Archive for January, 2018


Natural sleep


Sleep is natural, it is nature’s way of “recharging the batteries”. This is simplistic and appears to say little, but apply the converse:-

“Not sleeping shows there is something unnatural going on.”

It is this that is worth investigating if we are to understand sleep and why some people cannot sleep. There is something unnatural going on.

For a while I will consider whether we live naturally rather than what affects sleep. That means going back to basics, and for me that means Buddhadasa. To understand what could be unnatural we have in some way to understand nature. Ajaan Buddhadasa has a very interesting stance on this but because it is Buddhadasa the meaning is buried in language – in this case the Pali words he uses. He describes the Buddhist’s God as Idappaccayata, and he further “languagises” the issue by saying this one God is idappaccayatapaticcasamuppado, and he gives details of what is paticcasamuppada – dependent origination [Idappaccayata pdf p1]. God is a bit shorter, I could use the word nature but I prefer Gaia; let me explain why. At one stage I was calling this ONE planet. Buddhism amongst other religions talks of unity – ONE thing. We are not a collection of individuals, a collection of separate species etc., we are just one life that appears as separation yet we should consider as one – ONE. James Lovelock when he talks of gaia describes an ecology that is interweaved, separate life forms that connect. He describes this inter-connectedness as gaia, but as far as I understand it he sees man as separate. This is why I capitalise gaia, Gaia is the ONE life that comprises of all life on this planet. Because of this Unity Gaia is a more apt word than nature, and because of this Unity it is more applicable than a separate omnipotent God.

“The law of ‘conditionality’ is the highest of laws, the law that makes everything work, and this we call idappaccayata. …. Beasts, people, plants, trees, they’re all formed from atoms grouping together, and in every atom will dwell the law of idappaccayatā. …. the law of nature, idappaccayatā, pre-exists all things in the universe and is the reason for the existence of the universe itself” [Idappaccayata p3].

I think this law of nature is observable and I accept it, but if you like it is the only aspect of faith that I believe in. This faith consists of belief in the law of conditionality, that this law is in every atom, and that it pre-exists all things in the universe. I trust in Gaia – nature, but not what man has done to it.

Buddhadasa gave the law of idappaccayata as :-

“when there is this thing, then there is this thing too; because this arises, this can arise also; when this thing isn’t, then this thing isn’t either; when this quenches, then this quenches too. [p3].

Just a brief point on sleep, it follows this law. “when there is this thing, then there is this thing too”. When we are natural, sleep follows. And “when this thing isn’t, then this thing isn’t either”, when we aren’t natural, we don’t sleep.

It is also worth flagging that this law is causal and therefore fundamentally scientific. However science is based on defined axioms – axioms defined by science. Whereas idappaccayata is just based on causality and conditionality, a conditionality which I will look into later, yet a conditionality that is based on empirical observation. One such observation is that sleep is natural, a conditionality that is based on what we observe in a loose sense – everyday “wisdom”. A more contentious empirical observation is that TCM and acupuncture heals. This can be empirically observed by observing treatments and seeing patients recover but is rejected by some scientists who are given respect by some.

The Buddha took refuge in the Dhamma, saw the Dhamma as his God “In the end he made up his mind that he’d revere the Dhamma he’d awakened to: he’d ‘enter into and dwell within it,’ that is, he’d take it as his refuge.” [p1]. For this use of the word Dhamma you could replace Gaia as I have described it above, either way we are trying to understand “natural”. Buddhadasa describes 4 natural laws:-

“Dhamma (here with the meaning of the ultimate truth – the way things really are – hence it’s spelt with a capital ‘D’) has four meanings: nature itself; the law of nature [BZ – Idappaccayata]; the duty to be done according to the law of nature; and the fruit, or result arising from doing or not doing that duty” [p6].

In describing these laws Buddhadasa said “Essentially, it’s the duty of any human being to maintain life correctly. If they don’t then they must – in accordance with the law of idappaccayatā – experience the result, the punishment: suffering, ranging from being unable to sleep, to nervous disease, to deadly pain” [p11]. Subconsciously I might have remembered this but I was surprised at the relevance to sleep when I read this.

Now we come to the other half of the Buddhadasa “languagised” God – idappaccayatapaticcasamuppado. Paticcasamuppada, also known as dependent origination or dependent co-arising, is described by Buddhadasa as what the Buddha struggled with under the Bodhi tree “It was during the night of his awakening that he sought thus: What does suffering come from? Then he realized that it came from jāti, from birth. Jāti, ‘birth,’ what does birth come from? ‘Birth’ comes from bhava, from becoming. Becoming arises from upādāna, from clinging. Clinging comes from taņhā, from craving, from desire. Craving, comes from the vedanā, from feeling. Feeling comes from phassa, from contact. Contact comes from the āyatana, from the senses. The senses come from nāmarūpa, from name and form. Name and form comes from viññāna, from consciousness. Consciousness comes from sankhāra, from the power of concocting. The power of concocting comes from avijjā, from ignorance” [p1]. I have previously discussed this in relation to mindfulness meditation in education. This could be partly summarised as suffering arising from conditions that our desire allows and that we cling to. Through mindfulness at contact we are able to avoid suffering.

I also wish to consider this summary of Buddhadasa’s teaching that I call his meme:-

There are the 5 khandas that make up the body, psyche and consciousness. Under conditionality we attach to these khandas especially when young as we operate through instinct. As we get older we gain the maturity that enables us to be aware of conditionality and if mindful can avoid detachment. With increasing maturity we do not create new attachments and we detach from the selves that we have already made – through instinct. In the end ideally we are not attached to the khandas and have detached from all the selves that previous attachment has created leading to our being free of all conditioning. In this freedom there is just sunnata, unity functioning.

Somewhere within all our conditioning suffering through affected sleep occurs. Meditation can help as it can be used to remove detachments and avoid attachments.

I am not however offering this as an understanding as to how to deal with sleep issues but sleep is natural and the above discussion of nature, its laws and understanding of the development of suffering has some connection. In the next blog I will connect this conditioning to the path.

<– Previous Post “Conative” Next Post –>

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Conative?


I have just come across a word I like – conative. Apparently it is not a word that is in use much but it is part of a model of thinking:-

“Psychology has traditionally identified and studied three components of mind: cognition, affect, and conation (Huitt, 1996; Tallon, 1997). Cognition refers to the process of coming to know and understand; the process of encoding, storing, processing, and retrieving information. It is generally associated with the question of “what” (e.g., what happened, what is going on now, what is the meaning of that information.)
Affect refers to the emotional interpretation of perceptions, information, or knowledge. It is generally associated with one’s attachment (positive or negative) to people, objects, ideas, etc. and asks the question “How do I feel about this knowledge or information?”
Conation refers to the connection of knowledge and affect to behavior and is associated with the issue of “why.” It is the personal, intentional, planful, deliberate, goal-oriented, or striving component of motivation, the proactive (as opposed to reactive or habitual) aspect of behavior (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven & Tice, 1998; Emmons, 1986). It is closely associated with the concept of volition, defined as the use of will, or the freedom to make choices about what to do (Kane, 1985; Mischel, 1996). It is absolutely critical if an individual is to successfully engage in self-direction and self-regulation.
Some of the conative issues one faces daily are:
• What is my life’s purpose and are my actions congruent with that purpose?
• What are my aspirations, intentions, and goals?
• On what ideas, objects, events, etc. should I focus my attention?
• What am I going to do, what actions am I going to take, what investments am I going to make?
• How well am I accomplishing what I set out to do?” [Source]

Now conative knowledge is also described as experiential knowledge and it was this that attracted me to the word; I was hoping to contrast cognitive with conative. However the motivational stuff doesn’t sound too experiential to me.

Knowledge is not all “equal”. When you have experienced something that knowledge is unshakeable. When ignorant sceptics want to tell me acupuncture doesn’t work, then I know they are not scientists but promoting an agenda. When science fails to apply itself to consider chi as real, given that so many people accept its existence it is a failure of science. Now that I have found that my plant-based diet has developed increasing yin excess that affected my sleep, metabolism, lungs and heart, I have strong indicators that the existence of yin-yang is real (I accept the possibility that starting to eat meat has done something else to my body other than making my food more yang but I have not learnt of such an interpretation). When meditation as empirical knowledge can be repeated, then it is the failure of science to apply itself to recognising this truth. Experiential knowledge carries a conviction with it that goes beyond misplaced authority.

Science applied through academia is mostly cognitive. Academic justification comes from a reference source, and such sources have “respect” – and therefore weight – that allows cognitive development through analysis to develop new conclusions as knowledge. But what is the axiom that this knowledge has developed from? It has developed from a reference but that reference could be greatly distanced from the initial experiential knowledge that gave it justification. It is worth considering this distance a little more. An original thinker writes a book, and for some reason academia accepts the original thinking that is in the book. That thinking might merit the original thinker being given a professorship – if her/his face fits. Other academic without the experience of that original thinker start to write about what is in the book – NOT about the experience that was the original thinking. If these thoughts become widely accepted more and more people wrote about what is written, often such writings don’t even source the original thinker especially of that thinker is not contemporary. Writing about the writings might give someone a professorship and her/his text might become the substance of a lecture course in which case a student is writing about a book that is about a book that is about a book that might not even reference the original thinking. As such cognitive knowledge does not have the conviction of the experiential because it is so distanced, it was this contrast that I wanted to make between cognitive and conative but am now unsure of the scope of the word “conative”.

Experiential knowledge is not for me based on any volitional or motivational or better “internal” reaction prior to experiencing the knowledge. Experienced knowledge is real, it is open to misinterpretation but it cannot be refuted as a real experience. It is axiomatic, science only interprets. For scientific principle, cognitive “so-called” knowledge, to contradict experiential knowledge is principle misapplied. An experience cannot be contradicted, that knowledge inviolable. When a Christian has a vision – a religious experience, the facts of the description of that vision is real, the interpretation of that vision as coming from God or Jesus is open to doubt and enquiry, the vision itself is not. If a child remembers a past life the description of that memory is real, it has to be proven to be fake or not but the memory cannot be dismissed. For science to dismiss reincarnation and therefore to dismiss the memory is not valid science, because science has failed to accept what is real – the description that the child gave. This example is not given because I believe in reincarnation – I don’t believe in anything, it is given because there is an important difference in types of knowledge. Conative knowledge based on experience cannot be refuted, only the interpretation or cognitive conclusions from it can be.

It is the approach of psychology, this “cognitive-affect-conative” approach that is flawed. It is evaluating knowledge by starting in the mind, to me this is a flaw. What is real is the experience, what is not real is any interpretation of that experience. However well-intentioned that interpretation is limiting. Consider an event such as a road accident. Accounts of that accident vary – whether by intention or not – because the knowledge that is accepted by the mind is not as full as the experience itself, the event, the accident. What is understood – recorded or accepted – in the mind is limited by the processes of mind.

Here is where mindfulness makes a hit. Consider the description of mindfulness as judgement-free awareness. If there is mindfulness then what is understood from the accident would be as close as possible to the actual event because it is simply awareness without any application of mental processes (judgement-free). As far I understand the language mindfulness is not cognitive but conative. Because it is based on the experience mindfulness has greater validity.

This brings me to something that is very important to understand at the moment. The 1% has recognised that the internet can be used to cause confusion, and with the ensuing confusion they are able to exploit the lack of resistance. Climate change was awareness, it was based on experience and backed up by scientific method. The Koch Brothers and their fakery financed climate denial, and because they were able to finance it to such an extent then the quantity of that financed denial impacted on the perceived knowledge. This is the confusion – financed confusion – to benefit the 1% who then continue to exploit the environment. In this case knowledge is being ignored by the 1% in order to create profit, and by promoting cognitive knowledge – in this case the cognitive knowledge is creating confusion – they are able to avoid paying for the consequences of their profit-making; they are able to avoid any concerns for the environment.

Fake News is not based on experience but cognitive approaches. The 1% pay for the repetition, and because of our education we do not discriminate between cognitive knowledge and experiential or conative knowledge. We do not have the convictions of our experience because we are conditioned to accept the cognitive and conative as equivalent. We cannot allow our experience to be undermined because we are not encouraged to accept a convicted approach. Conative knowledge has conviction because the experience is real. Educators need to recognise this especially in a world of fake news.

This brings me to insight, there is no greater conviction than insight. The only thing that should change a genuine insight is a new insight that demotes the older one to being that of clinging (to the old insight). Because many in academia do not experience insights they do not discuss its validity. Instead of insight being evaluated as conative or experiential knowledge it is passed off as simply another thought or idea that can come or go. But insight is not this it comes from the state of mind which enables pure truth to be accepted, this is why insight is so often associated with meditation.

Knowledge itself is not inviolable but the type of knowledge. Knowledge that comes from experience has truth but is open to misinterpretation. Knowledge that comes from insight is inviolable because the process of insight is a process that enables the mind to connect to truth. Insight brings with it a conviction that can thwart all cognitive attacks – necessary in this world where the cognitive approaches of the khandas attempts to undermine the truth which is insight. It might be more appropriate to consider the word conative as that which is beyond the khandas but that might be my simply appropriating definition. Truth is beyond the khandas:-

And the khandas contain the cognitive and affect of the psychological model. Khandas – rupa – body, vedana – feelings, sanna – perceptions, sankhara – mental processes or proliferations, vinnana – consciousness that can attach to the khandas or move beyond and allow sunnata to connect to the mind. I am suggesting that the conative might best be considered as a description of the consciousness that moves beyond giving truth to sunnata.

I like where this has gone, conative as being that which goes beyond the khandas. Not sure how much this is the intention of the word.

<– Previous Post “Truth?” Next Post “Natural sleep” –>

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Truth?


Since my early retirement I have enjoyed learning from the internet. I got sucked into conspiracies and subscribed to what I assumed were left-wing newsletters that kept me informed. It is only with examining the rise of Trump that I have determined that many of these are right-wing intellectuals. This is understandable as I see their funding as being a knock-on effect of the 1%-manipulations.

However whilst I describe this right-wing intellectualism, it does not mean that this information is untrue – far from it. I consider these intellectuals the right-wing periphery, and have no wish to dissociate from them. Of course that does not mean I have any right-leanings.

For me the issue lies with the answer to this question, how do we overcome the 1%? And the answer for me is very clearly Collective Unity, and struggling as the United 99% against the 1%. It is never clear to me how the individualism of these good right-wing intellectuals will overcome something as powerful as the 1%. In my view they need to overcome their abhorrence of the liberals, an abhorrence I also feel, and somehow find a way of working in Unity against the 1%.

Government and taxation is of course very divisive. When I look at the neoliberal governments of Blair and Obama I understand why these intellectuals are against taxation and government. As a teacher I incline to defend the educational aspect of governance, but I know that the caring aspects are only a subterfuge for the main current purpose of taxation – accumulation of wealth to the 1% through taxation for defence spending on the wars-for-profit.

There needs to be some form of commitment to Unity, and I don’t see these right-wing intellectuals wanting that; I must just accept the bonus of knowledge that the right-wing periphery funding provides. The egos that comes with individualism anywhere on the political spectrum has also to be recognised and defeated, ego is a major divisive factor.

I am old enough for truth to be easy, proletarian struggle. Occupy reinforced that with its simple 1% clarity. But these understandings are interspersed throughout a steady campaign of confusion. Politically for me this has shown itself clearly recently with the identification of the left with liberalism, when I think that people might identify my position with neoliberalism, its wars-for-profits and wage-slavery I shudder. But the clarity of my truth has to be tempered by the obvious failure of the genuine left to unite and be meaningful, hence the ease with which we have been labelled with the liberals.

This blog on truth was sparked by watching this video called “The Republic of Science” from Judith Curry, I absolutely do not recommend this video. In Mandtao I examine science – I am posting this in my main blog Zandtao as well. As a Buddhist I am firmly committed to 100% enquiry (4 Agreements as well). Science needs questioning because science is establishment. Now saying science is establishment for me means that science is controlled by the 1%, and when you listen to Judith she talks of the way science is controlled. She makes a very convincing case, that creative scientists (who she calls mavericks) are restricted by the science establishment and government direction. This is excellent, Mandtao would appear to say the same thing but the reality is the exact opposite.

Judith Curry is on the periphery of the Koch brothers campaign for climate denial. I suspect, although I don’t know, that whatever funding she gets stems from the vast amounts the Koch brothers have used to dominate the internet. So-called independent media. I have no interest in her climate denial evaluation – she might have a genuine position; she does not appear to be a direct definitive climate denier. What concerns me is that her analysis of science is so close to the truth that it is so easy to fall for her line.

The problem is she does not see the source of the problem as the 1%. She talks mostly of the science establishment stifling mavericks, who can argue with that? Her position is then that the establishment is stifling the maverick who talks of climate denial. This is so plausible but oh so dangerous. The question is “when is science stifling maverick creativity?” as opposed to “when is scientific knowledge refuting politically and financially-inspired bogus claims of climate denial?” these are significantly different positions yet so subtle. On the level of daily science, the source of funding that creates such destructive scepticism cannot be traced to the 1%, and leaves blogposts such as this in the realms of lunatic conspiracy. This is the purpose of confusion. And with the current level of collective confusion there can be no Unity to fight.

How can I ask for all to see through such subtle manipulation?

I have a completely misguided acquaintance who can put “likes” on my 1%-posts, and yet can support Trump. How confused is he? He does not have a mass movement base to his understanding. An individualist will examine Judith Curry’s individualist examination of science – the individualism that celebrates mavericks, and can see the partial truth of what she says as truth. The mass movement says “where is the hand of the 1%?”, and immediately looks at finance. Once you apply that paradigm you see the Koch Brothers and climate denial – whether Judith believes what she says or not.

I can support her analysis of the scientific establishment, and I thank the funding that has powered that. I can thank the right wing for the Corbett Report that brings this and other useful information to light. But if I am unsure I ask the mass movement question “where is the hand of the 1%?” …. and there is clarity.

As Mandtao the maths/stats man I am a supporter of scientific knowledge and scientific method. I attack the science establishment for similar reasons to Judith Curry’s video “the Republic of Science”, but in the end she is supporting the 1%, the Corbett Report is supporting the 1% by promoting her. All the scepticism around climate change can only be seen in terms of 1%-industries, the Koch Brothers campaign, and how any doubts that arise enable this industrial establishment to continue with the environmental damage and pollution – whatever “scientific point” Judith or others raise.

It is sad in this world that the 1% are so sick, so detached from the species they are a part of, that they want to destroy the very Unity of who we are – the ONE planet. And they will finance and manipulate at any level to enact their sickness. It is so hard to understand how these people became so sick, I understand why Icke wants to separate them and call them lizards, but they are just sick humans. We have to face the understanding that humanity can become as sick as these people.

<– Previous Post “Two Econommics” Next Post “Conative?” –>

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Two Economics


The Mandtao blog is concerned with science and knowledge, so it might be a strange place to find discussion about economics, but this is a clear example of how academia is being used. And academia is the western home of knowledge.

My knowledge of academia’s delivery concerning economics is limited, but it is very clear to me that what is required to become qualified as an economics expert definitely has a strong application of blinkers. For most people in the world of work, understanding of economics is rooted in supply and demand. Because most peoples’ transactions are limited this is a reasonable approach. Go to the farmers’ market. You buy veg that is available, you don’t buy what you don’t want. The farmer is left with surplus of what people don’t want so they change what is grown until eventually there is a balance between supply and demand. The study of economics then extends this supply and demand principle, embellishes it with additional theories, applies a few graphs, and we have a supposed understanding of economics. Competition is an essential aspect of supply and demand. At the farmers’ market if someone sells cheaper more customers will buy, and competition is a means of keeping the prices down – supposedly at the control of the consumer.

Economics is of course a study of money. So we get a history lesson in which money was originally introduced as a means of easing transactions at the farmers’ market from when it was barter. We did not have to bring huge items to exchange, we didn’t have to decide that an hour of maths teaching is worth a pound of potatoes, gradually value was applied to various trades and their products and money was used as a means of trading at a farmers’ market. It is assumed in academic economics that theories of money are based around this transaction theory.

Taxation is also an important aspect of the modern economy. We pay a proportion of our income to the government so that the government has sufficient money to run schools, hospitals and the like. I question this. When the British were colonising Africa they needed to build infrastructure (such as trains) to get the raw materials back to the motherland. At the time Africans had a barter economy so when the British required labour there was no incentive to work. The colonial authorities insisted that all individuals must pay a money tax forcing money as the means of transaction on the barter economy. In this case taxation was required to build the infrastructure for the companies importing raw materials. This monetary flow is an indicator as to the underlying function of taxation despite the schools and hospitals rhetoric.

It is assumed that all finance is expected to balance their books. This is clearly the case at an individual level when if we don’t balance our own books and we owe money we can eventually be imprisoned. Debt is in fact encouraged both by the banks and the system. If we have debts we must try to pay them back, it is therefore necessary for us to work to pay them back and we are brought into the financial system. People who have marketable skills such as teachers are encouraged to get mortgages and other forms of credit, so that they become more concerned about losing their jobs and are willing to put up with injustice at work in order to repay their debts.

Economics as an academic subject is far more complicated than these five simple axioms, and it is this complexity that it is claimed people cannot understand. Experts are then required to interpret the business of economics so economics is an almost mystical understanding of transactions and finance. And people trust the experts. And experts become experts by accepting the above axioms, learning the mental contortions that get applied to our global economic dealings, and it is generally accepted that, although things look wrong because of the many injustices, there are experts guiding the economic system based on the axiomatic approach as described above.

I am going to describe the above as the 5 axioms of 99%-economics, and these are the axioms that the 99% are expected to follow. And this expectation in extreme circumstances is backed up by the law such as the case of repossessions and failure to make loan repayments.

Now I want to consider another set of economic practices. Let us examine the conduct of transnationals (multinationals) – huge companies (owned by the 1%) who as a rule buy the raw materials, own the means of importing the materials, own the means of production, own the distribution logistics and own the retail establishments. At all levels of the sale of a product the profits are made by the transnational.

At this stage one might argue big is not necessarily wrong, one might contend that transnationals compete with each other keeping the price down. I argue differently. Firstly in BigFood at a supermarket there might well be 7 or 8 different brands owned by the same transnational. No competition. The number of BigFood transnationals is limited so together they fix the prices, it is not the consumer demand described in 99%-economics. They have sufficient stocks and are sufficiently big that if consumers reduce their demand BigFood does not have to respond. Whilst mothers spend a long time on their family budget seeking bargains they are very much at the mercy of high level BigFood decisions rather than any consumer wisdom.

The word transnational came into usage because as such they are not subject to national tariffs and customs duties. Part of the murky mysticism of economics are organisations such as World bank, IMF, GATT, WTO and other Acronyms, actions of whom we are not meant to understand, yet whose actions directly impact on the way economics work. These organisations facilitate international finance and transnationals to the detriment of small businesses and local transactions. Small businesses do not control all the aspects of the economic life of their own product, and are often squeezed out by the monopolistic bullying practices of the transnationals aided by the Acronyms, often leading to takeovers and increasing “centralisation” on fewer and fewer transnationals.

These transnationals have tremendous power and dominate the economic life of individual consumers. They have tremendous influence over governments sufficient for me to say that they are more powerful than governments. As evidenced by environmental damage governments are unable to exert control over the transnationals. Climate denial became real through business investment especially after the international community outvoted the US at various COP meetings that eventually reached the limited Paris accord. Now their stooge has pulled out America and enacts numerous environmentally-damaging policies. [It is better to understand that Trump is not an individual with policies, but a stooge enacting policies of the fellow wealthy. Avoid personalising as it ignores the true nature of the economic system.]

The transnationals control production – what we buy, and finance through banks and Acronyms form an alliance that controls global economic life. It is this alliance I see as the 1% controlling the global economy using 1%-economics.

Transnational cartels and market mechanisms remove competition, and eliminate any vestige of supply and demand. The banking and insurance dynasties control money. Under their control that money has lost its transactional raison d’etre, and the accumulation of money is facilitated by the financial sector. Money moves away from the 99% to the owners of finance and the transnationals leaving our economies controlled by the whims of the superrich. With jobs and consumer-potential being controlled by the whims of their decisions, the backdoor governments offer tax breaks, incentives, loopholes and now in the US, the new tax laws, so that the burden of taxation is placed on the poor whilst transnationals are evading tax at will. Taxation has now become a means of transferring money (wages) from the poor to the rich. Because this 1%-alliance controls government they control the printing of money. The US tax bill makes no efforts to balance the books, but is simply a political manoeuvre to benefit the 1%. For 8 years the UK government has applied an austerity policy to the 99% following the crash with the supposed aims of balancing the books. But the only observable change in wealth has been an increase in the gap between rich and poor.

To understand 1%-economics you need only understand this, the actual economic system is designed to increase the accumulation of wealth to the 1%. Initially this began with real transactions but then they determined that there could be increased accumulation through “imaginary transactions”. 1%-control of governments perpetuates this accumulation through fiat policies that become necessary when accumulation has depleted government coffers. The policy of 1%-economics is print more money when necessary.

It is also intended that we fail to comprehend the vast amounts of money appropriated by the 1%. Examine this. ****** I suspect that the wealth of just one family, such as Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Waltons, Gates, is equivalent to enough money for a billion people to live – certainly the poorest of us. Whilst population numbers concern me, it is not the lack of natural resources that leads to poverty and hunger but the accumulation of the few superrich.

The interaction of these two economic systems is on a knife edge. We are conditioned to accept the economy as described in 99%-economics whilst the actual system continues to accrue for the 1%. People see the systemic failure of economics but then experts continue to maintain the charade of the 99%-economics, and encourage people to have confidence in it. For most there is a failure to actually consider the economic realities because a breakdown in the economic system, which would follow from an actual examination of financial dealings and the ensuing lack of confidence (as demonstrated by the crash in 2008), can only lead to chaos – violent chaos. Aware of this the 1% already have private security in place. It is not if but when.

Governments will continue to maintain the charade of 99%-economics as per 1%-instruction. They understand the nature of the two economics, but manage the impending catastrophe through brinkmanship rather than economic strategies that could lead to 100% stable and sustainable economics. We survive by hope, hope that the sickness of the 1% doesn’t demand such an accumulation that the delusion is broken, the conditioning is shattered, and chaos breaks out.

Hope is not enough. Constructive 100%-economics that can lead to stable transactions need to be introduced but this is unlikely as the only people who can introduce them are the 1% as they are in control. And that would be like saying to the mentally ill end your delusions, how can they end them when they don’t know they are deluded?

I used to have faith that the 1% would maintain the system through brinkmanship, now that faith is gone. War is spreading, is on the increase, countries just hope they are not the next one to be targeted. Rather than brinkmanship the 1% are now turning to private security, and accepting that the future holds a protected apartheid existence in which they survive and the 99% fight amongst each other for the crumbs that trickle down.

Now only hope.

<– Previous Post “Cumulative toxic load” Next Post “Truth?” –>

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.