The Capitalist utopia must be Communism

In an ideal world everyone would be slaves. This is not merely a truism echoing the willowing philosopher’s trite sentiment on what it is to be Godly.  It is a serious state of being that encapsulates ordered society. Everyone is a master or a slave. There are no neutrals. However, and this is a big however, can there be willing slaves? Is a slave representative of hierarchical process or one of spiritual status? This is a serious question and perhaps more serious than glib society would feel comfortable in measuring. You see if the boss spends twice as long suffering and bowing to turmoil of his new created empire, is he not twice the slave than those who bear his burden? Does the accumulation of monetary security trump the lack of it? The average worker these days is not categorised as a slave. Government bureaucrats of the first world brandish statistics synthesising fairness in their loaded world. They talk of freedoms and safety nets. They talk of choice and opportunity. But most of all they talk of a system that works. Has the system become proselytised by its own collapse?

We need to look back at the bad old days before governments were formed and what led to their formation. How was it back then, when technology was reduced to the imagination of wizards and sages? Sir Isaac Newton has been heralded as the father of science. Records state he was born on Christmas day 1642. On 30th January 1649 Charles I of England was executed for “treason” to make way for the first government not appointed by a sovereign. The idea of a republic was nothing new, but Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector in December 1653 also unappointed by God. By January 1655 he ruled without parliament. August that year saw England under military rule and Cromwell had succeeded more power than the King deposed and executed for wielding too much power. The Protectorate concept eventually collapsed and in 1660 Charles I’s son Charles II was invited to restore the monarchy from exile in France. Through the mists of intrigue there were two waves of revolt running simultaneously. First was the merchant (banker) who had previously operated heeding the mercy of the Royal aristocracy. Second was the science atheist who sought to break the stranglehold of God’s code so fiercely protected. The product was surely science-capitalism?

If there was such a thing as science-capitalism, what on earth would it look like? Might it resemble the fearsome double (headed) eagle found on priceless classical coins? The first thing the impartial observer would expect to witness would be a shift of Royal rule to figurehead. This was more of a lateral evolution than the historically described Machiavellian shift, as the Roman aristocracy determined it was much safer to be black. With this hindsight the researcher might validly argue their Empire did not so much collapse as peter out. Indeed, constructively, a number of the old black aristocrats were behind the new burgeoning merchants. This collapse of royalty was a trend that began with the end of Roman imperialism. Let us not forget the Great British Empire was created by puppet Royal Queen Victoria in 1850’s and grew to become the largest empire in known history by 1922. Nevertheless the true imperial coordination of independent merchants began in 1688 with the formation of Lloyds of London. Science has made extraordinary progress since the death of Galileo in 1642 from whence he achieved cult status from pseudo atheist elites wishing to capitalise on new forged freedoms. The church inquisition movement found him guilty of heresy in 1634, but their findings eventually broke their own movement. Maybe Maria Van Monjou’s death in 1552 had not been in vain.

There are a number of less than welcome reductions of science, however. Most famously was Tesla’s free energy solution that was rejected by the banker J.P. Morgan in favour of Edison’s wired electricity. Royal Raymond Rife’s cine-micrography device that reached such high acclaim in 1938 was stolen and destroyed by the then pharmaceutical cartel that rejected alternatives to the drugged butchery they called healthcare. Though explanatory versions of what Rife had achieved varies, it is a black mark against capitalist-science considering the machine would have fitted very well into our modern systems of fiscal accountability. Whether Rife’s machine was the all-purpose cure or if simply a start in the right direction, the tyranny was not permitting its course. This has reflected badly on capitalism and the essence of mankind.  If there was a single definition of science-capitalism it would be broken into two parts. The positive would be the progression of any solution that enhanced the “greater good”. The negative would be the destruction and slander of anything that threatened the planned direction of capitalist utopia. In summary science can only be measured by what it does and not by what it says. The heart of capitalist-science is strong but the mouth is ever so fickle. In the same way global governments which represent the descendants of the merchant bankers who conquered royalty to enable a renaissance of science prefer fabrication to fact. Sure, most of what they say when confined to the insular introspective makes sense. When moved far away from the big picture plausible denial reigns.

With fixed government and fixed science it seems but a small step to fixed capital. The manipulators have been clever. Being clever is not necessarily being sensible, productive or fair. A better word might be cunning. How did they ensure they fairly won the leadership of capitalism whilst always protecting their ever increasing status? First they ensured all positions of responsibility are supported by credentials marked to their standards and mechanisms. These credentials are supplied at great cost to talented students. Talented students are invariably those ear marked for the credentials and only after a prior bad experience might an “outsider” be considered for grooming. The burgeoning global population has largely ensured there is sufficient talent to be supplied by the in-group. All work not requiring credentials is paid the bare minimum rate or less. There might be some mild gradation to encourage false hope that the fixed system is fair. But no, those without credentials can do little more than earn to survive. There still remains the problem of a large and “useless” middle class – those who neither rule nor work. This is remedied by ensuring there are always plenty of cheaper courses churning worthless qualifications. This remedies the middle class gap in two ways. Firstly it demonstrates talent is common. When there is too much supply for no demand wages are driven down to the bare minimum. They are trying to create an impotent and ineffective middle class whose self-esteem parries with their work to survive, survive or die labour counterparts. The battle is between those who refuse to be processed by a system loaded against them and those that whose task it is to uphold unfairness dressed as fair.

The improved concept of communism was an egalitarian foundation defining a cooperation of social interest working to a common goal. There were no rules and writers such as Louisa S. Bevington have inspired many. Her essay Anarchism and Violence (1896) admirably sums up capitalist interest versus human nature and is current today. Karl Marx’s 1848 Communist Manifesto, whilst partially admirable, provides a sufficient ghost framework to ensure decisions makers are all-powerful under their State authority. The evidence seen in the workings of the old communist Soviet Republics demonstrated that governors and their political emissaries owned status. Even their puppet meritocracy was completely subordinate. Red China has not changed colour or philosophy. It is still communist but hosts two (yes two) stock exchanges (Shanghai and Shenzhen) plus the Honk Kong exchange which reverted to Chinese rule upon expiration of its lease to Great Britain. Innuendo exclaiming President Obama is turning America into a Marxist State should surprise no one. Marxist communism is capitalism’s final step.


Does belief have anything to do with truth?

2000px-Belief_Venn_diagram.svgLet me first say that I know that I have some special powers to enable comprehension of this perception I call my reality. The reason I am sure these powers are special is, thus far, I have found no other examples of them. This is not to say they are by any means unique, but I have found no evidence of them. The best analogy I can conjure is as if I am the only one who can see red. No, let me create a new colour. I shall call it winoe. The only one who can see winoe is me, in my analogy. The rest can see all other colours, as do I, but I am the only one who can see winoe. Most would say, by that token, that winoe does not exist. Please leave that sentiment on hold. We can and will return to it. For now let us imagine winoe does exist I am faced with the same task a normal sighted person has explaining the colour red to the never sighted. Do blind people think those who claim they see colours are mad? No! Those who I have met accept they have senses limitation and that is the way it is. Their world is dysfunctional to the point it is unlikely that a blind person could survive a natural life without the assistance of the sighted. With correct assistance the blind can function very well. Yet the analogy was not concerned with function. It was not concerned whether colours existed or not. It did not question the attributes of a photon cell. It was concerned with resonance. What makes red, red? The Newtonians can concoct a complicated string of techno-babble pretending to rationalise the truth, but the answer is not to be found in scientific rationalisation.

Red is colour that personifies a particular resonant frequency; as do all colours. Red in particular, though, displays emotional resonance that is beyond symbolism even when symbolically used. It is the home of the preborn and becomes the preoccupation of all involved with flesh. ”I saw red” is the common expression for an outburst of irrational anger. This is not symbolic, although it might be, but something primordial. Some may agree. Others may disagree, but I can find some common ground when discussing colour red. What has been written, thus far, about the colour red is not abnormal or unacceptable. Some would buy the pitch completely. Others would select sentiment that matches their desired belief. Winoe is a different matter. There is no common ground. Some might yearn for some succinct explanation so they could rationalise and massage the new “beyond sight” colour into their belief system. Others would reject it outright. I wish to focus on these rejecters; debunkers, “as it were”. There are two types at each end of the spectrum. One is scholarly and appreciates their perception with a no nonsense approach to what is. What does not convert to perception does not exist. This is not a malicious denial of faith, but rather a secure appreciation of ego. The other debunker type constructs his or her tailored “God complex”. If the pitch fits, then belief permits it. Nevertheless a God complex must be all knowing and all experiencing. Therefore, a colour that is beyond knowledge, beyond experience defies the God complex. This must be rejected and outlawed.

There is generally much talk about belief and truth but no common ground. Truths are always selective. Many attribute their beliefs to one type of religion or another. Because one claims they are a Muslim, does that make them a Muslim? Comparing the colour analogy, even with the infinite number of varieties (shades and so on), red evokes the same emotional resonance whether we call it carmine, rose or even pink. Or rather, the emotional resonance triggered by red does not alter. Pink might encourage lighter sentiment, a gentler and more feminine approach, but the resonance is the same. Likewise, informed and educated Muslims buy into different aspects or components of the Qur’an. They observe Mohamed and his eternal wishes. Some are more aggressive. Others are less aggressive. Some are inclined to forgive and others are not. Those who make the effort to study the Qur’an will draw equal conclusion which are unavoidable. Whether viewed a virtuous or destructive, Mohamed’s message is determined to control the follower. A true Muslim’s mind belongs to Mohamed. There are many Muslims who would be better described as envoys of Arab nationalism. They have no common belief with Mohamed and merely manipulate their Arab status to their best advantage or in a vain attempt to become part of the in-group.

The same can be said and more so for their Christian and Jewish counterparts which make up the other followers of Mosaic Law. The major religions are occupied by identity badge followings who demonstrate little more than no belief. Pushing aside contradictory elements, there is not a single religion that vilifies self-serving. Yet, the majority of congregations seek nothing more than the elevation of self. If there was a doctrine of truth it would certainly be personified by agnosticism and perhaps atheism. Atheism does not deny the plausibility of a higher power system but rather the portrayal of God as an adjunct of the conscious and, in that way, super human. A common belief of the badge waving Muslim, Christian and Jew is that God is a grandfather who sits on a giant throne. The cornerstone of Mosaic belief systems is that man was made in the image of God and, therefore, ultimate wisdom comes with ultimate age. The truth, as the atheists will affirm, is that God was created in the image of man. Moses merely found agreeable sentiment that suited his purposes to pin on God.  As no one, not a single person ever, has actually met and communicated with this smiling bearded one true God, progressive “Prophets” finding new causes have allowed the self-serving nature of man to amplify through their numerous holy texts.  Therefore, by this standard, belief does have nothing to do with truth.

That is why atheism is the popular choice of the truth seeker. Those who belong to the global society’s out-group (which is the vast majority) tend to steer towards Buddhism. That is why Buddha’s faith in a deity is questioned to which end some go as far to say that he denied God. Whereas this is not true, Buddha did intimate direct prayer was pointless and that God can only be found through experience.  Conveniently this discussion has come fully circle. Is Buddha saying that true belief can only come from truth and truth can only be assured as a direct result of experience? If that were so the only way to achieve absolute enlightenment would be with complete and unblemished understanding. Understanding is another word for knowledge which should be another word for truth. The corruption of truth can be found in belief.

So, now perhaps others can see Winoe.

How real history connects with purpose. Part one: in the true beginning

Sadly few if any are aware of the true origins, purpose and mechanisms for my perception of what we term existence. It would be nice to simplify an explanation down to a couple of charismatic proverbs echoing eternal sound bites. Obfuscation with proverbial tools has landed my perception of existence where it is. It is the mess I am in. Adding more indulgence will save no one. It is important, therefore, to start at the start and formulate a cohesive beginning in light of the end. How words unravel is almost as important as the truths they heed. Beginning in light of the end is not some casual or clumsy expressive idiom. Time immortal began at the end which reflects on the beginning. Though the Vedic masters created a functional duration of three hundred and eleven trillion years, this is by no means correct. Time is both immortal and infinite within the parameters of the mortal and finite. Our Vedic masters were talking about the reflective essence of time and not time itself. Just as the reflective essence might shatter into infinity, so too does time in the way it is constructed. For every single piece of that shattered essence is lovingly reattached in order for order, or when the disorderly might be reordered.

Before we postulate the properties of time, attention must be given to why. Time did not just happen. Of course there was a good reason for it. The reason preceded the first thought, but it needed the first thought to realise the essence of essence and not merely accept it. When essence was more than something that was, it needed somewhere to go. It needed some release. And just when the pressure becomes too great on mortal Earth, we puncture a few small holes to release some steam; release some pressure. That is the natural way and this is how the essence released what it needed to release. A series of pinprick holes; vents were scattered about the cosmos which, at that time, did not exist because it preceded time. There was no particular order to the network of vents, which grew as fungal spores, but it was absolute order because that was what was and there was nothing else. These pinprick holes, which would not even register as a point in scientific reality, did not expel steam. They expelled the creative force that would become what I experience as my perception of existence.

The creative force was a power to behold, but it neither had form nor concept. It simply existed in a state of non-existence as time had ceased to begin. It had no form because it did not need form. Yet it did need to reconcile its essence and that, most simply put, was contentment. Indeed the only paradox against contentment was the very consideration of it. For if it was to be appreciated from a position of understanding, it needed to be measured against something. So contentment broke into perception, understanding, prudence and grace. “We saw, we comprehended, took heed and outwardly reflected”. That was and is the basis for the ultimate self and prime force. Immediately the prime force knew itself (for it was both male and female and neither), it was ready to express time or, at least, the potential for a continuum. The truth was clear, but the creative force was unknown and needed a power of exploration for nothing had been or would be done until it was done. Many positive notions; some known; some unknown, came into being in the new light of this comprehension. Happiness, calm, trepidation, excitement, awe, ecstasy, comfort and love were a few. They radiated the substance of nothing through the specially created vents that allowed their release. They made nothing something before it was but a paradigm leap was needed. Was that the accidental creation of light?

Summing up my reasons for being

This is my first post which leads me to conclude that it is up to me to say something meaningful for any roaming audience to appreciate my sentiment. Regularly I meet human beings who wonder why the external wide world is so dangerous. These people are rarely directly affected by tragedy. Those that are usually manifest extraordinary anger at the presumed injustice of their counter relationships. The majority have comfortable lives and any pang of conscience is a fleeting consequence of the worship of self or, perhaps in some cases, reverence of a higher power. All fail to realise it is they who created the inertia for the imbalance in society. Counter relationships directly reflect the worship of self even if that is presumably underpinned by some higher power. The labelled bad guys of these counter relationships directly reflect the behaviour of those who acknowledge themselves as good. Good is not a standard, but rather a reflection of the selfish pursuit of the in-group of the counter relationship. That is because everyone tries to live their lives from the introspective – the internal whose interests trump the external. Yet, in a perfect world, humanity must wholly upgrade to the retrospective. The external interests must trump the internal to resolve the imbalance in counter relationships.

I would now like to add the opening paragraph of my book A Brief History of Human Conscience. It will take the reader a little further down the path of truth and guide to fulfilment:

There are modern sages all too numerous, but all are fatally flawed as they promote self-awareness in reaction to everything external. Whether the internal compass is directed by spheres of influenced labelled “good” or “evil” or whether the body is on its quest for ultimate discovery and due diligence, their prognoses are always the same. The self is eternally adrift from the whole, but seeks strength from positive experience. My writings, which are my essence, my understanding say “no!” In fact the opposite is so. The external is connected to and therefore part of the internal. External forces cannot be avoided and therefore must be more than heeded. To fear and hate everything external is to fear and hate the internal. That is why society has become a process to embolism. The reacting parts may not be “fair” in consideration of intellectual reason but an embolism is simply a reaction to and can never be rationalized in terms of the current status quo. My writings are very much about breaking this status quo and I may appear to side with the current version of social evils. The reader must never lose sight of the fact that in a utopian world, everyone receives unconditioned contentment. This includes all you despise and your current status quo rejects. You, the in-group, steadfastly refuse to vilify the outcasts and reject their social evils as defined by your slander and laws which offer self-serving protection to those who might become embroiled. Your laws mimic your status quo; your fictitious state of goodness and its correction system reinforces rebellion and synthetic behaviours of a mirror like incorrect nature. Society therefore is intrusively encouraged to exterminate evil and all labelled under its guise. Drug addicts reject society. Murderers fear their own mortality. Thieves seek immortality. Children are adults and adults are evidence of the corruption process. Enslavement and whoredom are the two virtues worshiped by all. Children are denied sexual interaction to make marital enslavement appear attractive. Trapped in this modern world, the hardy and foolhardy alike deserve to read on carefully both free of prejudice and sanctity but with the capacity to simply comprehend.

Next post coming soon……