USING RAGE

It's good to have finished studying the tortuous Jordan Peterson even though I am happy to have done it. There is now no need to war.

Russell is talking to Pinkaj Mishra who wrote about "The Age of Anger". I first listened, it appeared to be just a different reconstruction of someone trying to find a new way of saying how society will change. There were some interesting historical trends that he noted, but it sounded tedious.

I sat at the beach and I realised that his observation of global rage is huge ... and prescient ... and maybe even hopeful. A week later - interim I had stomach issues - I was sat at the beach again and approaches I have developed in this blogpost will formulate a page - USING RAGE.

What was the global rage? People have been dumped on, and they are moving beyond anger to rage. This of course is good news in the long term - perhaps not the short term. The main premise is that the conditioned are seeing that their children are going to be worse off than they are. And of course the conditioned are angry because they have accepted the conditioning of wage-slavery - cog in the machine - in order that their children will have more options.

This makes a lot of sense to me. The race uprising in the 80s was based on the failed expectations of post-war Afro-Caribbean parents - those same Windrush who are being dumped on now. My own parents lived in the fear that followed the Second World War, and the 50s and 60s were for providing my generation with more opportunities - and they did. I have no children but I suspect my nieces have a life that is on a par or better than my brother and his wife. But their kids ...

All the millenials have got to be asking "what the hell?", and British millenials are turning to Corbyn.

But as can be evidenced by the hypocritical division being manufactured concerning Corbyn and anti-Semitism, the 1% and its neoliberalism are fighting hard to ensure Corbyn does not get in. I pray for evolution and fear revolution, so I hope Corbyn will get in - as I do for Saunders or Ocasio-Cortez. But the 1% are so strong now, I think neither will happen. I also see in the US and the UK the depths the 1% are sinking to in order to ensure further profits, and this frightens me.

It frightens me but Pinkaj describes the way things are as producing rage. It does not produce rage in me, and it is important politically to understand why I have no rage. I have deep compassion and with many people this would produce rage. I look at the way the 1% are creating conditions that cause suffering, and anger begins. If I allowed this anger to develop it would reach frustration and then rage and further behaviours maybe that would be personally and socially destructive. But when I feel anger I let it go. Sometimes that anger sparks a blog - I consider that mostly constructive. But mostly I detach from anger, and return to following the path. I do not ignore the social causes of my anger as where appropriate and not repetitive I write a blog. I know blogging is not that effective, it is some aspect of activism - it is for youth to change society advised by their elders. I do not let the anger develop and hurt me and others. This is a process of detachment, and it comes from meditation. Detachment is part of the meditative process within #pathtivism. The more people following the path the better society will be - this is natural.

But for most this rage builds up within their conditioning - they have not stepped beyond their conditioning onto their path. Conditioning does not encourage personal development - an inner journey of internalisation. Reactions to the way society is becomes anger as people see where their conditioning is taking them, and anger becomes frustration and then rage. Where does this conditioned rage turn to? It turns on the other. In the ignorant this rage turns on people who are close, in some cases in men producing abuse against women, at other times men can turn to violence against other men. We have to help each other control such aspects of personal abuse that arise from rage. If we cannot encourage such people to follow the path, at least we can ask these people to focus their rage on the causes of the rage.

Ideally we would take the response of Occupy and focus the rage on the 1% - the ultimate cause. It is quite significant that Pinkaj did not recognise Occupy as an important social movement - claiming there have been no mass movements since the 60s. Occupy started in the 90s with Horizontalidad and other social movements in Latin America - see Beyond Elections, developed with the Arab Spring and showed itself in the West with Podemos, and then in the centre of the hegemony as Occupy Wall Street and Occupy in other US cities and worldwide. This mass movement did not last a long time because of the mainstream media and the police repression. It was also significant that Pinkaj did not recognise some of the destructive wars since Vietnam. The war on oil states that are not aligned with the hegemony have been very destructive producing an immigration crisis far more numerous than those fleeing Vietnam. But the destruction was not in the hegemonic countries - maybe that is why he did not recognise them.

Occupy was an attempt at turning rage against its source - the 1%. It of course failed because of the power of the 1%, but it was a significant social movement. Following Occupy the 1% have funded division leading to the confusion in the 99% understanding that we have now.

It is important to understand that all the social values that Pinkaj and other academics would like to see develop have been restricted by the power and influence of the 1%. It was good to hear his allusions to two historic figures - the self-interest of "Voltaires" and the compassion of "Rousseaus". I have no idea whether these observations are true, but as a Rousseauphile I like to see his "back-to-nature" position seen as spme form of compassion vanguard. The Voltaires have of course been encouraged by the accumulators as they seek opportunities to invest in and control, and we now have an individualist separatist culture that is so destructive. A call for compassion as a voting strategy is something I would like to see - #pathtivism.

The 99% are all so different but there is one commonality - the 1% are restricting our human freedom, our spirit, our self-expression. We are being conformed through conditionality into cogs in the machine that increases the accumulation of the 1%. For evolution's sake we need to turn that rage into rage against the 1%, and we need to find strategies for preventing the restrictions that are the power and influence of the 1%. Rather than examining intellectual arguments that talk of developments within the 99% we need to develop strategies of unification in which we rage against the restrictions of the human spirit that the 1% have imposed through neocolonialism. Whilst it is intellectually interesting to discuss changes of transcendent religion into human progressivism and that we are seeing the end of this progressivism as our children will be more disadvantaged than our parents, it is practically not so useful. The source of the rage is the (almost) invisible power of the 1%, and we need to turn our rage into strategies that highlight these heinous people, their heinous power, the restrictions they cause, and use our rage to find strategies to control their power and influence before it is too late. If there were no accumulation commerce and communication could return to being in the interest of all people focussing on trade, community and human progress. Without 1%-restrictions people can learn for themselves what they want to do. If all people were free to choose, would they all be looking at ways to make an extra buck or would they look for ways more akin to the path? I know what I would like but people have the right to choose for themselves; at present the 1% and their influence restricts this. End the restriction on the human spirit by 1%-neoliberalism, remain focussed on this or we will have the third rage.

And that is the rage that turns to war. We already have the beginning of this because within hegemonic countries people have become inured to wars of aggression. This is a seriously risky aspect of western conditioning, western peoples accept involvement in other countries' internal affairs. How can it possibly be acceptable to send drones to kill people in their homes? It is conceivable that there is a terrorist present but as a drone target there can be no "collateral damage", whether a so-called terrorist is present or not it is not justifiable to kill children as collateral damage. Yet western people accept this because they feel powerless to do something about it. Their spirit has been broken by being forced to being cogs in the machine, and the only form of expression most have is through consumerism and alternative consumerism - escapism.

Will this conditioned response to accepting violent intervention - interventions that profit the 1% and their control of the West - be converted into war? At the moment the 99% in the West have been conditioned to accepting division, and division is a prelude to war - in this case civil war. But the hegemony cannot gain from this apart from the increased restriction for security reasons.

But how far is that from war with another country?

And at the same time these hegemonic powers are developing more and more powerful AI-weaponry. Who will they use them on? Initially NATO in the guise of European countries colonised the world for resources. During the Cold War after colonialism had been ended by two world wars and after the US-hegemony had been installed, interventions occurred throughout Africa whilst alliances were formed with the Middle East. Once the Cold War ended a new enemy was needed, events led up to 9/11 and we had a new enemy - Muslim terrorist. This has been the cause of war for nearly 20 years now. Who will they next call terrorists and then make targets of them? People who were once allies of the 1%-hegemony such as Iraq, through the media were very quickly turned into enemies with ensuing interventions. As national powers are destroyed throughout the Middle East who will be next? The 1% have a need to accumulate, and this requires expansion; this means countries other than Muslim countries eventually will not be safe. Remember the driving force is accumulation - the reasons they give to justify expansion are simply for pacifying the consciences of the 99% in hegemonic countries.

What will happen when forces in the world say that there must be an end to this NATO expansion? 1%-land is global, Russian oligarchs belong to the same "country" as American CEOs, as evidenced by Trump-puppet's overtures to Putin. Trade wars might affect the peoples of the countries but the 1% continue to profit. But if expansion is limited too much Trump-puppet will go - there have always been grounds for removing him; it is only the support of the Republican 1% that keeps him in power. If the Republicans turn against him he will only be left with the deplorables and they are not enough to vote him in. But the US 1% has learnt that they can manipulate public opinion to get a fascist voted into office so that will happen again.

So the third aspect of rage could easily be turned to war if that rage gets turned onto the 1% - sadly.

To return to rage it is an important observation to reiterate that anger has turned to rage. It is significant that in general this rage knows no object as the power of the 1% is invisible. Yet significantly there are enough people - Occupy - who know the source of the problems, hopefully this rage can be turned and focussed more intensively on the sources of restriction. There is a problem with intellectualism as evidenced by discussions with Russell. There is not enough clarity as to who should be the objects of this rage. There are many problems within the 99% not least is the bipartisan 'left-right' manipulations. The focus of the human spirit has been turned away from its own development by 1%-restrictions. Many people especially academics avoid focussing on the hegemonic structure of restriction created by the 1%-accumulation, and dabble with internal 99%-mechanisms as possible solutions. The human spirit can establish its own solutions once restrictions have been removed. People seeking change need not consider these internal mechanisms, it is the infrastructure that is so destructive and it is the infrastructure that needs breaking down. Intelligent people seeking change would beneficially direct their intentions to strategies that restrict the 1%, but of course that could potentially affect the limited benefits the 1%-system has given them. Russell seeks understanding in academia, and because of his fame academics seek him out. Despite what they say academics are compromised. They use their intelligence to suggest changes within the 99%, changes that can never be more than token - and more often than not are diversionary. Intelligent people seek change for themselves on the path, and socially focus efforts on change with strategies limiting the power and influence of the 1%.

Whilst it is not beneficial to join in the left-right divisions, the current besmirching of PC-authoritarianism and snowflake-labelling should demonstrate one clear understanding. Intellectual strategies within the 99% have now been hostorically proven as ineffective because Trump-puppet and alt-right emergence has so easily been manipulated as these liberal strategies were not effective. At present these strategies have been manipulated into identity politics, and identity politics do have some legitimacy within the class struggle. Obama served his 1% masters as much as Trump now does, Black Lives Matter arose when he was in his token office. Promoting identity is not enough even though racism sexism and gender oppression are heinous; the 1% can use identity politics to divide but they cannot manipulate a united 99%. Focus strategies on decreasing the power and influence of the 1% not on division.

Let's try to use the rage constructively.