THIS IS A PLAIN TEXT ARCHIVE OF ALL MY OLD POSTS.

My original blog entries will be deleted and copied to my website.


His High Witness, The Prophet V

Blog relating to my alternative spirituality, music, politics and community-related business interests.
Wednesday, 13 May 2015
Stealth Marxism and the Judeo-Capitalist Axis
Is David Cameron a Stealth Marxist? No, I have not gone mad. I am fully aware that David Cameron is a rich Etonian Tory who would sell his dead great-grandmother for manure and happily see workers kettled. But for all of his free-market liberalism, Cameron is also the peculiar inheritor of another tradition: a form of Bourgeois Marxism known as Stealth Marxism.

Stealth Marxism was born out of the frustrations of a small group of (often wealthy, and rather spoiled) far-left quasi-Trotskyite intellectuals - mostly in Britain - who decided that their dream of proletarian revolution could only be achieved by stealth: an extreme variant on Trotsky's classic doctrine of entryism. Many once-diehard radicals now hold key jobs in the City of London, the media, education and in other arenas of "respectable" power, using the analytical skills they learned from reading Marxist literature. They have abandoned any genuine and meaningful attempt to communicate with their former comrades.

Anyone who has ever experienced charges of "racism" or "misgoyny" from the "left" will notice that they are very quick to call the police or the media of the "right". What used to be dealt with informally has now become a matter of ruling-class prestige: of being "seen" to be doing something "for the women" or "for the minorities" by throwing them patronising breadcrumbs. And the irony? Many of the social groups that such measures are aimed at don't actually want them: and those that do are likely to have been co-opted as a sort of unofficial police force.

Although most of the Marxist "entryist" intellectuals found their way into the far-left parties, a handful also trickled upwards into the Labour Party. The more libertarian wing even toyed with Toryism. Generally, however, Stealth Marxism pre-occupies itself with eye-catching particularisms: radical feminism, multiculturalism and traditional set-in-stone class identities, despite the fact that other Marxists now question if such particularisms can be over-emphasised. We saw these particularisms at work in the so-called "Militant Tendency" of the 1980s. Far from providing the working-class with a legitimate platform, it is now easy to see Militant as a thoroughly bourgeois project: divorced from the cultural experiences of workers, the unemployed and even the very minorities they were supposed to advance.

Particularisms can be useful to raise particular cultural agendas that have formally been oppressed, and this never truer than in some black communities today. Radical black voices have got lost in all the furore over a largely Asian Islamic extremism, and there is this aching feeling of having been forgotten - of being left out. However, the appropriation of particularistic slogans by the free-market right shows how easily Stealth Marxism fits in with a bourgeois agenda of divide-and-rule.

We are now in a bizarre situation where some white working-class, gentile and secularist modes of living have become the new exotic tribalisms, and in some instances, victims of a metropolitan conspiracy between the free-market right and Stealth Marxism, which tends to have fallen in with a post-Blair way of thinking. Genuine cases of misgogyny, racism or homophobia are one thing - and of course, deplorable. But it is just as advantageous for our current political system to invent cases of prejudice that do not exist in order to crush mass dissent, just as it is advantageous to exaggerate or invent concepts such as "date rape" or "child abuse" where the person under suspicion also happens to hold radical views that challenge the existing order.

Stealth Marxism garners its strength from a failure to truly comprehend the nature of capitalist power. Capitalism is part of a wider religious system: Judeo-Capitalism, which produces an agitated, hyperactive consciousness, but not necessarily a truly informed one. Indeed, if that were not the case, a watered-down social democracy would very easily come into being - if only as a means of the ruling class preserving itself. In the post-1945 period up to 1970s, we saw hints that this might be the direction of travel for capitalism, but this experiment was very quickly abandoned. So what are the elites afraid of?

Firstly, to the uninitiated, the reactionary shift of bourgeois power might suggest that the ruling class is stupid and has absolutely no idea of the huge risk it is taking: not only with workers' lives, but with the very existence of the market it seeks to maintain. Well, quite clearly, that is not true. Lord Gilmour's excellent book, Britain Can Work, spelled out the risks that exist when a ruling class becomes cannibalistic and ends up eating itself.

Secondly, and more controversially, it might suggest that the ruling class knows full well that its days are numbered and has already planned an "exit strategy". Well, certainly some of its members must know this. Stealth Marxism has all the advantages of a bourgeois, particularistic strain of thinking, but none of the pitfalls. It is the backup plan for a failing bourgeois elite. Quite what form it would take in government: as pro or anti-capitalism, is in one sense irrelevant if some of the same principles are simply transferred neatly over from capitalism to socialism.

Some Marxists still operate under the delusion that fascism is the default position of a failing liberal-democratic bourgeoisie. That option is becoming increasingly untenable. For a start, the Web means that information about fascist tendencies that exist in liberalism are very quickly rooted out. Activists are not so willing to go along with crudities as they once were. The only option for capitalists is to engage in the ultimate form of asset-stripping: mass robbery of the workers on the one hand, whilst keeping a firm control over the workers' movement on the other. In Britain, that means ensuring that the wider working-class movement is Pavlovian and responds to its every stimuli: to ensure that the "revolution" is not so "revolutionary" after all.

Nationalisms, or other forms of radical religion linked to a national struggle, are not in of themselves reactionary or "splittist" (I am well aware of the Leninist terminology at work here). Indeed, they can bypass many of the filter systems that are inherent in the Judeo-Capitalist Axis, because they hint at a utopian consciousness not ground under by daily toil under the oppressive mechanism of the market. When some Marxists see these tendencies and immediately cry "Nazi!" or the pejorative of "fascist!", they do a huge disservice to the many individuals who - by accident or by design - are seeking an alternative way out to the dehumanised logic of dialectical materialism.

It is interesting to note that the grounds under which nationalism is built is slowly shifting towards a more socialist form of struggle. We see elements of this in Scotland, and with smaller parties such as the Patriotic Socialist Party in England. No-one of any importance is buying into the old racist narratives, and even those know that their days are numbered. Even UKIP - a bourgeois-nationalist party, has a membership that contains a socialist element, and which already incorporates elements of anti-racism as part of its strategy for hegemony.

When not shackled by the brutalism of Marxist logic, individual working-class leaders are likely to make naive and stupid mistakes, of that there is no doubt. Many trousers will fall down, and much laughter will be heard amongst so-called "intellectuals". But this is part of the necessary evolution that is require to take socialist revolution forward.

Let us stop laughing at such experiments, and start attempting to engage with them. Otherwise, today's bourgeoisie will be tomorrow's Stealth Marxists. And we won't be able to get rid of them quite so easily.
Posted by His High Witness, the Prophet V at 10:19 1 comment:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Wednesday, 1 April 2015
2015 - The Year of Transition
   2015 is the year of transition for the Faith - from struggle and pain to stable, quiet and productive progress!

    It's been years since I last posted on Blogger - and in that time, quite a lot has happened. I've been slandered, libelled, threatened, cheated - nearly got married, then I didn't.....and felt so depressed by all of this fear and uncertainty that I've not felt able to record a single track of completed new music. I have numerous hard discs and memory sticks full of uncompleted songs, and I am only just starting to look at them again with a view to releasing new music online.

     Well, I am happy to report that 2015 is an extremely exciting year for me! For a start, I have just finished writing the Early Edition of my new book, "Integrity", which is about my religious faith, #omeganism, and how it works: in theory and in practice. You can Like it on Facebook by going to http://www.facebook.com/Integritythebook - and also ask me questions about it - as well as following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/theprophetv.

     You might think that a book such as that wouldn't have an appeal, but I am optimistic. I've been trying to get marketing advice from the experts, but one thing I can tell you is that most of my friends are buying it, and I fully expect more sales very soon.

     Another thing to mention - and this is very important - is that I now feel able to be more militant in my views - and justifiably so, given the hassle I've had. My book talks about about an entirely planned and co-ordinated "Warlord culture" operating behind the scenes that promotes this kind of thing, and it needs to be stopped RIGHT NOW! If you think that going down to your local polling station every five or so years will put a stop to it, well, you really do need to have serious rethink. These people are vicious, and worst of all, they pick on vulnerable women and play to all of their worst fears about men in order to keep their power. They can lie, they can alter computer records, they can steal from you, spread rumours that would make your own mother believe them and not you, invade your house, tap your phone, bug your Internet, scare your children, burn down buildings you visit..... In short, you name it - they can do it. They are the shadowy force that operates between the gangland world and the world of law enforcement, medicine and telecommunications and media companies. And you'll probably never, ever meet them; that's how devious these people are.

     None of these warnings I'm giving you should stop you from feeling a tremendous sense of empowerment from the Faith should you choose to accept it. God is a technician, above all else, and all of the cogs in the machine are designed to work together. So you need never worry about the existence of evil, or have too many regrets, because there is a Divine Plan for you - and just as importantly, your work colleagues, your partners and family - your many wives and husbands, concubines and so on, even your household pets. Knowing what the "Road Map" is and how to get there is half the battle already won, and just barking orders at people or making them guilty about their "sins" is not only a huge turn-off, but confirms the same stereotypes about religion that have done so much damage to our spiritual growth as a species.

   I used to be fearful and worry what people would think about me being so openly religious, but now I sense the excitement as 2015 progresses. The Fellow Traveller concept that I've developed allows non-religious people to contribute to my work, because there are things in it that are of benefit not just to the Faithful, but to those who have no inclinations towards religion at all. What matters is not whether you believe in God, but whether you have the progressiveness of mind to see the advantages in the Faith as and when they are of benefit to you.

     I hope that this is the year that the penny finally drops - and that all the doubters out there finally get it - that I'm not out to point the finger at all unbelievers, just those that stand in the way of progress. You out there, who have read this - you can be the bridge between the Faith and the doubters. In your own very small way, you can be the revolutionary consciousness to your small corner of Britain, and perhaps, one day, the planet.


Posted by His High Witness, the Prophet V at 13:11 No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: 2015 - The Year of Transition
Tuesday, 25 June 2013
My e-mail to The People's Assembly: All In This Together?

Dear People's Assembly
"What can I do to help? I am out of work and very unlikely to find opportunities that I am capable of taking up.". This is my current situation, and is also the situation facing many other people. I live in Yorkshire, which has persistently been neglected by successive governments, particularly in attracting investment from South to North.

We live in some of the most challenging economic circumstances of the last 100 years. New Labour continued the Thatcherite agenda of previous governments. The Coalition extended it.

I often find myself at odds with the labour movement about ways of dealing with our current malaise. Previously, I have found the emphasis to be on existing and well-established unions and other organisations rather than alienated individuals on the margins. I am more spiritually focused than political. However, what your Assembly seems to offer is a way for different strands of opinion to come together. If that's genuinely the case, then not only will I support you, I will actively get involved.

God bless the wise, the noble and the truly beautiful.
His High Witness, The Prophet V
Posted by His High Witness, the Prophet V at 08:23 No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Friday, 12 April 2013
The Troubling Spiritual Legacy of Margaret Thatcher
(early draft of full article)

Please note that as you either mourn or celebrate the death of Lady Thatcher this week, you do so in a spirit that arises from the same soul. My belief is that Thatcherism was a damaging influence in most respects, and that Britain as we know it would not have died and withered away had it not existed. However, if you look only at Thatcher from the point of view of raw economics, you are missing that point as to why she arose in the first place. Nothing exists without having some useful purpose.

Britain, as a country, thrives best when it is led by people with a vigourous sense of regal pomp and theatrical oratory - a sensibility that tends to be found most amongst the upper and middle-classes, and only very occasionally elsewhere, and which invariably has a feminine dimension, even when expressed with anger. Mrs Thatcher had it. Arthur Scargill had it in his own way, but it was with a masculine and somewhat rapacious sense of stripping away regality, not re-enforcing it. Such is the hunger for this oratory that people would be willing to see destruction wrought in its name, just so long as they can feel inspired and enter into the great theatre of real life, not merely see such pomp acted out on an artificial stage.

Women can identify with Thatcher even though they say they don't - a type of feminine, aristocratic, operatic sexuality and guile. It just happens not to be very fashionable at present. Glenda Jackson could only manage to critique Thatcher on the strength of her policies. This is not why people continue to turn to Thatcher for inspiration. Political admiration is a cover for something more aesthetic, and, dare one say it, more erotic. Mrs Thatcher might be a little too steely for my tastes, but I understand her appeal even on an erotic level.

If men have traditionally been the sweaty underbelly of society, women have always - even within the working classes - a sort of elegant aristocracy. Consequently, male grumbles about working conditions, pay and so on, when they may not have treated women any better than slaves themselves, always strike women as hypocritical. The romance is always to escape to some aristocratic utopia in which men and women are suave and far from the daily grind and sweat of working-class life. Because in truth, whatever one might wish for, the working classes - however one might seek to romanticise their struggles - are not beyond their own forms of oppression and brutality.

As a socialist, I find myself constantly poking the ribs of my comrades, warning them of the stupidity in merely become vessels for economic frustrations. But equally, as I shall demonstrate, the Tories - and now also UKIP - need their own poke in the ribs - and I can assure you that a good poking of conservatives by a thoughtful socialist is far from being a futile exercise.

Class struggle ought to be one tool in a wider struggle, not a project in itself. To inspire, not only with oratory, but a total holistic aesthetic, and indeed, in my case, a futuristic fusion of politics and religion, falls upon deaf ears with most socialists because they find something embarrassing in the sense of pomp that such an enterprise would require in order to be successful. They aspire to be "common", to be "ordinary". Ironically, those who hunger with the most depth to be anything but ordinary are certain sections of the working classes themselves

To the Socialists, I cry, despairingly: "Can't you see what you're allowing to happen? The remnants of aristocracy have mastered the higher aesthetic sensibilities in order to persuade in ways that transcend mere placards and slogans.....and you still say the same things in the same way?! Haven't you learned anything?".

To the Tories and UKIP, assuming they have stayed around long enough to listen, I say: "I know perfectly well that you have been reared on an image of socialism that embodies fear, that embodies the stripping down of higher aesthetics to a sweaty and unpalatable torso: a lack of grace, of spiritual destiny and nationhood. For this reason, and not reasons of economics, you spit out the very word 'socialism'. But have you not considered the dangers in your actions? Have you not considered that by taking the hammer to crush all those you fail to accomodate, you only put your own lives and families at risk; you only cause a sense of revolt to burn in the bellies of your opponents? Have you not seen the gathering storm-clouds over your livelihoods and those of your children?

I do not come in a spirit of hatred. So I present to you a choice. Will you choose the socialism of hope - or the socialism of fear? Either embrace the socialism of hope, or else, like the market system you cling to, that hope will be snatched not just from you, but from the British people as a whole. And all that will be left for you is the socialism of fear. And on that day, when you look out of your windows, you will see a nation not at peace with itself, but a nation in flames, and all of your dreams of Britain torn apart by the violence of despair. And when future generations look to you, and ask where you were in building the socialism of hope, all you will have left to say is that you were too afraid to change for fear of what might become of you."

There is no need to repeat the charges of economic decline that were said to be the hallmark of Thatcherism. That does little to move the debate forward. The task ahead involves making the re-distribution of wealth from a matter of fear into a beacon of hope, not only for those that are the most in need, but those that fear losing the most. It is precisely the nature of that fear that only a new and abiding faith can overcome: a British Faith for British People - a new faith (indeed) for the world, and beyond.

For those on the far-left expecting that all this signifies some bourgeois turn of thinking, I have only this to say. Materialism frustrated leads to despair. Omeganism is the faith that keeps on giving.
Posted by His High Witness, the Prophet V at 15:59 No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Why I Am A Genius
God bless the wise, the noble and the truly beautiful.

The implication of this blog is to ask "'Rational discourse': How rational is it?". Immediately I can hear the voices of philosophers complaining about this title. "But you've just used a form of rational discourse to criticise the very thing you wish to attack!" they will exclaim. But I have already killed them, and thus, the broken genesis of my genius begins. Given that language, however nonsensical has a rational structure in any case, the only thing left to be said about this is to deny everything. If we have already confirmed the rationality in language, then surely it follows that there is nothing.....absolutely almost, possibly, everything, nothing. The only sane human reflex, then, is to make the best we can out of nothing, or almost nothing, however futile that enterprise might seem. As soon as anyone begins to claim that something is significant enough to require demands of reason to be made, they have already engaged in a deception. Like the shopkeeper demanding payment for goods with paper money that is, in truth, "worthless", we expect these little deceptions to have significance: worse, we are interrogated into relevance. We might as well now say that the moon is green, and no doubt on some level of existence, it is. Reflection is a necessary phase of thinking that can be surpassed and overcome: necessary because we need order in order to wash our hands and avoid disease, surpassed in case some new form of disease is required.

Objections will be made that without some rational processes, no court of law could ever function. We need reason, do we not? Quite so, we do not deny it for the time being. We must take whatever method gets us truth or justice before all of these things melt in front of our eyes. We must tell lies in order to arrive at the truth. We do not condemn those who do this, even at our expense. If hell exists, it must surely begin with the act of needing to write down a definitive statement. After then, a flood of other demands, both sane and insane, rush at the hungry masses, and lo, the supreme joke of civilisation begins.

The moron is more honest and makes more sense than the intellectual in one very important respect. There is very little attempt in the moron to carefully construct that which is plainly a deception. This is self-evident. Spitting, urinating, inarticulate and ignorant comments and gestures, childish rants: these may one day be thought of as acts of supreme intelligence, though one might ask that they are cleansed of a certain aimless barbarism. At present, there is a miserable process of thinking to be gone through to arrive at the final excretion, the final insult: death, in which the intellectual's nappy is encased in "soil" to prevent it from becoming "clean": therefore, it is finally clean. All of our efforts to impress with constructed ideas to prove we can argue "rationally" are, in truth, appeals to authorities that demand, nay insist upon this. Have we not seen that a philosopher (or sometimes other academics) has become an authority? Indeed, he or she is the most ruthless judge. Have we ever met a philosopher that was, at any point, structurally incontinent: better still, a school of incontinent philosophers? That would be to deny the essence of philosophers as a distinct class of predatory animal, who must, at the very least pretend to make sense. The critics of art and society, with their cases carefully prepared! This, in truth, is the madness we must somehow surpass someday. All too often, we must enter the courtroom that we despise in order to deceive the judge of our true intentions: namely, to burn it down.

Every argument is a deception. This begs the question, why say anything at all? But this itself is stupid. Does the moron who protests by throwing a brick ask this question? We are built from the same stuff as morons, and indeed slugs. Cursed by the law: the law of reason. And let me underline why this is so disgusting.

The kangaroo court is a court, just like the court of law, or "the court of public opinion", as Harriet Harman would have it. To me, the court without appeal, even as it condemns us without sufficient grounds, seems more honest that the scales of justice carefully weighed in the modern, civilised manner, otherwise, we might as well let murderers take tea with lions, for who has ever truly been guilty of murder? Honest justice is whichever diseased party has the greatest number of chains, or whips, or bombs, for what else sustains the silver tongues of firm authority but the threat of random force? There is certainly no genuine reflection in aiming a pen squarely at the eye. However, we concede that for our everyday purposes, we prefer our justice neatly wrapped in palatable pretences that seem consistent and, therefore, massage the egos of supposedly intelligent people.

The process of suprematism that those who write have, and to order others around with words.......Even a banana knows as much.

Somehow, we must cleanse both reason and justice of the stench of false balance without losing the gains that reason sometimes affords to us.


Posted by His High Witness, the Prophet V at 01:40 No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Friday, 4 May 2012
Holocaust? What Holocaust?

God bless the wise, the noble and the truly beautiful.

I want people of every nationality, sexual orientation and colour to learn about my religion. I want them to see that their traditional religions and traditional political parties are simply no good for them. However, sometimes, I get angry and despair. A good example of that is something that happened to me a few days ago.

I was at a meeting at the University of Derby, and used the opportunity to protest about Rolls-Royce, who are engaged in supplying the means for mass-murder and genocide to regimes around the world. Some of the responses I got were appalling. They clearly didn't show care for those that had died as a result of Rolls-Royce. One included "Well, all that's in the past. Rolls-Royce have brought a lot of money into Derby.".

So this got me thinking. What other mass-murderous events in history are also "in the past". What is so special about one lot of brutal killers and not another? They are all killers, after all.

These crimes, these murderous events......Liberals like to create "events" to advertise that they would never stoop to "that sort of thing". We call such events the "The Holocaust" or even more banal: "9/11". But these "events" are constructed myths. Murder happened, torture happened....These are the real events. They never ended after 1945, they did not ended with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs and they still have not ended. They did not start with fascism, they started the moment war become industrialised mass-slaughter. The victims of Belsen, or even Idi Amim, did not suffer or die so that we could turn them into advertisements for liberal imperialism: for planes carpet-bombing Iraq and Afghanistan, for the Israeli occupation of the Lebanon and suppression of Palestine. If there was a "Holocaust", it is still going on today, otherwise it never happened at all! Yet we never speak about "The Murders". Why?

The real reason is that the Judeo-Capitalist axis manages to silence every attempt to seriously address the kind of points I am raising. The lesson I learned from the apologists for Rolls-Royce is that murder is "okay" if it's the "good guys" doing it.

Well, that's also fine. If ever I needed to persuade others of the merits of fighting for my faith-nation, at least I have valid precedents to draw upon.

Every idea needs its enemy. Every ideology that has ever truly mattered has required proving itself to be superior over its rival. Justice only truly belongs to the victors, not the vanquished. And as for freedom of speech, this always exists, and always will exist, in opposition to some other freedom of speech that opposes it. This is why democracy is now in ruins and shown to be a sham almost everywhere in the world. The best we can hope for is a dictatorship that knows when to stop: out of the sheer human-ness of being human.

A spiritual government does, and must know when to stop. It acts according to clear principles. Governments based upon reforms of market economics, with no moral or spiritual counterpoint, always end in capitulation to the religion of materialism. Even the 1917 Russian Revolution: surely a magnificent victory for working-class power, ended itself because Lenin was a religious zealot with secretly anti-Marxist aspirations, but he was trapped in Marxism's flat economic body.

The nearest Britain ever had to that was the 1945 Labour Government, and even that was largely built upon the murder of Japanese citizens and enslavement to American loans. Harold Wilson, for example, far from being "man of the people" was willing to allow black people to suffer and die at Diego Garcia.

Fortunately, my faith position is that every race has its correct caste. When the Supreme Caste intermarries, and the lower castes diminish, the whole of humanity benefits, often without a single shot being fired. The principle of selective breeding and eradication of the lower castes and incorrect religions would mean no need for the type of routine mass murder we still see today.