The integrated path of compassion, insight and creativity - the struggle for GAIA and against the 1%-satrapy of war and wage-slavery.

This is a continuation of my zandtao blog.

Email Zandtao:-

For details on new blogs follow me on twitter.

Zandtao Blog Links page

Control and Sadness

Please be cautious with this post, I am not hammering anything home but some people might find the conclusions depressing.

I had a prevaricating morning in bed yesterday, eventually gave up and called it a bad day. I woke up and got ready to meditate …. but didn’t. I drifted to Kolok where Lance is about to kill Banno – that might still happen today (didn’t). But then came the disturbance, why I hadn’t got up to meditate. I had been having a conversation with an ex-student and it was difficult. He is the sort of sympathetic MAWP who needs to change if we are to have hope but he is not a MAWP of nastiness. But right-wing intellectualism is just so tedious and difficult.

I remember politics. On a platform you have to watch every detail of every p and q because this intellectualism will jump on you. Intellectualism of any form, the left is just as guilty, the intellectualism of both just tries to pick holes. In some situations this is good because it is a learning tool. If both of you are in a discourse trying to arrive at a genuine consensus then intellect highlights faults in the other leading to a better consensus. But if we are standing our corners and we use intellect selectively to try to score points over another it is just destructive – just look at the political partisan debacles that serve no-one.

Intellectual ego is also a real block to spirituality, and to be perfectly honest it is difficult to work with. I have spent my life trying to contend with my own, and I have at last reached some kind of peace with it. Contending with the ego of another causes pain because you can see the pain it causes the other but unlike your own ego you can do nothing about it. The only way ego “dies” is if a person just lets it go. Unfortunately for so many people conditioning has so strengthened the ego that such a “death” is so far from happening it is just saddening.

That is where I am at today (first day of writing this), I am sad – the sadness will go, but it was a relief yesterday to finish that ego engagement – a relief that will let me get back to Kolok. But today I will pay with sadness – a bad day, I hope that the sown seeds will gain fruition but I am sad it hasn’t happened .... yet?

To vent my sadness I am going to bang on about politics - about control. I was once a Top Fan of Films for Action, but I think there is a conspiracy against me and now I am not . I am a great fan of what Tim tries to do which I assess as providing a source of “right-on” films that can produce awareness; we need such a source.

But let’s be clear - what chance have we got for success? In the Manual I called it complete disenchantment. How the hell can we win? Yesterday he posted something that I now see is dated August 2014 “The Story that is destroying the world”; my reply – “The 1% control the story, we don't. Put the blame where it belongs. Sure we collude, how else do wage slaves get money?” Tim liked a reply “We are all in control”.

How are we all in control? Are we free to act as we want? There are so many ways that there are controls on our lives, ways that prevent the authentic us from controlling our lives - so many ways that this blogpost could last until the end of Covid .

Let’s consider social control first of all. To begin with we could examine history of social control as slavery apartheid and colonialism. All 3 systems have morphed into neo-colonialism. As part of the struggle we maintain the delusion that good comrades have fought against these controls leading to some form of emancipation. As a good comrade I celebrate those emancipation struggles but as an analytical comrade there is the other side.

Let us consider slavery. For a while slavery increased the accumulation of the 1%. Slavery in the US, the worst example of slavery but by no means the only form, was white master, black slave. The small numbers of whites could not control the blacks so they co-opted the services of some blacks as overseers to enable control. But in the end the slaves fought for their freedom.

White history presents the agency of northern whites as a partial source of that abolition, and there were undoubtedly good-hearted white people who fought to end this control of black people as slaves. But the abolition movement as a whole was not simply about freedom – it was also about utilisation by controlling the slaves. Because slaves were not making their own decisions their enterprise was limited, their human creativity was greatly under-utilised. At the same time it was costly to maintain the absolute control of slavery, so from the 1%-point-of-view slavery had served its purpose. To increase their accumulation the 1% preferred wage-slavery, an approach that maintained control through wages but increased productivity by giving black people some agency; whilst at the same time they assuaged the righteous anger of compassion that could not accept slavery. From the 1%-point-of-view abolition was not concerned with freedom but increased accumulation, what was lost through the apparent lessening of control from slavery to wage-slavery was gained in accumulation.

The end of apartheid in South Africa had a similar dynamic. Through apartheid whites accumulated by exploiting the use of black workers to gain wealth from SA’s bounteous natural resources. Black people always fought against this exploitation but the ANC struggle was not the only factor in the end of apartheid. Some would argue that it was also the boycott campaign that helped end the regime. As a good comrade I am quite happy to describe the complementary struggle of ANC and the boycott campaign as being the death-knell of apartheid. But that would be a delusion as is the delusion that freedom was the only objective of the abolition movement. The cost of maintaining the repression of black people was escalating, the global 1% recognised that they couldn’t continue to support apartheid in SA because of public opinion, and the global 1% believed they could increase their accumulation by supporting the end of apartheid. Apartheid as a principle doesn’t disturb the 1%, if their accumulation increases they would support anything – even global destruction. Apartheid continues to this day in Israel but the 1% do not support the anti-apartheid struggle there because they can maintain their accumulation – change their accumulation and the rights of Palestinians would be respected. Unfortunately the 1% accumulate more through zionism so that apartheid continues.

The black struggle in SA is mirrored throughout Africa but instead of black people struggling against a white government separated from their hegemony the white government was from South Africa herself; in the rest of Africa the white governments were colonial. Was this significantly different? In one way it was for sure, the military control was based in the hegemony whereas the military control in SA was homegrown. In colonial Africa military control became more and more expensive affecting the accumulation. As a good comrade I say that the black struggle overthrew the white oppressors but as an analytical comrade I recognise that the hegemony could not afford this financial military control. So the colonists bought overseers. They favoured one tribe over another and elevated that tribe to power through finance and trade agreements. As a result 1%-accumulation increased through the independence movements as colonialism morphed to neo-colonialism.

Control by 1%-accumulation did not end there because hegemonic governments were then eating into the accumulation so they increased their accumulation through the financial conquistadores of IMF etc – thus cutting out the necessity of various governmental hegemonies maintaining one financial hegemony.

So as a good comrade historically I see struggle and the people taking control but analytically I know there is delusion in that description of control. It has some truth but it is not the whole truth.

History is always a good place to start because history shows the forces and approach of those in power now. So how much personal freedom do we actually have now, and how much is controlled? Firstly we can say without contradiction that for some there is no control, it is these unconscious colluders of wage-slavery that the changed system of slavery was designed for. For these wage-slaves who do not see control they feel their decisions are their own, they feel free. For those people no amount of FfA films will do any good because they feel in control. They decide on their creativity, on their enterprise, on their ways of making profits that increase 1%-accumulation whilst benefitting themselves.

But these people are controlled because the 1% allow them their autonomy, they set the boundaries of their autonomy. As it is experienced this autonomy is autonomy until the unconscious colluder makes a conscious step beyond the bounds of allowed control. At that point they see restriction. Now comes in other factors of control – personal factors of systemic delusion. The 1% provides delusions for these colluders to latch onto and return to being productive controlled assets within the 1%-satrapy. These delusions are far too numerous to mention. They usually have an element of truth. For example racism is perpetuated by the gangster delusion – all blacks are gangsters, and if we help blacks we are helping gangsterism. There is sufficient delusion in this for some right-wingers to deceive themselves in colluding with the racist aspect of the 1%-satrapy. Delusions are never the whole truth but simply sufficient for the colluder to accept that they are not under control. These delusions of partial truth are financed and through that finance are repeated often so that those under control find their collusion easier.

Fear also produces control. How many people sympathetic to the ideas of freedom are going now to be whistleblowers after the treatment of Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. Whistleblowers have legitimate fears that the same will happen to them. Because there are now fewer whistleblowers those under control don’t have to face the realities the integrity of these whistleblowers exposed; at the same time they create the delusion that these whistle-blowing people of integrity are “crazy” so that we can accept the delusion that we are not controlled.

There are many mechanisms of social control that work together to enable us to delude ourselves that we are in control, but the essential reasoning for the approach is to allow people to be creative and productive wage-slaves; in addition the approach creates delusions that enable the wage-slaves to remain within their bubble of unawareness. To break this control we need FfA films for awareness but such awareness can only help not solve, awareness is not sufficient to bring control as will be clear when I discuss personal control later.

One particular mechanism of social control that is worth considering separately is the delusion of electoral control – electoral democracy. Universal suffrage only occurred when the 1% had controlled the electoral process so that votes became meaningless. Look at western democracies which are often touted as an excuse for war – war for democracy; this touting is only concerned with telling potential dictatorship and allies that economic accumulation is more effective through wage-slave control than it is through outright dictatorship. In these touted western democracies there are bi-partisan elections which offer marginally different candidates both of whom support the 1%-satrapy. It is electoral control by the 1% to produce an elected government that will do 1% bidding – 1%-satrapy.

But what about Bernie and Corbyn? These two are candidates of the 99%. Examine what has happened to them. Within the less right of these bi-partisan parties are paid opportunists who favour the 1%-satrapy. They have established control within party machineries to ensure nothing untoward happens. In Bernie’s case he rose to prominence, threatened Hillary, shenanigans happened and the corrupt opportunist candidate lost the election – to a more corrupt 1%-establishment candidate. Second time around Bernie was going well, Biden was gaffing all over the place, and then the Democratic party machine pulled out the stops and Biden almost overnight became the candidate.

Because of his senile gaffs Biden was never an appropriate candidate, inappropriate sexual “touching” also added to his unsuitability. Then arose the rape allegation. Once that arose there needed to be a 100% transparent investigation listening carefully attentively and with respect to the accuser so that the accusation could go away or the candidate be removed. Such an investigation cannot happen because the replacement candidate democratically has to be Bernie – that is before doubts are cast about the lack of transparency and whether that is associated with guilt. Because Biden’s innocence has not been established it is effectively handing the election to Trump – even despite his mishandling of Covid. This is because the electoral process is controlled for the 1%.

In the UK this electoral control showed itself differently. This time the anti-1% candidate was voted as leader of the opposition – enabled by oversight through mismanagement of a leadership election. From that moment on the 1%-establishment within the party attacked him. Straight away there was a leadership election but the vote reinforced his position. From that moment on this party machinery tried to destroy his credibility. Firstly they attacked his leadership ability – how can you be a leader of people whose allegiance is to the 1% rather than to the party winning the election? Next they attacked him for antisemitism, a man whose tradition was that of anti-racism was continually undermined by impugning him with what was untrue. These attacks are now being unearthed, there maybe sacrificial lambs but it won’t matter to the 1% as Corbyn is now not leader – and their opportunists will be paid off.

Before I end the discussion on social control there is a final mechanism of control that was started by Marx – the concept of a Proletarian revolution. Marx was an academic and this is perhaps the worst example of theoretical destruction. There can never be a proletarian revolution – within the long foreseeable future. If we set as an objective such a revolution then we are working towards a delusion that can never happen. There has always been a bourgeois propaganda machine, and if a genuine effective revolutionary movement were growing the propaganda machine would end it especially with the added dimension of controlling the internet through human downgrading. Amongst the creative who don’t perceive they are under control how are you ever going to get 99% agreement for a mass movement revolution?

Most such revolutions have not been 99% and those revolutions that have gained some form of control have led to worse hardship for their people because of 1%-manipulation. I will only look at two. The Soviet revolution was never 99%, it was led by a vanguard – Bolshevik (meaning minority), and whilst their ideals might have benefitted all the peoples of the USSR in practice those ideals were buried by war. Firstly there was the war with the whites, a group of overthrown dissidents who were financed by the western 1%. When the whites were brought under control internally the 1% financed dissent in the satellites states. The communist government used force to control them, and to control dissent within the non-satellite states repression was used. After 70 years of hardship there is now a dictatorship that the 1% are happy with.

In Nicaragua there was a revolution of the 99% with the Sandinistas in 1979. This popular revolution brought to power a government the people wanted but the 1% could not allow this because it was the “Threat of a Good Example”. The 1% financed the soldiers of the overthrown Somoza dictatorship – called the Contras, and eventually there arose Violeta Chamorro who stood on the platform of appeasing the US so they wouldn’t fund the Contras – and the people accepted a 1%-peace.

Revolution is not practical so most socialists work towards some notion of 99%-awareness that might in some vague way overthrow the 1% in whatever form it takes. This unity of 99%-awareness is as elusive as a 99%-revolution because of the propaganda machine. Socialists seeking this unity will always remain frustrated as it is an impossible ideal for the foreseeable future, but the 1% have no problem with this frustration because frustration produces inertia so they are not threatened.

This is a description of the complete disenchantment by which they control us socially.

Now it is necessary to examine the personal control – the control of the individual internally. This is the part where there is hope – better than that there is joy. When I am talking about personal control I am examining our ability to choose, and whether that ability to choose is influenced by anything. For most people who think about such a question they will argue that they are independent thinkers and as such are free to choose. I fundamentally disagree with this.

There is a natural process of cause and effect that we are subject to from birth, we understand this as connected to instinct. As from birth we are naturally conditioned to develop a survival ego, and with this ego we learn to survive as we grow up. Through this naturally-developed ego we survive to adulthood where we can mature, let go of ego and follow our authentic paths. Using what is discussed in The Four Agreements, during childhood through love in our upbringing we learn to make the agreements society requires in order for us to live together. Through the actual “four agreements” we learn not to attach and form egos so that as adults we can follow our paths:-

Either way it is recognised that forming egos is not beneficial, and to live maturely as adults we let go of any conditioning that form egos.

Sadly in our society the process of naturally letting-go does not happen as nature intended. It is natural for the ego to defend itself and try not to be let go, and this protection of ego has been enhanced by social processes including that of human downgrading. Our defiled world encourages attachment to greed delusion and aversion. For financial profit the 1% utilises (consciously or unconsciously) the way the agreement process works, and undermines any form of agreement that does not facilitate their accumulation. For example agreements that sensibly recognise the need to protect Mother Earth are classified as fake news, when this is done repeatedly by financial investment then what were originally in place as agreements become manipulated by the powerful vested interests. There is no absolute truth in any agreement that is made, people just accept such agreements as common sense ie protecting Mother Earth so we can survive. Labelling these agreements as fake news enables exploitation by the 1%. What people know as common sense agreements cannot be enforced because they are trying to confront huge investment in creating new “agreements” that benefit the exploitation by the 1%.

So what we know and assume as independent thinking and free choice can simply be the natural conditioning of ego supplemented by the social conditioning that is manipulated by the 1%. So how can we go beyond this conditioning? This is the key question of this whole blog because going beyond conditioning is the only way we can assert any form of control. This assertion of control is not historical political or social, it is personal. We cannot assert control by joining an organisation and saying that we have asserted control because we have joined this organisation. We cannot assert control by accepting an idealism and saying that we have asserted control because we now believe certain thoughts. This assertion of control comes from being authentic and following our own paths – pathtivism, at no other time can we be sure that we are not subjected to conditioning of whatever sort other than when we are following our path – being authentic. Being authentic brings with it a level of control or conviction that no level belief in ideals or organisation can match.

This following of the path does not mean that we are not aware of and are possibly even accepting controls, but what it does do is show us when we are being controlled or not. By following the path we know that there is no internal control because we are 100% integrated – no conditioning whether by nature or social. Then we make a free choice, and that is when we know whether there is external control or not; when we know that it is our authentic choice then we know whether there is external restriction. And from that point we can answer whether there is control or not?

Overall what is written in this blog does not sound as if we have a great deal of control, and that is what I am driving at. If we are not following the path then we have absolutely no control, we are at the whims of conditioning and the mercy of the 1% propaganda and controls. The importance of this analysis is to recognise where we can most effectively make change – following the path. The external provides boundaries either through ignorance or delusion, the internal is controlled by conditioning unless we follow the path. That conditioning might well include socialism from our parents but can we be sure with that conditioning the socialism is not working against the interests of the people? For example socialism that is followed as an ideology can put the ideology first before people. The socialism that led to the Bolshevik revolution can be considered to have caused more suffering than the continuation of the Tsar – it is possible. Such an assessment cannot be made by the ideological socialists at the time, but detached later maybe it can.

There are two points to be made about the path. Firstly by focussing on the path of 100% authenticity we become equipped to deal with what the 1% throw at us, we have the most control we can possibly have. Secondly by following the path we develop a personal peace even joy on the way, can that be achieved by following the intellect or an ideology?

For some teachers following the path is recognised as complete freedom, we are free to do what we want. But we are not free to change others, they must change themselves. We are not free to change governments, they must be changed by whatever system established the government. We are not free to change the 1%-satrapy, that is the true governmental system and has to be changed from within. By following the path we are free to make our decisions with awareness. After that decision we work within community organisations trying to effect change however we decide. If following the path was sufficient to change society then society would have been changed by the Buddha, Jesus, the Prophet Mohammed and others already. Following the paths ends our own suffering and shows us how we can help others, but it is up to them.

In the middle of the following night (after writing this first part) I woke up and understood where most of the sadness really came from, and I don’t know what to do with it.

What I have established so far is that we don’t control our labour but through the path we can gain the optimal control. What is this labour used for? To create the 1%-economy.

Let’s try and see what this 1%-economy means. What is presented in education is a flawed description based on a tacit expansion of the supply-and-demand model. This flawed description suggests that people create a demand and the system supplies for that demand through sales and production. Around the edges of this model are additional factors but essentially the model deludes us that the 1% grew rich by making profits from what they supplied. Firstly the market is not based on supply and demand but is controlled by market mechanisms, and these mechanisms take away choice so that people are forced to engage with the market in the way the powerful (1%) want. Hence we have the source of global inequality – the lack of free trade or market mechanisms.

But this is the economy based on what we produce, however the 1%-accumulation is not based solely on production but is based on financial manipulations on the stock market. Now the stock market is also based on a flawed model that we are taught in schools. Investors buy shares in companies. When companies make a profit they pay the investors a proportion of that profit (called dividend). Now again this is a flawed model of the stock market. Most of the trade is not based on shares but is based on unreal mechanisms – shares are real these mechanisms are not real. I do not understand how these unreal mechanisms work but I do recognise that they are the bulk of the so-called trading that create the 1%-accumulation. Words like futures, derivatives and funds dominate this world of unreal mechanisms but what characterises these mechanisms is that they are unreal, not substantive, not sustainable.

One final key aspect to this 1%-economy is government. Government accrues money through taxation, and using this taxation the government makes policy. The government does not balance the books. When it comes to financing projects for the people such as social welfare the government claims it does eg austerity in the UK. But when it comes to projects such as weaponry they always find the money. Most people assume that weapons money comes from balancing the books - or external debt with debt repayments being part of balancing the books; this is not true but I am not sure how. One thing I am sure of is that the books are not balanced, the government interests are not the people, and when they want they introduce fiat money into the economy vis-?-vis the bailouts after the 2008 crash.

There are essentially two economies that comprise the 1%-economy – a real and unreal economy. This real economy is based on production and is predicated on wage-slavery. It is partially sustainable. It is this real economy that used to be based on the gold standard, a standard that gave it some level of sustainability but the gold standard has long since gone – Reagan Thatcher deregulation etc. For it to be sustainable this real economy ought to be based on some connection to barter and velocity of circulation but it is not as there is always credit. This real economy however is the economy that most of us live in – we balance our books or we are in debt risking all the problems of debt such as foreclosures, repossession and so on; this real economy gives us the financial worries that govern most of our lives.

But this is not where the accumulation of the 1% comes from, that accumulation comes from the unreal economy based on unreal stock market manipulations and government fiat money. Although this economy is unreal when it comes to bank accounts the money is not different. If there were a run on the banks real and unreal money are the same, and because of their power and influence the 1% would get their huge amounts of money first leaving the rest of the world with savings and pensions with nothing.

Somehow this world of real and unreal economies survives based on confidence in the consumerist society. The unreal economy knows that people will work, people will produce, people will consume and the real and unreal economies will both survive. I don’t know how this consumerism and confidence connect with the two economies but I fear that the connection is simply that the manipulators on the markets have confidence that the level of consumerism will continue or increase and that this confidence is sufficient for the two economies to survive. I am not the only person who understands that the overall economy is based on a stack of cards that could readily fold, Marxist economists know this and unfortunately I believe that the manipulators themselves just rely on this confidence knowing that if there is a crash the 1% control governments who will bailout finance first.

There is one final mechanism that has always bolstered both economies – war. I first got to understand war as a financial and political mechanism with the Falklands War. It was my first experience of being near any kind of war. I watched as a false pretext was hyped through jingoism into a national war effort. This jingoism united most of the country and brought Maggie back into power whilst bolstering the economy at the same time. In the UK sales of weapons marks the difference between the wealth in the south of England and the north, and those sales are integral to the economy and why compassionate efforts to end arm sales fail. Wars in the Middle East boost economies in the west, and these wars are fought for the profits that protect western economies. The delusions that the people are presented with as causes for wars are not the reasons they happen, they are the icing on the cake that benefits the two economies and keeps them ticking over.

Let me be very clear the unreal economy and fiat money exist for the accumulation of the 1%, the evidence for this exists only in the accounts of the accumulators so proof is not possible. Whilst we live in the consumerism of our unsustainable but real economies, the 1% thrive financially on the benefits of the unreal economy and fiat money. This scenario is connected by the confidence of continued consumerism, and so our economies are continually at risk.

Ordinary people have no control over these economies. Boycott campaigns helped remove apartheid. Mindful or even political consuming by 99% would have an impact but when would we ever have 99% united and working together on a consumer campaign. But controlling the consuming mindfully perhaps with a sustainable goal would drastically affect the unreal economy, and therefore drastically impact on the 1%-accumulation. With their power and influence would they allow that?

What would happen if this consumerism changed?

Because of the pandemic we are going to find out, our biggest concern is what Naomi Klein has described as coronavirus capitalism. To me that is a level-headed description of concern but elsewhere there has been much speculation concerning worse possibilities such as mechanisms leading to a totalitarian state. At the end of this clip Arundhati Roy describes a scenario of a plan that is in the making, in this clip Teal describes her serious concerns. The more devious examples of this speculation is happening to the right, in my view this is because their egos have been massaged and manipulated so much recently they have lost any sense of reality.

I really don’t know what is going to happen. But there are some indicators as to the thinking of the 1%. Their leading puppets, Trump and Bojo, are doing all they can to get people back to work, back to normal consuming. What this says to me is that the 1% were happy with the way things were prior to Covid, and if I look at it from their point of view I can see everything going well. 2008 was a big crash caused by problems associated with accumulation, to all intents and purposes the manipulators in the banking sector should have gone to prison. Instead they were given bailouts and the gap between rich and poor increased since then. When the pandemic started, bailouts were paid out again in the US. Trump got huge bailout packages, he didn’t use it to put a freeze on rent and mortgages but gave huge bailouts to his paymasters. Bojo is selling off the NHS whilst lauding its heroes during Covid. What these indicate to me is that they want business as usual after Covid.

Let us look at the argument concerning totalitarianism. In my initial history in this blog I described a move away from totalitarianism. This was because of two factors:-

The cost of the military
The increased productivity of the willing wage-slaves

Now with the totalitarian theories such as chips in vaccines that cost would be saved – an argument against the status quo, but would it provide the creativity amongst wage-slaves that has been channelled into increased accumulation?

Now these right-wing crazies propounding the more extreme totalitarian theories – independent thinkers – do not have an understanding of what is happening because their activism is part of the WEGemony. The 1% are using these independent thinkers and Qult to sure up the voting position of the white enclave puppets – white enclave of independent thinkers, Qult, plus white Republican wealth ensures Trump a further 4 years. Their egos could never accept that they are being manipulated yet these egos are now out of control because they are not disciplined people capable of dealing with lockdown. Their egos see conspiracy yet the politicians in power are the 1%-puppets they put there. They see the enemy as the Deep State but the Deep State is all things to all crazies, but the most sensible analysis of the Deep State came from Yanis Varoufakis – the Deep State supports the economy of the 1%. And that brings us back to coronavirus capitalism. We must be worried about post-Covid but I don’t see totalitarianism as an immediate worry.

But I am afraid because the 1% will do anything for their addiction, and each day the lockdown exists they are losing money. All they want is business as usual, but war is part of this business as usual. At the same time there are pressures on the 1% about their climate destruction. But what have they seen during the pandemic? An ability to control the population during pandemic. When it comes to the 99% personal financial issues are taken on the chin but with their addiction the 1% will not accept this. Non-consumerist measures such as lockdown do not benefit the 1% but they will note the ability to control the population. War and racism is inevitable in the 1%-satrapy; with all the job losses the decrease in consumerism will mean their unreal economies will not flourish and so further war will also be an economic inevitability.

This is what my sadness is really about, and I have no answers.

But what is the best thing we can do during lockdown? Meditate and integrate. Be 100% dedicated to the path. Not only will this make lockdown that much more pleasant but will equip you the best way you can be equipped for dealing with the post-Covid exploitation and potential 1%-war. Whilst you cannot have much control this will give you the greatest control possible.

In answer to the FfA film I said the 1% control the narrative and we follow because we are wage-slaves. The only way we cannot be controlled by their narrative is by being 100% authentic even if as authentic people we choose some form of wage-slavery. For post-Covid this authenticity is the tool we need to survive the coronavirus capitalism and potential war. Through this discussion I hope to have explained how little or no control we have in the 1%-narrative. If we accept this truth there will be no delusions, people will recognise the need to follow the path, and perhaps then the path, nature, will have a solution.

"Qult" <-- Previous Post Next Post --> "Fake Four Agreements"
Books:- Pathtivist Trilogy - Treatise, Manual and Companion, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Zandtaomed Advice, Mandtao.