islam and made it into the worst thing." How can anyone describe this as a War against Terror when every Muslim is supposed to go to Mecca on the Hajj.

And the establishment is using racism as a tactic - frightening. And I have friends who are comfortable using racist words.

Theme -
Back to blog entries table

World Financial Crisis (&)
The world financial crisis speaks for itself; there are far more knowledgeable pundits who have followed it and exposed it for what it is. Before I give you the links I must mention Brasscheck TV ( ), he collects suitable clips and emails them out. He is American so there is too much about US politics but ....

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

Theme -
Back to blog entries table

Same speech in Australia and Canada (&)*
This clip speaks for itself, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, and the current minority leader in Canada, Stephen Harper, with literally the same speech - frightening (<3 mins 11 Mb):-

Download Videoas found at Brasscheck TV

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

Theme - Conspiracy
Back to blog entries table

Computer Election Fraud? (&)
This guy stood before an Ohio congressional committee, and described how a software company he worked for had been employed to write code to rig an election. This was for both Florida and Ohio, and from memory the Florida election last time was what got Bush in. He did not directly say that the elections were rigged but the implication was there.

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

Theme - Democracy, Election fraud
Back to blog entries table

Obama, Awareness and Guilt
During the election process Obama conned the left and positive interest groups - probably! Without any form of commitment for their allegiance he managed to bring on board many on the left, many caring people, many of the better elements of society. This includes a number of Buddhists, such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship and the Buddhist of the article you sent.

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.

Theme -
Back to blog entries table

Israel's Collateral Damage
Here is an article concerning this collateral damage in Northern Gaza, the death of a father - a farmer:-

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

Theme -
Back to blog entries table

Bhikkhu On Israel
Here is a Canadian Bhikkhu's blog:-

"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;

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."

Theme -
Back to blog entries table

Green Imperialism
Yesterday was the birth of GREEN NEO-COLONIALISM, and the lack of effort to resolve the economy has fallen into place. The pro-media bias towards Obama and all the hype now match up with Obama's announcement concerning greenification. And yet such a significant step was not even the first item on the BBC World news.

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.

Theme -
Back to blog entries table

Business reaction to Obama
There was a Quest programme I caught a glimpse of, and business reaction was good to the Obama plan. His emphasis was on oil dependency but will it extend to the food industry for example? It might well do as there is a need for boosting the economy throughout.

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:-

Mercury has been found in corn syrup, download video I got from Brasscheck TV

Theme -
Back to blog entries table

Conquistadore video
On the World Bank, how it works? In two parts, part1:-

And part 2:-

Theme -
Back to blog entries table

Sub-prime loans
I have previously read that the US sub-prime market problems would have been much cheaper if the government had paid off the peoples' loans. I am not advocating that but would be happier with that than with the government slushing money around in the system of capital to no obvious advantage. However here is a good solution to the problem:-

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?

Theme -
Back to blog entries table

Corporation Movie
In Bangkok I attended a talk given by a Canadian monk. Unfortunately I felt tired throughout the talk effectively missing most of it but the economic side of the talk focussed around the notion that the current economic crisis has been fashioned - suits an STC blogger. He cited two movies The Corporation and Money Masters, and I have downloaded them. To download and watch the movie Corporation click here
Theme -
Back to blog entries table

Money Masters Movie
The second movie recommended by the Canadian monk is called Money Masters, and I wanted to give access to it. Go to this page to download and watch the movie.

Here is a cartoon summary of the history of money and the Federal reserve - American Dream, Money Masters is a more detailed historical study but not so easy to watch. The Federal Reserve and the Bank of England are presented as government controllers of the money supply but the truth is they are private bankers out for profit. Therefore at the basis of our fiunancial systems is a group of private individuals who direct the economy through their own decisions about printing money. It is obvious to me that they are not going to print money for the good of the people but I am sure they would argue trhat they are not part of the corporatocracy.

Theme -
Back to blog entries table

Complicit Neocolonialism
This one is a bit weird as it is a long time since I have been thinking about African politics. Last night, well early this morning, I was in a dream in a discussion with Africans. As is often the case they were blaming the whites. I was accepting their analysis, and then I began my own discussion. I was saying that it will take a while for them to fully follow, and asked them to be patient - there was some patience but not much. Something like what I was trying to say in the dream is what I now describe as complicit neo-colonialism.

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.

Theme -
Back to blog entries table

On empathic civilisation
Jeremy Rifkin in this RSAnimate talk:-

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.

Tags -
Back to blog entries table

Big Pharma Whistleblower (&)
Check out this clip from someone who used to be a pharmaceutical sales rep:-

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

There is more on her site.

Tags -
Back to blog entries table

David Icke, Illuminati et al
I remember watching this guy presenting sports programmes on TV, his presentation was professional and socially acceptable. I have to say he is far from that now. Even though he has been on his soapbox a long time I still hear rant in his voice. He is now not that TV professional, definitely could not be called socially acceptable but I could hear me saying all that he said in this movie at Oxford except that I don't know as much about this as him. I can't remember how old I was when he "went off the rails" but based on this movie I am sad I never listened to him. But things have changed for him, he is now accepted to speak at Oxford - download the movie to hear his talk.

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).

Tags -
Back to blog entries table

The Conspiracies Whistleblower
This is a long one "Evidence of Revision", he goes into all the conspiracy issues - JFK, MLK etc. So do we know he knows anything? In this article someone (see links below) has sought info on the guy making the film, and it is certainly possible the film maker could know:-

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).

Click here for links and instructions on how to download the movie "Evidence of Revision".

Tags -
Back to blog entries table

Ethos the movie
Ethos doesn't say anything staggeringly new but it is clear. The system is run by big business, and the governments are controlled by big business. But it makes clear what is the new democracy - the consumer. The consumer controls the market-place, it is what you can do. Control what you buy. Why have Monsanto, for example - don't buy their products? Eat fresh live healthily and take control back. The movie can be downloaded for free from their website, but I have put it online here.
Tags -
Back to blog entries table

While Japan rocks
I have not followed what has been happening in Japan closely, events there are very sad. An Al Jazeera news headline brought it into perspective for me - 18,000 dead. With all the fears engendered by talk of the nuclear disaster that fact had managed to slip by me - 18,000 died. My greatest condolences go out to the families of those people. Here is a Channel 4 documentary about what happened - download here.

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:-

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

Plastic to Oil
This machine is wonderful, why aren't we all using it?

or download Waste into Oil here.

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

Blue Bloods
I enjoy watching this programme but it raises all kinds of issues at the same time. It reminded me of my teaching, and the Pink Floyd song "Another Brick in the Wall". This brickis what I was for 30 years, it was always something I accepted. I remember the criticism at the time but it didn't phase me; after all who wasn't a brick? Quite simply what could I do about it? I tried to turn the teaching into something that was genuinely of benefit to the students, but of course I didn't succeed. How many of the students became humanitarian because of my teaching?

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.

Addendum 1/12/11 I still like watching this programme but this blogentry shows my age. I grew up in the UK in the 60s and 70s with a police force that had a dual purpose. During the miners' strike they showed their role within the establishment by oppressing the miners but the rest of the time they showed the side of maintaining law and order - beneficial to society. But since the late 70s society has become more polarised between the 1% and the 99%, and this has shown itself quite clearly with the police action against the Occupy movements. Now I look at Blue Bloods and see a work of fiction that has no basis in reality. The NYPD now are the 99%, but they are not given the freedom to express this. This is not Blue Bloods, Blue Bloods presents this choice as a freedom, but in truth the NYPD at Occupy are only given the choice as to how much violence they use. This change is im portant, and shows the nature of the 1% now and how far they are distanced from ordinary people now - when I grew up that distance was not so vast.

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

Western puppet in Libya
Mahmoud Jabril is that puppet. His Wiki biopic shows a man who trained then worked in the West, and worked on a "Unified Arab Training manual". I think that might be an interesting read in terms of what US foreign policy in the Middle East is. Jabril also met wth Sarkozy suring up the western incursion in Libya. Here Truthout talks about his politicking.

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!

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

Cold Fusion
With the word fusion in it, I immediately reacted against this notion but this video presents a positive case:-

So do the following FAQ's:-



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:-


This program also claims a lot for Cold Fusion.

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

Ithaca Hours
Have long seen the benefits of community currency, here is a short clip about Ithaca hours:-

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.

This blog has many resources on community currencies, and further resources here.

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

Young People Saying It
As a teacher I was always saddened that despite any efforts I might put in to make students think, all they were interested in was fashion and money. Well not all of the younger generation. Check this movie called Collective Evolution.

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?

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

Price of Chocolate (&)
I wanted to include this clip in my blog as a matter of record of typical corporate activities. Basically western corporations that sell chocolate - this documentary is made for the European market so the transnationals are European - are creating a trade in child slave labour in West African countries. There is implausible deniability by the country's politicians as well as the corporate execs. In some ways the ILO guy is presented favourably but the clip shows how ineffective and token he is. What can the ILO do if the highest power is the corporations and not government.

Movie Clip - The Price of Chocolate

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

Not for Sale
As part of the Treatise of Zandtao I will be discussing the Corporate Paradigm, this is a term I used in my book on education Matriellez book because it is important to see how pervasive corporate influence is. For many, religion is an escape from corporate pressures, but is this so? How much influence do the corporations have on religious institutions? Can there be a religion that stands up and demands that all corporations must enable human rights within all the companies under its umbrella? And yet isn't religion about human rights?

Here is a movie which shows the impact of the corporation globally, and how tight their strangle-hold is on the rest of us:-

Not for sale

Download Part1 and Part 2 and join with hjsplit (instructions here). Or downloaded from Documentary Heaven. (Because this is a global movie there are many subtitles.)

They have developed legal structures which make them immune to prosecution, what do we do? First and foremost they are businesses selling products, as discussed in Ethos the movie, we as consumers must become discerning in what we buy. As Buddhists we must recognise that our engagement in daily life is a political action because we are consumers. It is how we consume that governs the control of these corporations. Throughout Zandtao one of the tenets is:-

Taking care of our bodies

To do this Zandtao promotes natural eating, but how difficult is that? Our lifestyles are governed by corporations whose products fundamentally create ill health, yet we still buy them. Look to buy locally, buy foods that come out of the ground, not out of the can or packet. Processing of foods is not to benefit our health or the way we consume, it is there to enable profits. Many Buddhists choose to ignore the fact our foods are contaminated because our spiritual lives are more important. But our spiritual lives are here on Earth, and we need to be conscious of this in our daily lives. Why be vegetarian if vegetarian foods are damaging the environment and our health because of their processing and toxic content?

It is time for all people to see that the basis of political need is not the electoral system that alternates different shades of pinstripe but a political approach that addresses peoples' needs in controlling the corporate paradigm. To begin with our Ethos can be to consume with discernment. In the movie corporations con us with Corporate Social Responsibility, perhaps as individuals we should develop a Buddhist Consumer Responsibility. On the Path people become Buddhist Consumers, not only sufficiency economics but ethical consuming. Mr Oliver, Buddhism in politics could be the Buddhist Consumer � an individualised approach?

Send comment:- Tags - Corporate Paradigm, Buddhist Consumer
Back to blog entries table

The Mindful Consumer
In the last blog, as a consequence of watching "Not for sale" and remembering the movie Ethos, I developed the notion of the Buddhist Consumer. I want to change the concept to Mindful Consumer, a secular term, or at least not specifically Buddhist.

What is mindfulness? This of course is a very complex question, far beyond my ability to answer fully. But you could consider it that aspect of the mind which Nature gives us for coping with emotions and desires. In a sense we could consider desires and emotions part of our daily life, and mindfulness is the skill we are given to help us control the impact of our daily life, leaving Inner Being free to relate to our True Nature. At the same time one might consider mindfulness as being that skill which ensures that in our daily life we live with sila - moral integrity.

So what has consumerism got to do with this? For most Buddhists consumerism or materialism is associated with greed, do we covet our neighbours' goods etc.? So with that materialism we resist the temptation to get involved with the ratrace of materialism by consuming less. In a sense this sees the purchase of items as a neutral act, and the quantity of these items being the measure of our greed. But in this day and age such a view of consumerism needs to change. Because of the Corporate Paradigm we need to be aware of our actions as consumers, and awareness of what we consume makes us mindful consumers.

Traditionally we bartered at the local market, but money replaced barter to allow for skills exchange to be valued. However in practice money soon functioned in a different way, as through taxes people were forced to earn thus changing the way they lived. At the same time there developed a need amongst the few to accumulate capital, and the way the corporations and their financial partners manipulate this capital impacts phenomenally on our daily lives. Being aware of this, mindfulness dictates that we consider ways to limit these manipulations - to limit the impact of the Corporate Paradigm.

I grew up at a time in which the balance between capital and labour helped limit these manipulations, and whilst labour practices were not always popular they did prevent some of the worse ravages of the corporations. However now labour cannot fight for this balance as the corporations are transnational and if a union becomes strong the plant is moved.

With this change there has been a growing awareness of the effects of these transnational giants, and there is small popular resistance shown at large financial summits. But this is not a solution; an answer needs to occur at the grass roots level, not by an attempt to reclaim the power of labour but an awareness of the consumer power of an individual. In the 80s the anti-apartheid movement attacked the purchase of South African goods, and because there was such an animosity to the overtness of white power in a black country, this consumer movement had some impact. But now that the transnationals have become more powerful than many governments, and many view that cartels rather than governments damage our world and our freedoms more, awareness changes the political arena to the market-place - where we consume.

Some political activists have made their personal consumption a political act, but many religious people do not address this issue. It is of course hard to address such issues when we consider our choices for expenditure but the direction of consumption is a slow but certain way to change the policies of transnationals. What we have to be aware of is that transnationals require our purchases in order to make their profits. If sufficient people make it clear that we want to make changes in our purchasing patterns then these giants will have to respond. But it will be slow.

One tenet of Zandtao is:-

Taking care of our bodies

This requires improved eating, and the most important strategy in improving our eating is to improve our purchasing; this requires a lifestyle change. How many people choose to shop at the supermarket for convenience? Is this sensible when many convenience foods contain toxins that damage our health? If our bodies are not healthy it is much harder to try to follow the Path. If our bodies are addicted to refined sugar, how does that addiction affect us when considering meditation? If we continue to consume addictive foods such as coffee, does that not also affect our meditation? And that is withlout considering the impact on pour health due to toxic additives etc.

Once someone begins to want to change their lifestyle by the way they eat, they soon realise the control that Big Food has over the market-place. But this need not deter a Mindful Consumer. Throughout the world there are organisations who have set themselves up to develop this change in market-place. Fair Trade tries to circumvent the transnationals, although they often sell coffee!! But Fair Trade was primarily setup for the politically-aware rather than the mindful consumer. What about the organic movement? This was setup for the health-conscious, aren't mindful people health-conscious? At present not necessarily, mindfulness is concerned with awareness of desire and emotions, but why shouldn't mindfulness be concerned with consumerism?

Just as with Green and other political movements there develops networks which help with this aware consumerism. Mindful people can join in with such movements - a Mindful Consumer Network. I'm going to go even more over the top now. Why can't mindful people then purchase green cars, use other green products, make ethical investments including Triodos bank. Is it right that a Buddhist allow their mindfulness to stop at desire and emotion when consumer power is perhaps the only tool that can control the impact of these behemoths within the paradigm we live?

Send comment:- Tags - Mindful Consumer
Back to blog entries table

Wag the Dog (&)
Brasscheck TV have tried to present the war in Libya as a media-created war, here is a clip of an analysis of internet information about the Libyan rebels trying to show that the movement is not a democratic majority. It matters little to western interest the democratic legitimacy of the rebels, this is just another war to put the oil in the hands of a western puppet and especially out of the hands of Qaddafi. The crimes our countries commit in the name of democracy - in our names!!

Wag the Dog is a movie about the power and capability of the movie industry used for political influence. Download


Part 2

Part 3

and join with hjsplit (instructions here).

I enjoyed the rousing music. I am not going to take the extreme position taken by Brasscheck TV, but I believe they are far nearer the truth than any democratic principle espoused by western leaders.

Whilst making a point the movie has humour and is worth watching for that alone.

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

Highway Robbery
When our children's children look back at us what will they see. For a short number of years we have been in a supposed recession. The banks have been failing and tax payers' money has bailed them out. And corporations have been asking for handouts from the government because they are not making profits. Whilst both practices are dubious at the best of times, one would at least expect the failing banks to be losing money and their managers in difficulty. Here is how the American bank bosses have taken huge bonuses, and British banks likewise. "Have I got news for you?" made pointed jibes but that seems the western level of uprising at this Highway Robbery. The Corporations not to be outdone saw a means for profit. They too sought handouts and at the same time reduced the workforce - in the US figures of 9% job loss. CNN described their profits with Alternet adding to it.

Someone said to me that in the US they have a scheme whereby people adopt a stretch of highway and keep it clean. Initially he spoke of corporations, and I complained about PR. And then I got stuck - repeating the rant when it was not appropriate (I should watch that). Then he said local small businesses and baseball teams adopt same. Local small business is community, baseball teams are corporations aren't they? But then it struck me, why aren't taxes paying to keep the highways clean? Because the government has no taxes left, they have given them to the banks and corporations. I am very much in support of community initiatives and taking responsibility for your own life, but this community involvement is enabling misuse of taxes. But then taxes were introduced to force complaiance with governance, and givernments were the ruling class - now corporations and finance. It is all consistent.

On the handouts people are losing their jobs whilst the fatcats pocket taxpayers' money. They steal from us twice, once with our wages and twice with our taxes. And with blatant lies - needing money etc. Highway Robbery with the vote rather than the gun. When are we going to open our eyes and act?

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

Bin Laden and Jingoism
I have been irritated by the jingoism exhibited around the death of Osama Bin Laden. It is not possible to assess the true conditions surrounding his death because of the media manipulations, as in his life there is more of an air of mystery from those who would use his life and death as a means of promoting their own agendas.

I have no idea how to assess the threat of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, what I am aware of is that that threat has been used to fuel a war on terror that has caused much division in the world, has enabled war in Iraq, and with the war in Libya there has been little more than a murmur at the atrocities from resident western populations.

When I think of the raid that killed Bin Laden I think of the doubts about Bin Laden and his scapegoating. Why didn't a civilised country insist that he was brought back to stand trial? I was then pleased to read this article by Noam Chomsky as his immediate reaction, followed by this analysis explaining his immediate reaction in more detail. He says it much better than me.

Al Qaeda came to prominence as a result of the 9/11 attacks. I lament the death of so many people in the Twin Towers. But what actually happened that day? There is so much doubt. Conspiracy theorists claim that there was prior knowledge, that the political consequences, such as the Homeland Security Act, were already in place, and in general there are many issues to be answered for proper justice. I am not claiming innocence for Bin Laden or Al Qaeda, I cannot believe what the media says and I do not believe Al Qaeda media either; it is a complete game of lies. And yet through those lies so much hurt and damage has been done.

Nor do I turn around and see the Twin Towers as a neutral building chosen because there were Americans present in the building. This was a strategic target whether you like it or not. The WTO props up the capitalist system, without the conquistadores of trade controlling the way we exploit the Third World and others our capitalist system would not be as powerful as it is. It is my view that the people who died were mostly innocent, but at the same time as just doing their job they were supporting these conquistadores, the effects of whose policies cause global devastation. The WTO, as other conquistadores, are key players in the Corporate Paradigm that exploits the world, and it cannot be a surprise that a violent socialist organisation would choose them as a target. This is far from a statement of condoning what happened, but it is necessary for us to examine in detail the political system we live in, and the consequences of our wealth production and how we live off it. Apart from anti-globalisation groups there haven't been other targets of this Corporate Paradigm, that is more of a surprise to me.

When it comes to politics I always cringe when Buddhist teachers make public pronouncements. Once you are a public teacher your word carries weight. It is not their opinions I object to but the power of their word, that people will follow because of what you say. This brings with the pronouncements great responsibility. I am angered by the callous jingoism displayed by bin Laden's death, as I am by the death of anyone, but I cannot comment on the validity of the action and all the other aspects of the issues I have raised above. I do not know the facts. There are media lies and political gains that is all I can observe. And I am not shut away in a monastery whose very purpose is to insulate the monks from the trials and tribulations of daily life.

Now Brad Warner is not cloistered but people follow his opinion. I like Brad because he takes on issues that are often left hidden, and that can only be beneficial. And from his blogs I have had previous disagreements but in this blog, I feel it not right that he comment. This is the quote that I bring into question:-

"I have to say that there is a monumental difference. Those Palestinians were rejoicing in the deaths of thousands of people whose only crime was showing up for work on a Tuesday morning. The Americans were celebrating the death of a man responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center and several other mass murders, a man who would have gone on to murder as many more people as he possibly could had he not been killed."

He is comparing Palestinians celebrating the 9/11 bombing with the western jingoism at the death of Bin Laden. Had Brad reflected on this statement in the light of the political role of the WTO conquistadores? In their years of suffering, how many Palestinians have begun to connect their struggle as a struggle against the Corporate interests of oil rather than simply a struggle against Israel? At the same time what if those Palestinians saw the deaths of those Americans as the deaths of people who have tacitly supported Israeli tanks attacking their homes? No acts of violence are acceptable but are we not culpable for our lack of interest in discerning the truth? Ignorance of the law is no defence, is ignorance of political reality a defence either? The Corporate paradigm intentionally obfuscates the issues to allow ordinary people to participate in a system that damages the world. Jobs are neutered so that those people can go home to their families and feel comfortable. With 9/11 people, even Conspiracy theorists, never questioned the politics of the target, maybe those Palestinians knew or maybe their cheering was just an expression of the years of suffering and death that they have experienced. That is just a typical jingoist comment of the realities of war, people take sides.

I remember back in the 80s I taught Israeli children at a language school, I was not looking forward to it with my anti-Israeli position. Apart from being boisterous, not as badly behaved as English kids, in class they were reasonable. It came to our last lesson and a political discussion developed, I suspect they knew my views and intentionally raised the issue although I had tried to hide my opinions. What impressed me was their level of rationality, not that I considered their position was correct. They were able to argue clearly and although they were emotional they were not rabid - as I have been at times - not in a lesson of course. But in the end it taught me one thing, once family had been killed there was no way back. These Israelis had some historical arguments but the ones they felt were that the Arabs had killed their relatives. Look at 9/11. Americans were killed, and that has allowed the US - and the UK and Europe - to go on a murder spree under the guise of War on Terror. And the populations of this western alliance support this spree simply because Americans were killed at 9/11. How much more would they feel if it had been their family? Whilst the Corporations feel it is acceptable to cause deaths for profits war will never end because once death has occurred there is more than likely to be personal reprisal, and that personal reprisal is used politically by the Corporations and their puppets. What a sad world we are in.

And what will be the consequences of the jingoism? Anger and reprisals. And reprisals. And more justifications for the so-called war on terror. Don't give any hawks an excuse, demand peace. Having said this Chomsky's article says there is not much support fpor bin Laden, let's hope so.

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

Reagonomics Guy
Max Keiser presents economics as it is. He presents "On the Edge" TV where he discusses the state of the US economy. Here he is talking with Paul Craig Roberts who was the leader of Reaganomics. This analyst sees a threat to all pensions in the West, sees the continuing damage being done by speculators includng Goldman Sachs, meanwhile the people stand by. his solution for Greece - revolution. The system is saying revolution to countries in the hands of Wall Street. Seriously worrying.

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

Lifting the Veil on the Inside Job
Early on in my political education I met a Ugandan socialist who told me something I never forgot "In the UK we only got the vote when they could be sure that their people would get in"; that is my paraphrase as his langauge was better than that. It seemed so obvious to me when you look at it historically, who ever gives away power? When you look at UK politics this is even more obvious if you seriously question. All we have are different shades of opportunists, the Tories who blatantly go to bat for big business and Labour who purport to represent the working-class occasionally when it suits them but in practice just do what business wants - look at Blair. Now at the time the vote was given away we were living in an aristocracy rather than a corporatocracy but the changing nature of the ruling class has not altered the nature of the puppets - their actions support the prevailing power whilst the songs they sing offer hope for different people depending on the times.

This brings me to "Lifting the Veil" - a movie about the power relations in US politics. Here are the four parts to download, join them with hjsplit (instructions here):-


Lifting the Veil

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4
(The clips are stored at mediafire. Click the links for each part, and you will be redirected to mediafire. Wait for the link "Clickhere to start download", and then click. You can download more than one file at a time.)

Now for me Obama was never any more than wind, no-one could rise to the nomination of the Democrat party without having sold out. But he was convincing, and even though I know that he cannot be honest listening to what he says at the beginning of the movie questions my analysis - until I look at what he has done. When you hear his vehement promises and look at what he has done there is no comparison - and added is the completely illegal war in Libya. Bush couldn't have gone in as quick. In the US system the survival of a politician depends on campaign contributions - business buys the votes; the connections to the money are more subtle in UK politics but in the end it amounts to the same - the vote is bought. As Larry Pinkney says in the movie about the Liberal Democrats "the lesser of the evils is still evil".

The movie goes on to show how much Obama is in bed with the Corporations. I remember noting his first appointment of zionist Bram Emmanuel as Chief of Staff. I have not followed his appointments close enough to note as the film does just how much he has repaid his backers - the Corporations. For example a Monsanto CEO is in charge of the FDA, and perhaps the biggest food issue to damage Americans is GM - Monsanto. Checkout this investigation into Monsanto by a French journalist, and you will see that in the US no-one in the government has actually scientifically investigated the dangers of manipulating Nature's gene pool.



Part 1 Part 2
(The clips are stored at mediafire. Click the links for each part, and you will be redirected to mediafire. Wait for the link "Clickhere to start download", and then click. You can download more than one file at a time.)

The Monsanto movie starts with a look at soy, and shows how Monsanto has engineered soy so that it chemically interacts with their pesticide Roundup (here is a link that shows Roundup causes birth defects) to ensure better crop production, the pesticide is in the food. But there hasn't been any investigation as to how sustained eating of this soy would affect humans - soy ADHD? (Natural News clip on what is GM?) Returning to Obama his appointments read like a who's who of people the Corporatocracy would want and the people don't.

There is good section by Richard Wolff about the greed of these people. They have caused this crisis so the first thing they do is get the taxpayers' money out of the government. Now they are making record profits whilst ordinary people are losing their jobs and homes. Peoples' hours are increasing yet their salaries are not changing. This bailout money which, if used to pay for the homes would have left the ordinary people in jobs and stabilised the economy - with plenty to spare, is being used to pay huge bonuses despite the Obama rhetoric, and on top of that the government is in deficit and is borrowing money from the very Corporations that are causing the problems. The whole thing is just so absurd you could laugh if it wasn't so serious. Anyway listen to Wolff if you don't believe me. Watch the movie it places everything in context.

The movie supports most of my assessments about Obama except the hope that there would be green imperialism turned out to be a fear based on rhetoric; again he made the right noises but as his Libyan actions have shown his heart has been bought. This sugar-coated black man is far more dangerous than any of the Bushes, in terms of change for the better nothing was ever expected of them. How much more will the US population be alienated now?

The movie offers no solutions. Here is a nice rant, although its position says everything her ranting makes me smirk. Ethos the movie offers a solution, control your money, your money is what the Corporations need, don't give it them. Join a Mindful Consumer Network - discussed here. Well they don't exist but here is a very nice approach concerning organic produce - Consumer Supported Agriculture. Of course if it took off the government would block it, for aware people they can benefit because the politicos don't see this as an answer - as always their plans are too big and have no chance of succeeding.

Now I come to the movie "Inside Job". Here are the six parts to download, join them with hjsplit (instructions here):-


Inside Job

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6
(The clips are stored at mediafire. Click the links for each part, and you will be redirected to mediafire. Wait for the link "Clickhere to start download", and then click. You can download more than one file at a time.)

Inside Job refers to the complicity between government and the Bush administration over deregulation. Deregulation means there were laws in place to prevent global recession. Starting with the Reagan administration through to the Bush admnistration the finance regulations were manipulated causing the recession, such as allowing leverage (the amount you can lend) to skyrocket. As John Fortune and John Bird described in my earlier blog, the crisis was caused by crazy lending at all levels and the lack of regulation enabled this legally, as for the moral accountability of these people their culpability is blatant but unproveable. Eliot Spitzer made efforts to stop the deregulation as described in this earlier blog . The Inside Job describes how all these people clubbed together to create the crisis, and of course none of them are being punished, in fact the opposite Western governments are still giving them money. Democracy!!

I have always argued against academia. I have often claimed that research only produces the results the financial backers wanted. At Brighton Poly I went for a job as a teacher, but they weren't interested in teaching ability they only wanted research. It is interesting to see how compromised the economics advisers from the American universities are. Whilst appearing publicly neutral as academic advisors on economics, in practice these government advisors had seats on the board of the major finance giants, Inside Job shows all this.

In the final part of the film Inside Job discusses Obama. It showed his campaigning against Wall Street but one speaker laughed amd said it was still a Wall Street government. His financial advisers are part of the same system that caused the crisis, many appointees being from Goldman Sachs. This ought to be compulsive viewing for all, except it would make too many people legitimately angry and cause violence.

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

Economic Hitman
How does the West wheedle their way into deals with the Third World? How are the governments controlled? There are three stages:-

1) Economic hitmen,

2) CIA jackals to destabilise or even assassinate.

3) the troops

John Perkins was one of these economic hitmen spilling the beans - whistleblower. He worked for a company who would go to these countries and create a demand for a useless infrastructural project, arrange loans from the World Bank, and arrange for the contracts to be given to US companies. He discusses some of what he did here (154 Mb - 2 hrs).

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

I came across Burzynski a couple of months ago. According to what I have understood there are certain amino acids missing in some cancer patients. He replaces these amino acids by amino acids from healthy humans, and he collects them from human urine. These drugs he calls antineoplastins. Urine therapy has often been used as Nature's way of healing, when there is something wrong the body manufactures a cure in the urine, but this is usually done within our own urine. However there is a medical treatment which involves horses' urine - don't like the sound of that but I really have no idea. So this is not my usual promotion for a method for dealing with cancer ie healthy eating. Burzynski claims that it will cure some cancers - less than 30%, and he has patients who appear to prove this

This method could be sound, and there is sufficient evidence that there is something to his technique. So if there were a genuine effort on the part of the establishment then he would have been given money by the National Cancer Institute to support or refute the technique and determine which cancers he can cure through transparent scientific evaluation. Instead he has been prosecuted by the FDA. This movie goes into the politics behind the FDA's desire to prosecute him. I support a healing diet as a first step if you get cancer. I would use Gerson if I ever came down with cancer. This technique appears to work more for young children with tumors so would not apply to me. But surely there ought to be a genuine investigation.

I downloaded the movie from a freesite legitimately, and even though it is sales promotion they do ask for a donation by buying the DVD, seems reasonable. Anyway you can download it here:-


Burzynski - a cure for cancer?

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4
(The clips are stored at mediafire. Click the links for each part, and you will be redirected to mediafire. Wait for the link "Clickhere to start download", and then click. You can download more than one file at a time.)

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4
(The clips are stored at divshare. Click the links for each part, and you will be redirected to divshare. Click the download button. For details on how to join .001, .002, .003 files go here.)

As one Roumanian exile patient put it "Ceausescu never stopped doctors from healing".

I suspect that Burzynski is a difficult man yet at the same time when there are such powerful forces militating against you you need a strident position. The movie showed a consultant who then through a corporation has tried to steal the treatment. Government patents were apparently approved and it all got very complicated. The truth? Because of the degree of manipulation that is happening this gives me more and more reason to believe that there is something to the treatment, and that Big Pharma is trying to steal it whilst the chemo industry is trying to suppress it. There was an interesting quote in one of the patent applications that was accepted:-

"Current approaches to combat cancer rely primarily on the use of chemicals and radiation, which are themselves carcinogenic and may promote recurrences and the development of metastatic disease."

Looking at the politics involved makes me think more about cancer. It now appears that cancers will occur with a large number of people. Is this a lifestyle disease? I suspect that it mainly is but there are examples of cancers in children. But why? I see cancer as an anti-Nature disease, but as "civilisation progresses" our society moves fruther and further from Nature. Hence the cancer industry will proliferate. This is big bucks and Big Pharma wants! This is even more evidence that the way forward is healthy eating, and hope that your children are not one of the unlucky throwbacks cancer-wise.

Such a sad situation!

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

Confrontation and Distraction
People are in general not happy, and they seek solutions for the self such as greed and materialism that can never produce genuine happiness. The reward for following the spiritual Path is happiness but you pay the price by not having the wealth, but then you don't care. Part of this Path is recognising the reality that exists in society. At present that reality is that there is suffering - as there always has been, and that at present the social cause of that suffering is the greed of those in the corporatocracy. To alleviate social suffering as human beings we need to work to take the control out of the hands of the corporations and put it back in the hands of caring people. This is genuine democracy, and not the hijacked democracies that are the western models.

People need to confront these realities, see them for what they are - and live them. Does your lifestyle make you happy? Change it, forget the wealth. Does it make you unpopular pointing out that the problem is the corporations? Of course it does. People have been educated to believe that government is for the people, and yet even with all the recent evidence (as highlighted by moviesLifting the Veil and Inside Job) people turn away, become distracted from the real source of the social problems. If we personally sought happiness then we could see the source of the social problems and from our happiness bases be content with that evaluation - we would not be distracted from the truth. Our happiness would allow us to confront what is the source. What do we do then? Revolution? Of course not. Whilst a revolution against capitalist imperialism would be justified if 98% of the people believed in the need for revolution, the violence and suffering can never be justified when so few people believe now. But that does not mean we don't confront the reality with what we say and do. How we do that is a matter of personal choice? As an individual I confront it, and make choices such as with my savings. Through my journey, including my blog, I face the reality and try to inform people with little success. In work I was constantly in a position of confronting the authorities because the education ladder is built on miseducation ensuring that people do not learn about the corporate reality. What about spiritual people in general? How do they confront this reality? In the majority of cases they don't. It is my view that one of the primary reasons for this is that for the majority the spiritual Paths are controlled by religious institutions and religious institutions are tolerated whilst they conform to the Corporate Paradigm. If religious people start to confront the truth, they are described as "political" and they are controlled or excommunicated. This is not the Path, happiness does not occur when we don't confront the truth - spiritually or socially.

Here is a clip of an economic analyst:-

He clearly goes through the source of the current problems. In 1979 wealth was accumulated to too few, but since then even more wealth has accrued to these exploiters. And what os the conclusion of the analyst "the middle classes need more buying power". Now of course they can only get that buying power by getting the wealth back but the analyst avoids facing the problem which is the corporate wealth. There is a very shallow caring methodology that has developed - "make a difference". People are encouraged to measure their worth by the difference they make, this is just egotism. How can you make a difference when you stand up and say the cause of suffering is the corporations. You cannot, they are too powerful. Be happy that what you say is right. When people create distractions as to the source of the problems, disagree pleasantly, happily, but disagree with the firm conviction about what is right. The corporations do not care. As happy people we care, do not be distracted from the truth. Be happy in caring. And as for the spiritual leaders who cannot stand up and say the problem lies with the corporations, know that that is their weakness that this cannot make them happy. Do not be distracted.

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

Aspartame is the sweetener that gets added to soft drinks such as pepsi etc., it is also the sweetener that was marketed as low fat - avoiding sugar. How many people started using these sweeteners to help with diet issues? Of course it's safe, isn't it? This movie claims that asparatame contributes to brain tumours:-



Part 1 Part 2
(The clips are stored at mediafire. Click the links for each part, and you will be redirected to mediafire. Wait for the link "Clickhere to start download", and then click. You can download more than one file at a time.)

Most interesting for me is one of my hobby horses - funding research. "You get what you pay for" is the real adage for research although few accept this. In the movie they claim there was much research that was paid for by the corporation, that was all favourable. But what of independent research? Independent research showed that asparatame had health issues. What about a comparison between industry-funded and independent research? Clear delineation - industry healthy, independent unhealthy. Do you believe me? Watch the movie.

As the movie progresses you begin to see greater and greater political manipulation, and significant amongst these was Donald Rumsfeld. In his time as CEO of G D Searle they gained FDA approval by various unacceptable practrices (at the same time Rumsfeld downsized G D Searle by 60%). In 1981 Ronald Reagan became president, and, the next day after taking office, by executive order he suspended the authority of the FDA to take any action concerning aspartame (the FDA appeared not to be approving aspartame). Many of the people who facilitated the approval of aspartame went on to work for the G D Searle umbrella organisation.

G D Searle employed a UK professor who rubber-stamped aspartame without any experimentation leading to "approved in US and UK so approve it everywhere". In 1985 G D Searle became part of Monsanto (movie about Monsanto here).

Here is the stuff not to believe, it looks very authoritative. I couldn't argue with what they say except I just don't believe it. The question is who is supporting the site, I have no idea and do not wish to investigate. The position is this. The aspartame movie has sufficient experts, and describes how they perceive the politics that led to the approval. The result of taking aspartame is brain tumours. The description in the movie of the action of the three components of aspartame makes a lot of sense - to have wood alcohol inside your bodies is not wise. The movie has common sense. The system counters this by giving approval through political organisations like the FDA. Is it worth the risk? Here is a breast cancer site that says aspartame is OK in moderation. To know where they come from I would need to investigate their donors, but I look at their homepage and the treatments are chemo and chemicals. That is enough for me not to believe them, judge for yourself BUT is it worth the risk?

Personally I would go here if I wanted true info.

And here are the lies. I downloaded this spin from the Coca Cola website. It sounds good, as all spin should, but when you watch it in light of the above movie you can almost see it as a response. What needs to be answered? There are some notable absences. The film says that all independent evidence says brain tumours, the spin does not mention tumours and says that there has been extensive research, the overwhelming balance in favour of aspartame - they just don't discuss the sourcing. The film mentions three main components of aspartame, the spin only mentions two - it does not talk about wood alcohol. It is an amusing contrast until you think that every day people are becoming ill and aspartame is the cause. And coke is too big to do something about it.

AminoSweet Addendum 17/11/11:- People are wising up to aspartame as a health hazard so aspartame has been renamed as AminoSweet:- Checkout this link

Now marketed as a natural sweetener.

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

e- Patients
This is a talk given by Dave deBrockart at TED:-

It is about e-Patients, a movement about patients being allowed to take responsibility for their own lives. e-Patients should be:-

E - Equipped

E - Engaged

E - Empowered

E - Enabled

When this guy's doctor discovered he'd got cancer, the doctor's advice was "Just go home and have a glass of wine with your wife". That quote hit me like a thunderbolt. If I was dying and the doctor told me "Do nothing", I'd hit the roof. The talk is all about the need to give patients information, but it stops there. Whilst this is a step in the right direction the real issue is why don't doctors give patients information? And that question is deeply political. The more information the patients have the more they learn how corrupted the medical industry is, how much the industry is controlled by Big Pharma and how much of what we call disease is caused by Big Food. For most doctors this is not an intentional effort to disinform. All their training tells them that what they know is right - medical college, drugs reps (see the whistleblower) etc. If people were truly equipped, engaged, empowered and enabled, there would be much anger at what the corporations have served them up with.

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

Nuclear Regulations
Following Fukushima one would think the world would tighten up on nuclear regulations. Far from it in the home of the corporatocracy, instead of being concerned about the dangers of ageing plant, to make sure the plants continue they are changing the regulations. This is an edited clip from Democracy Now:-


(Democracy Now is an online daily broadcast. Copy this link into Miro to enable podcasts (or others)).

Here is the AP guy, interviewed by Democracy Now, writing for the Huffington Post.

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

As a result of the the thread (or backup), I am trying to make more sense of what happened in the war. Unlike rational people I do not lie about being neutral, I quite simply want to present further evidence of my insight into the causes of the situation. For rational people - people who have already made up their minds in favour of the system, this will not make any difference. Perhaps some open-minded people might see the truth of the insight.

Here is Iraq.

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

I was recently really surprised by someone who supported Tony Blair's discussion in his book, this was someone who should have had the insight to see through him. It really disturbed me. This was an intellgent religious man whom I respect when he speaks of religion but clearly should not be offering opinions outside cloisters. As the discussion revolved around Iraq I have decided to read into Iraq. Nothing I have read so far has done anything but reinforce my opinion of the corporate shenanigans, and has reinforced my view that those inexpereinced in the ways of the world should remain disengaged where they have a fruitful, useful and important role to fulfil.

To begin I watched Pilger's "The War you don't see", and it saddened me. It has made me more emotional about people who choose not to see. Pilger's style of interviewing people on the inside made this documentary more compelling.

Download all the parts and join with hjsplit (instructions here).

The War You Don't See
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6
(The clips are stored at mediafire. Click the links for each part, and you will be redirected to mediafire. Wait for the link "Clickhere to start download", and then click. You can download more than one file at a time.)

Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table

3rd World War?
My row with the monk was a mental misdirection. Why did I get angry that a man in cloisters was not aware of the world? OK there's a certain amount of jealousy that he has such influence, there is jealousy that I would like to have such a platform, but in reality that could never happen. Firstly I would never put on a robe, and secondly whilst the people I have met there have been reasonably genuine it is a church - it is a place of security. And I am not looking for security I am looking for personal revolution - and I'm afraid that with this church the Bang is very Little.

But the misdirection is not to have a pop at the Littlebangers - good for them do what they feel is important for themselves, and whilst I don't agree that the monk's approach to the Engaged world is insightful - good for him what he does. The real issue is that my own mindfulness had been hoodwinked, it was not his lack of political awareness that was upsetting me it was my own. Ever since I left the UK in 1993 my political awareness has been stagnant. OK in this blog I have raised some issues especially with regards to the politics of food, but on the global political level I had been burying my head in the sand. So I want to thank the monk whose confrontation has pushed me back into an awareness of the political arena.

Here is a clip from John Stockwell:-

I have been listening to a few clips of John Stockwell and in retrospection he reached erroneous conclusions, such as the US wanted to go into Nicaragua rather than the Middle East. And when you listen to this clip it sounds crazy to talk of a 3rd World War. But let's think about it. Quite clearly war has changed since the end of the Cold War. In retrospect the Soviets were no match for the US, they folded so quickly. So why was the Cold War something I grew up with? As Stockwell points out this Cold War was driven financially by the military-industrial complex. So what happened when the Berlin wall came down? There was vacuum, where was the MIC going to get its money? Reagan was replaced by Bush and soon we were in Iraq repaying Bush's masters (more details here towards the end of the page).

So what about the deaths as a result of CIA operations?

"working with conservative figures we come up with a minimum figure of SIX MILLION PEOPLE killed in the Secret Wars of the CIA through its destabilizations over these past forty years:

One million people killed in the Korean War;

Two million people killed in Vietnam;

One to two million people killed in Cambodia;

Eight hundred thousand people killed in Indonesia;

Fifty thousand people killed in Angola."

Thes figures are before you include the dead in Iraq, here are figures for Iraq (click image for source):-

Iraq Deaths Estimator

Now this is not a confrontational war as in the so-called two world wars, it is a covert war of manipulation both in the countries concerned and in the metropole where media control is so essential. When I describe the corporatocracy it is better understood to see that the military wing of this corporatocracy has led to this many deaths. When we talk of the people in the US and UK holding onto their jobs in the transnationals we need to consider what they are doing. Whilst realising that these are people just seeking to earn money for their famillies, they are also working within a business structure that is responsible for so many deaths. When I have been writing recently about Big Food and Pharma's manipulations that are leading to ill health for profits, this pales into comparisons with their military wing who are killing so many in the Third World. Whilst it is a sound byte Stockwell's 3rd World War is an apt description. Whilst we sit on our stools our minds need to be comfortable with this concept and these figures. I hope I can be but I am not sure - after all what can I do?

Still what is most important is facing the truth and living with it. There is no better description of what western foreign policy is than "3rd World War", is there? It is the third of the wars that killed so many people, and the war is a bullying war in that it targets people who mostly do not have nuclear weapons and cannot fight back - the people of the Third World. With regards to Iraq this notion of bullying became the excuse for the war in that Iraq was invaded because "they had weapons of mas destruction". In fact this was just one of many lies, Iraq was invaded to support the MIC and the oil transnationals - and a significant new business, the security companies like Haliburton and Blackwater.

Now how far do I go with this increased political awareness? First of all there is the pointless withdrawal from the Littlebang group, because the monk has demonstrated that he won't accept dissent. In thread there was sufficient evidence for those who wanted to look that there was the censorship of power and "academic reason" - that insight was not being applied. This was the second time I recall a thread where the western position was being defended. I remember someone talking about how westerners could not become Buddhists because of their backgrounds, I could not understand why the people did not want to accept that there was a difference in backgrounds. It now appears that it is part of the same syndrome - they could not accept what is actually being done in their name by the corporatocracy. Buddhist meditators, being mindful, need to face all that is happening in this world. Like everyone else they are powerless to do anything, but it is part of mindfulness to use insight to see the truth, and when you look at the world the truth about the corporatocracy is significant. The priest should not be avoiding the truth because it is more comfortable for him and his church.

My political blog changed from conspiracy and politics (conspol) to STC - speculators, transnationals and conquistadores, now I am going to change it to corporatocracy - tilting at windmills eh?


Send comment:- Tags -
Back to blog entries table