Capitalism is the biggest swindle in History

UK National debt 1998 to 2021 including the 2008 Sub-prime mortgage crisis and bank liquidity crisis of financial bailouts there after. The Tories say they have had austerity to cut spending but its increased from £500 billion to over £2000 billion with COVID only being responsible for £300b

I love everyone complaining about the strikes. IF you voted Tory you voted for this. It was always your choice. Its the other voters in the system who are hard done by. Not only were they right, but they have to suffer the systematic breakdown of the society they have worked and voted tirelessly to support.

Where has the £1.5 trillion pounds of government you have spent actually gone Tories? You have sat on the biggest period of peacetime spending in UK history and people are still broke? And you can't blame the public sector, the workers in the private sector are broke too.

But yes of course you've been bailing out your super wealthy Capitalist backers in History's greatest ever swindle and corruption.

The media may try and distract attention from the daylight robbery in the West by focusing on other countries and regimes, but actually they are doing fine and the West has to resort to endless sanctions and war to try and keep them back so they don't show up the crime that is Western Capitalism.

Its been said many times that the Ruling Elites need Capitalism in order to stop ordinary people doing well. This is where we are today. Capitalists stealing from the government here, and waging war on other countries there.

And what is most worrying no one in the media is allowed to say any of this! That is how total the stranglehold the totalitarian rulers of the West have over us.

Adam Smith's Dangerous Idea + SRH the Saviour

While Dennett takes up Darwin's Dangerous Idea, really the most dangerous idea ever printed is not something from Marx or Hitler or Mohammad but from a Scottish thinker called Adam Smith. His opus magnum the Wealth of Nations published in 1776 introduces us to the idea of the Invisible Hand of the markets.

Its the same idea that Dennett is talking about. The idea that forces of nature are behind all aspects of humanity, that we can replace humans with mechanical machines. For Dennett both Humans, Human Will and Consciousness can all be explained in terms of impersonal mechanical forces of nature.

This is actually SRH and Dennett is not wrong. You cannot explain Humans in terms of Humans. Inventing a great Human in the sky called God to make humans is logical folly. To explain human intelligence and design in terms of another designer is pointless, nothing has been explained. To explain the diversity of life on this planet in terms of another celestial life is pointless. There is no explanation and nothing being said in all these statement and beliefs.

So far so good. So why am I about to take Dennett and Smith to task?

The problem is that as Dennett would agree himself when we move the debate from God into the World we are moving the explanation from something we don't understand to something else we don't understand. There is a lot more to the world than we can understand. Quantum Physics is constantly throwing up new things and science will forever pursue ever changing theories of the world. "The World" is not so discrete as to be grasped in any amount of thinking and philosophy.

This is the essence of SRH. "The whole" can never be explained because it would need to explain itself, and that becomes a pointless loop. Explaining everything looks like great achievement until you realise you used everything to do it. If you explain Everything in terms of Everything then you may as well go back to God. If you don't already know what everything is then how can you explain everything? Human endeavours of explanation must always base their explanations on something else. We explain A in terms of B which means A can never become B and the world is necessarily split. The opening endeavour of mankind to explain something in terms of something else, already had us doomed to live in a divided world. We were doomed from the start. Everything will always be unexplainable.

So Dennett desire to explain will always be limited.

Now Adam Smith. His idea is that the price of things is best found in a "free market." The issue lies in that word "free." He actually meant a government regulated market where property rights were protected by law and coercion and mafia like behaviour was clamped down on. Each individual buying what they wanted at the price they felt fair, and working for the income they felt fair to get the money they felt they needed was the best way to match labour and consumption, supply and demand.

He is not wrong. Although there is a better system. Since you have a government in charge to stop wrong doing, why not a system of giving like religions preach. In an exchange system like Adam Smith envisaged you need 2 factors to complete a transaction. You need the buyer and the seller to agree. The buyer must have the money and the seller must have the goods. This eliminates all the possible transactions where the buyer does not have the money. This leads to borrowing where buyers have to arrange debt and it actually slows the system down. In a system of giving then only the supplier needs complete the transaction. And the religions argue with increased throughput and velocity you end up with a more efficient economy which is actually wealthier than Smith envisaged and so the giver actually ends up with more for that initial risk of giving without receiving. Religions tend to say you receive 10x what you give. It would be interesting to model this and see if its true. The great fear of course is cheats. People who take but never give. Smith's free market is based on this idea that in exchange economies everyone comes out of the transaction happy so there is no further processing. But this isn't actually true when people have to borrow. There us all the fall out of debt payments even after the transaction has cleared. As we see in the world today Smith economics leads straight into a world of debt and actually incomplete transactions where debt takes centre stage. The world is currently facing a vast liquidity problem from FX Swaps amounting to $25 trillion. This is more debt than the entire wester economy. It means no actual transaction in the West has really completed for many years and has all been done on credit. If we are never going to complete our transactions then what was the point of exchange economy anyway? Why don't we just give what we can to those who need it like the Pre-Smith teachings always said we should?

But the really dangerous part of Smith far worse than this self-destructive economy above, is that people think they need only work and shop for themselves. His idea is based upon and cements the idea of the Ego as a self contained unit in an economy cut off from everyone around. If this single cellular automaton just shops for what it wants, and works for a sufficient income then the economy and society as a whole will be best. But this completely reduces the human being to a box with inputs and outputs and society to just a collection of cells. This may make sense to an C18th Enlightenment thinker, but it is really pure darkness. Where for instance did the English language that Smith was writing in come from? Where was the exchange that occurred to ensure that there were reader for his work? How much is English language worth? Who is selling and who was buying? Its a nonsense. English language comes to people in the British Isles like rain or sunshine comes from the Sky. It is free, and that free is the real free that enables life to happen. If birds and plants had to pay from water and sunlight then there would be no life on the planet at all. The real free market actually is free! A mother does not charge her child for the labour she invests. A parent does not charge for teaching their child English. The heart does not charge the person for beating every minute of their life. The brain does not charge for even thinking all this. It all just happens naturally. This is the real "free market." As the religions say everything comes from and belongs to God so there is nothing for us to claim or own, Even the work our our hands is only possible because we were given hands at birth. None of it belong to me. And in fact as explored elsewhere in this blog there is not even a me.

So Dennett and Smith far from explaining Wealth and Consciousness and Human Existence they have simply thrown out 99% of what is there and then forced the remaining 1% into a rigid box of algorithms and systems that they think stand alone. In fact all Dennett's explanations and all Smith's Wealth come from the 99% they have ignored. No A then not way B can be explained in terms of A. No free world of natural abundance or society of humans and then no wealth at all.

These are small thoughts in a world more vast (and necessarily so) than we can imagine. What is dangerous about Darwin and Smith is that they make people think small, and believe that is all there is. It is the throwing away of 99% that Enlightenment thinking trained people to do.

Its no accident I think that Smith published in the same year as America gained independence. America is the smallest place on Earth, the one that thinks biggest but with the smallest brain. It seems 1776 was a special year when Mankind, rather than face the puzzle of the vastness of the world, decided instead to throw away everything they could not see clearly and gain certainty from what was left. It was the year we gained illumination by drawing closet to a dimming candle rather than increase it brightness. It was the year that the West born and the year that Mankind died.

SRH remains as the thorn in the Enlightenments project. That Totalitarianism that the West sort from its inception, that Totalitarianism where every human on Earth thinks enlightenments thoughts and lives in enlightenment harmony and understands a universe with enlightenment totality, that Totalitarianism which the West sees in anyone who opposes the totality of the west: that Totalitarianism is its own weakness because what is left for the Conquer when everything is conquered?

The Greater Self

The very first thing anyone ever said to me about Buddhism was that it says that the Ego is bad. And it is bad because it rejects the greater self.

I realise now that if you were to summarise Buddhism in a simple statement this would be it. In fact you could summarise religion and philosophy and psychology in its entirety to this,

Now what is so confusing about this statement that it is both hard to understand and hard to take on board?

I now believe that the key to this is that the True Self is not reflexive. The key feature of the Ego is that in its essence it refers to itself.

The "I" of the Ego is a self-contained entity which issues the self-reference. When we say "I am happy" this I positions itself within itself as a King within his Castle makes statements about the affirs of his castle. The whole thing depends upon a belief in a discrete bounded knowledge of a self that exists within the world.

But this is like a child playing with its dolls house and commanding a particular figure that it identifies with.

The Greater Self is not so discrete and graspable. In that dolls house analogy the child is the Greater Self that is manipulating the doll it identifies with.

Whatever we consider of the Ego we forget that the Greater Self is the one doing that considering, not the being that is considered.

It seems unnecessary to pull in SRH here, but we can never consider the True Self as a discrete entity because it is the one doing the considering. If Descartes had instead of doubting everything, had decided to consider everything he would have arrived at an identical realisation. The doubter cannot doubt that they are doubting. The considerer cannot consider that they are considering. There is only considering.

And this is where the Ego fails. When we say "I am considering" we are not the child considering, we are the doll in the dolls house that the child pretends is considering.

When we make discrete statements about the present we are always referring to a fake self, and Ego. And the reason is that what is really happening is that the Greater Self occupies that present moment and is the "thing" really behind what is going on. "thing" in quotes because the temptation when talking about the Greater Self is to make a doll called "Greater Self" and put it on display in the dolls house. The child is the Greater Self and it is too big for the dolls house so is always outside. This inability to actually grasp the Greater Self and put a proper boundary on it, is where all the problems occur for thought, conceptualising and text.

It has been put to me many times that the key to this door is to ask "who?" Who really commands the world? Who really has these thoughts and lives its life? In our dreams and thoughts it is easy we just superficially say "me." But "who thinks it is 'me'?" starts to come into the present moment and cause SRH problems. If we enter the Present fully as ask "who?" we see that there is no one, at least no one discrete that we can put a boundary around and separate from the world and other people. We see that the ego is fake. Its obviously fake cos after we are dead people remember that Ego and put our name on a grave stone or plaque and we live on. But like celluloid heroes we only live on because we were already dead. The living bit is separate from the Ego, it surrounds the Ego, it is the boundless space around the Ego, that while deluded and unclear on things holds onto the Ego instead of letting go of this fake entity and realising the formless and boundless nature of the True Self.

So the True Self does have a relationship with itself, but not discrete and with form. In fact so immediate that its actually pointless to say that. That relationship lies in the nature of the Present Moment as Present. The very presence of the Present Moment is the True Self. That boundless space in which--as Heideggar calls it-- Ontic things exist is the True Self that enables existence itself.

The thing then then which is difficult to grasp is that the True Self does not have a particular personality or identity. The key thing about Ego is that we know ourselves as one of many people. "That is me" we think. "I want this" we think. "That is mine" we think. This self is discrete, has boundaries separate from other things and has a particular identity as a separate entity. This identity has a personality that separates it from others. But this is all Ego. The True Self does not have particular identity, it has no personality and it is not separate from other Selves. In many ways it is actually not us at all. For the Ego it seems like a stranger. The child fully involved with the the doll in the dolls house imagines the doll looking out of the house towards themselves as a stranger. This is how easy it is to be a stranger to our self and not even recognise our self in the world of thoughts and imagination. Yet all the while the child is there completely unaffected by any of the goings on in the dolls house. This is how we are actually unaffected by any of the things we think or believe happens to the Ego. All this is fake. A mental construction. A dream. Once absorbed and attached to the world and the Ego we no longer know our self! This is why Ego is so fundamentally dangerous!

But through meditation and being in the Present Moment we can begin to look away from the doll and start be Be ourselves again, fully involved in what is going on not as the receiver of what is going on but as part of what is going on, as the game of dolls houses. The child no longer the subject of what happens to the doll, but aware of the game of playing with the dolls house as it happens. With what happens to the doll, not the receiver of what happens. The simple playing dolls houses is the True Self, not any of the dolls. This is why they say that the Self is empty - where is the child when they are playing dolls houses? There is just dolls and a house! Jung would say that the House in dreams is a symbol for, and represents, the self. But it only represents, just as a doll or the Ego are just representations.

It is worth noting that the child who is with what is going on in the dolls house is much safer than the one absorbed into a character in the dolls house, If a tiger were to walk into the room then the child would be with the tiger and able to respond. Entranced by the game of dolls house the child may not notice. So we see again how dangerous Ego is. Transfixed by our Ego we are not with the world as it happens. We see the world as things happening to a fake self--the Ego, like a movie. So when we think abandoning the Ego as dangerous we are missing the point. Unattaching from the Ego and not looking after and attending to the self may seem dangerous. Who will look after me if I let go of myself is the cry of every Right-Wing person and Capitalist. It is our own responsibility to look after ourselves is the West's mantra. The child moves a tiger into the dolls house. The socialists come to power in the dolls house. Oh no we are in danger we think. But this is only a fake copy of what is happening. The Ego cannot be hurt cos its not real. We don't care for the tiger in the dolls house that is threatening the doll, we care about the tiger in the room threatening the child! So being in Present Moment is not dangerous, although to our thoughts who attach to symbols and dolls it will seem.

And for reflexive completeness of course this entire text here, with everything it has said, and all the images and imaginations is just a game of dolls houses. I have set up my dolls, child, tiger and even Ego and True Self in a dolls house of words and manipulated them and played games with them. But all the while untouched by anything said was the True Self who was reading all this completely unnoticed! This is how the world distracts us from our true self, and yet the true self is not separate from the world. Our True Self just then was in the reading, or for me in the writing. And perhaps lies in the thinking that has started. Its always there in what is Present, no more and no less and inseparable.

So is True Self immortal is the question that is most pertinent to us. What happens to True Self when we die? Well this is a question for the doll in the dolls house that we identity with. The problem is that True Self is Present and you can't dissect it out of the Present to put in a jar and study. It doesn't need to be fed, it would just be the starvation. It doesn't need to be pampered to in anyway. It is the truth of what is happening right now. It is not fake. It is not a representation in words or in dolls. How can something that is only ever present be something that dies? When we are dying it is dying itself! When we are dead... well this is always a fake thing to imagine so is no concern to the True Self. In Present Moment there is no time, there are no thoughts of "what will happen" there is only happening. True Self is only ever happening, it is never happened or never to happen. If we are thinking like this we are still in the dolls house. And we still need let go of that doll, that ego, we call ourselves and be the thinking of those thoughts themself.

Isn't Will the core of me? Whose will is it anyway?

 So this has been the #1 puzzle for me. You can contemplate reality and see many things, but before long you will return to the usual state of doing things. And when we decide to do things that seems irrefutably to be proof that we exist as separate entities that can chose what we do quite separately from other people and the world. Sartre says we chose what we are, placing choice even above any sense of existence. We may progress to the realisation that there is no substance called "me" no soul, but we just move this me into the Will wherever that comes from. A pure self sitting at the centre of all our decisions like a King.

So this is work in progress but two obvious avenues blow this apart.

(1) What do we chose? A King may have whatever he wants but he doesn't chose what he wants. SRH blows this apart immediately. Armed with the power of do what we want, we are immediately powerless to want what we want. So choice enters this crazy realm where we might chose what we don't want just to prove our freedom and independence. What an apparent fool is this.

But its worse cos a little psychological investigation reveals all kinds of problems with choice. There is "suggestion" used at its extreme in Hypnosis and advertising. And then seduction, persuasion and basic advertising. There are many ways to get us to change our mind. Often people will be left refusing to change their mind just on principle to prove their mind and choices have integrity.

One thing to note is that investigations into hypnosis reveal that we can't be persuaded to do anything. We a have deep sense of morality that stops us from going "crazy." People may suggest crazy things but actually deep down, even when we are confused, we know what we are not going to do. Although soldiers have a huge amount of training to weaken this so they do in fact do things they don't want to do, like killing, but this leads to huge psychological conflicts and struggles. It's not easy. And we can say that this deep morality is in part determined by our culture. What is normal is the West like eating animals, is cruel and horrible in many places. And even eating people which the West considers horrible, is acceptable in some places. So even many of our deep decisions are determined from outside us. Now at its deepest level when we see "truth" then we have a solid basis, but this "truth" is not decide by us. To get there we need go beyond ourselves.

So our "choice "is not so singular and isolated. Our most personal choice is really part of a wider world!

(2) The other thing is that while Will exists, it is not about us. As we develop our Will becomes less concerned with "me" and more concerned with the general state of affairs. At its peak we go beyond self-interest and Will what is best. We are compassionate and motivate by a will to make things better and help people. This is a much greater more magnanimous Will than the small one that is only concerned with me.

So the issue here is that a Will that is concerned for the world and other people as much as the self, Is this really "my" will?

The problem for small wills is not who they belong to, but who they serve.

Where is music? Its in the mind!

When trying to write a song how often do you slip into something you already know? But sometimes you slip into something that hasn't been done yet. That is an extraordinary experience. It is like walking into a familiar place that you and no one else has ever been. Think Paul McCartney famously experiences this and many people say his songs have a nostalgia to them as though they were long forgotten songs rediscovered. But you write a new song and end up asking people whether they know it cos it sounds familiar in a way and yet you are the first to hear it.

Likewise with highly engineered pop music you hear on the radio. It becomes the sound track to your life and it seeps into your brain without you ever really paying attention. You never really know the words, you never really know the song. It is just familiar. Then year later your consciousness kicks in and you find the lyrics on the web or you hear it played live or in another style and you realise that you know nothing about this song. What you know is some impression that is in your head. How many times are you shocked that a cherished song has the most rubbish lyrics. Or you hear it played live and that magic of mix is stripped away and you can see the quite ordinary parts that are layered by to create that memorable sound. Had that recently due to the sad death of Christine McVie. I've never liked Fleetwood Mac. They are famous for the lightest piece of pop trash as far as I was concerned. But that famous album got so much air play that it seeped into your bones. Hearing a recording of it played live on TV last week and seeking out the parts you could see the skill with which the songs were constructed and how that delicious pop sound was actually created from the simplest components.

This is Buddha. The sum of the parts is very different from the parts. And we are left there with the slightly unsettling realisation that that thing we like has no real substance. It comes about somehow from the magically fusing if parts that by themselves seem ordinary.

And so it is with writing a new song. Somehow a very ordinary arrangement of notes and chords, possibly not even that unique gets a soul ignited in it that makes it quite unlike anything else. Feeling that soul emerge is a quite spiritual experience. And it happens in a flash. Suddenly we are writing and it just flows through us. After months of trying suddenly something comes together and it is there, ready made. Well that is one way it happens. The other is that we try and build a fire, but it doesn't catch. So we try again. And gradually through continual editing we get the fire right, and when we light the spark it catches. Perhaps they are the same. Its not like sparks of musical genius happen by themselves, they are always in the middle of a mess of hard work that hasn't managed to catch. We fill the room with so much tinder that the next time we sit to write it just catches and we have a song.

Now the point of this whole blog is to highlight something I just realised. The art of the musician, indeed and artist in general, is actually the art of an illusionist. The artist takes some tool and tricks the senses and the mind into seeing something brand new. In the case of a musician this is often a melody. A melody does not exist in the instrument or even in the sound waves, it is triggered in the mind of the listener. The listener is tricked into hearing the melody that isn't really there. But obviously music is much more complex than just melody. Chords, sound textures, rhythms are all mixed in there. Its amazing how a melody sounds rubbish in one mix, but in the hands of someone else takes on a whole new meaning. Once ignited though we can often go back to the origin al and appreciate it in a whole new way.

One example for me was Chvrches "Clearest Blue." I had heard this and thought nothing of it. But then Gryffin did this incredibly profound and moving much more ambient version that really captured the desperation of the singer. A beautiful version

But now I got the song. Got what it meant. Then I was able to return to the original and get what Chvrches was about in general.

Now the original is singing about the same thing. But its filled with positivity and the epicness is affirming. That punch-the-air affirmation is all Chvrches even while singing possible sad lyrics.

So music I realise is all in the mind. And while becoming a virtuosic musician or DJ is important the skill lies in using these soulless tools to create an illusion in the mind of the listener(s). I say listeners cos music is not an individual experience. The reason I probably gravitated to Gryffin first is because of my experience in clubbing music. he was the gateway drug to get to Chvrches which is quite different from the community I'm usually exposed to.

So those moments of musical virtuosity where musicians show off their technical skill are part or it, but often we are left looking at the sheer "physicality" of the music and there is no illusion. It is there like a solid thing. But then the musician returns to musicality and an aura starts to shine again as the illusion warms up and we get "music" again.

So the art of music is the art of manipulating these illusions.

That said I remember a music producer saying of demo tapes that what he was looking for was people trying to push stuff through their equipment. There is that type of music where you get bogged down in the technology. An orchestra is a hugely complex piece of technology but luckily you only get to to write for orchestra after you have cut your teeth on smaller simpler technologies like solos or duets. But these days with computers it is possible to explore orchestra without much experience. You might say film music was suffering from this and the orchestra has become a very stripped back entity not really developing or evolving and audiences get used to either sweeping strings or punchy brass and not much else. The days of oboe innovation with Stravinsky for example are kind of gone.

So you can say that musical ideas transcend their technology in another way too. Not just that the DJs and mixers and arrangers are able to mould sound to create particular illusion, but that the song writers are able to express ideas through the limitations that is physical instruments.

That is kind of saying the same thing in different ways. Music is in the mind. But the means to create that illusion are either in spite of the technology as with Dylan with just his beat up guitar which is a vehicle to transmit an idea mind to mind, or through the technology where it becomes instrumental in creating that illusion. In both cases music only works once an illusion is created in the mind of the listener.

But that is complex. Continual exposure to music reprograms the brain to become receptive to certain ideas. The music industry understands this and has led to our overwhelming exposure to "samey" music. Why challenge audiences where you can reinforce their musical prejudices and just switch on the same only illusions they like and want to hear again.

Obviously avant garde still exists by it doesn't make money. Why would a music company back a musician who has to build new roads when they can just back musicians who agree to send traffic down the existing ones.

Digital music and internet has virtually removed the costs of music production and distribution. But then you still have the problem of "new roads." In a world where you click and listen for 10 secs before clicking on something else the time taken to build new roads in your brain has been reduced and we risk listening to the same stuff endlessly.

So our very behaviour and environment is linked to the types of musical and artistic illusions we are able to create. And the types of illusions artists will be able to create in us.

Finally I've always suspected the avant garde artists are the ones who are not very good. If you are not Mozart and able to dominate the existing music world then go off and make your own.

Absolutely incredible musicians technically but what does this cause in the mind? I've listened a bit to see if I can "access" it but to no avail. Obviously to those radicals who want to smash up the establishment and head off out into the desert it will appeal ideologically. But for the illusions of music what is going on. Big discussion, not taking sides. But this shows how rational ideologies cross over into music ideas and experiences too.

Certainly much avant garde is just bad musicians who lack ideas trying to fill space. But some are genuinely ground breaking and pushing new ideas into the musical landscape. Just cos it sounds unfamiliar at first does not mean with some perseverance we do not start to experience new illusions.

So in conclusion music is all in the mind, and the musician is not a master of technology to make sounds, but the skilful users of technology and sounds to create illusions in the mind and make the audience hear something that is not actually there.

PsyOps in China?

Its no secret that the West has been trying to subdue China for almost 200 years. And, if Opium Wars are anything to go by, will stop at nothing to do this.

Currently the method used to crash China is the argument that the people are "not free". This in fact is not true. People in China are less likely to spend time in gaol than even British, and far less than Americans whose government imprisoned more of its own people than any other government on Earth. The Chinese state does less to restrict freedom than most countries in fact.

We also know that the West is not really concerned about freedom given that it supports the worst dictatorship in the world in Saudi Arabia where it is illegal to even criticise the government, and such criticism will end you up in prison if not publicly beheaded. While the media was looking at who murdered Jamal Khashoggi they rather neglected to point out the elephant in the room that it is illegal in Saudi Arabia to even criticise the government and the death penalty is available for those who break this law. The West does not apparently care for freedom at all and happy turns a blind eye to the worst excesses of totalitarian dictatorships like Saudi Arabia.

We also know that the CIA and MI6 are experts in causing unrest in countries. This was famously demonstrated in the MI6 overthrow of the democratic system in Iran to reinstall the corrupt dictatorship of the Shah who in turn agreed to carry on allowing the West to exploit Iran and extract oil and wealth from the country.

The history of the West is very much the subduing of countries and the extraction of their wealth. And when people rise up the West will violently oppose this where possible or seek terms of independence through which they can maintain the best terms for exploitation. Most famously when Germany rose up against the West in the 1930s Churchill was prepared to begin a global war to suppress their freedom.

The key technique used in 1953 in Iran was the buying of hooligans to create violent unrest which western backed media then sold in the press as a popular uprising against the democratic government. Simply by staging protests and violence the West was able to fake the idea that there was a popular movement against the government. The West then violently stormed the central media building took over the media of the country and the rest was easy. When a militia, backed simply by the West, surrounded the compound of  the democratic leader Mossadegh and started to attack it with tanks they sold it again as a popular uprising. And when the Shah walked back in, it was made out in the media to be a triumphant return of the true leader of Iran. When in actual fact a democratic vote had shown that Iranians were actually sick of being exploited by the West and their corrupt puppet leader Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. But Iranians were fooled into thinking the popular mood had moved against Mossadegh even though the whole thing was performance was staged by just a few hundred people paid by the West.

This is how dangerous the media is. Control of the media, and the ability to create unrest are all that is needed to fake the idea of popular movements.

And when we look at China this more than anything looks like CIA backed unrest.

It is more complex than just finding a few people who will agree to fake it for cash. The CIA sets up groups and organisation so that people think they are working for one thing when in fact they are working to bring down the establishment that the CIA wants to overthrow to replace with a US aligned regime. US choses anyone who is useful and it is rarely democracy, despite officially using Democracy as the excuse for most CIA activity. Saudi Arabia is the best example of this.

In the TV series Narcos, as blogged before, the DEA is moved into Colombia by the CIA to remove Pablo Escobar. To the DEA it looks like a noble thing to do. But actually the DEA is pointed at Escobar not because of the drugs. There are dozens of other drugs barons and when Escobar is removed they just take over and the drugs trade to US actually increases. The DEA were not there to do anything about drugs, they were there to remove Escobar because he was a popular leader who threatened to end US control of the region and upset the corrupt US backed leaders in Colombia. CIA goes to huge lengths in South America to stop socialist and communist uprisings in order to stop the people controlling their own countries and resources. So DEA is just used by the CIA for purposes other than what they think they are doing. And so it is across the world. I know someone who was invited into Ukraine to set up government infrastructure. Like DEA a noble thing. But really I suspect its at the request of the CIA who is using them to remove Russian influence in the region so the US can take over and corrupt the leadership.

And we do not know the details but those we are told are rioting in China are going to be a complex mix of people, but I suspect very few of them will not have seen US dollars in one way or another for what they do.

Now governments are in a difficult position. If they quite rightly suppress the illegal unrest (that is the job of governments to keep the peace) the West can use media footage of this as evidence that the government is oppressing its people. Obviously that is nonsense the government is just suppressing the illegal foreign backed unrest. But if the government does nothing to suppress the unrest then it will look weak and the people will ask why they are not suppressing this illegal activity. People like effective governments that stand up for rule of law and protect their interests. Having riots is not a good look. US regularly has riots over the huge number of people who die in detention (around 450 a year) but its interesting how the media down plays this. Iran has a max of 11 a year and news is following the riots there. CIA may even be fuelling the riots.

Now the West is claiming the issue in China is over democracy. But actually no one in the West or the East had any say in their government's COVID policy. There was no difference is the democracy in America, Britain or China and people took to the streets in all countries to complain about lockdowns.

What was different was the degree of lockdown. In America which has the least over a million people have died. That is a lot of people losing their life to a government policy. In fact it amounts to a Holocaust. China by contrast has shown considerably more respect for life and despite being 4 times the size of US only 5,233 people have died! This is actually a spectacular achievement and demonstrates extraordinary care for the people.

Now what has probably happened is people have seen pictures of the West out of lockdown but as is typical the sacrifice made has been hidden in the media. If China followed the US policy then 4.5 million people would be in coffins. Do the demonstrations in China realise they are demanding the early deaths of 4.5 million people! That is almost like asking for the gas chambers to be rebuilt in terms of the magnitude of death. Its a tricky thing indeed. But Western propaganda as usual is just spinning it into nonsense in order to play psyops.

Bottom line when you see riots and protests on TV don't necessarily believe what you see! CIA PSyops are extremely sophisticated and far reaching.

Russia Today in Britain

https://www.rt.com/

And Facebook will show a thumbnail but will warn you:

Now we might wonder why the Russian Government is not allowed a voice in the West. Why does the West care what Russia says?

Well first off there is one problem. Who is the "West." Someone somewhere has decided that Russia does not want to tell the same story that they want. That was not me, that was not you. So despite claiming freedom the "West" is controlled by some very powerful people who want to control what you are exposed to. That is already incredibly revealing about the West.

The irony of course is that the West says that it is Russia that is controlled by incredibly powerful people who control what the Russians are exposed to. Yet already we have proven that the West is actually like this. Wow. Big reveal. And since we are exposed to what a narrative designed by a small minority in the West we now know not to trust our own media.

Another problem is you do not see this on Facebook :

BBC is funded by the British State government and should carry a warning. Yet it does not. So Facebook has no problem with State Media itself. It has a problem with Russian State Media.

Now BBC is an interesting entity. Very famously it took on the UK Government over US claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons he could deploy in 45 minutes. I've said before the US never tells the truth and anyone with their head screwed on should have had alarm bells ringing when it turned out it was US intelligence. Hans Blix of the UN weapons Inspectors had clearly said there were no WMDs and weapons experts in UK were prepared to agree with this. Yet the British Government for whatever reason chose to listen to the US.

The result was the UK government moving to shut down the BBC. They were told withdraw the story or you will be closed.

Now this was very revealing. It means that until 2003 the BBC has some independence from the UK government. But the UK government did not like this and moved to make the BBC obedient to the government and not inclined to criticise the government. The BBC then has become exactly what Facebook has warned us about RT. It has become a mouthpiece for the government. One might say the West is worried out RT cos it knows exactly how its own press works.

Now why should we listen to the State controlled BBC any more than RT when BBC is just a biased mouthpiece of government just like RT.

The issue then is that the West does not want us to listen to the Russian Government and only the British Government.

Now its arguable whether the American press is independent of the Government. But it is objectively obvious that the press never really criticises the US Government. And when whistle blowers like Edward Snowdon go around the controlled media system we see just how much the US wants to control the narrative.

What all this points to is that there are very powerful people in the West who will stop at nothing to control what people in the West think. And countries like Russia which the West wants to destroy are fundamentally not allowed to have a voice in case people the West start to realise that they are being lied to by the Totalitarian Government of the West that actually closes down freedom of speech and is committed to brainwashing.

The really worrying thing is that the West is clearly concerned about whatever Russia wants to say. And this really suggests that Russia has something damaging to say! We can only guess what that is. But I have never heard Russia lie! Unlike America where everything they say is a lie. Without any bias it seems that American really needs to turn to dirty tricks and press control in order for the absurdity of what they say to stick. In a free press where countries around the world were free to talk the US narrative would quickly start to look stupid and absurd.

Really basic stuff makes no sense from the US. US and UK are continually at war, yet claim to be interest in peace. US and UK claim to be about freedom and yet the 1000s of tons of bombs they need to drop each year to force people to be free look more like control of people. US claims to be right, yet spends 40% of global military spending. Clearly the US thinks Might is Right. And anyone who needs that much Might is actually wrong. US claims to be about freedom, and yet it an ally of Saudi Arabia which is the least free place on Earth. US claims to be about freedom and yet you are 10x more likely to be put in prison by the US Government than the Chinese government. West says its interested in free press, and Chinese firewall is Dictatorship and yet most Chinese closing down of media is actually in retaliation for the West closing down foreign media. It is actually the West that is trying to control global media. The list of nonsense is endless. Everything the US says is just nonsense and it seems they can only maintain this level of rubbish by eliminating any other media that challenges them.

Well I have no idea what RT said that was so worrying to the West. But now I want to know, cos we know the West is always talking nonsense. Now I want to hear what the Bullshitters think is bullshit! I also want to know who is so powerful in the West that they can close down the ideas of other countries. we are not free in the West and its possible we are even less free than the countries we are told by the bullshitters are not free.

The heavy hand of the West really has stung them and undermined everything they said they stood for!

Plus we know the West has been running Empires around the globe for centuries, which have sort to control people and extract their wealth. The West can accuse China and Russia, but really the onus is on the West to demonstrate that it has turned over a new leaf and represents freedom rather than Imperial Capitalist control. The West hurling stones at other countries looks a lot like the West trying to distract people away from its own Totalitarianism.

All fingers point at the West!