Revolution Destroyed?

Have I ensured that a world socialist revolution will never happen?

A book by Steve Wallis

Overview

I became a very important person in the revolutionary socialist movement in the summer of 1998. Subsequently, I believe I have destroyed any remaining possibility of a world socialist revolution on a Marxist basis (partly consciously, partly as a result of my subconscious and partly due to drugs I was forced to take due to being incarcerated for much of the time since on psychiatric hospital wards). As I will go on to explain, the possibilities for a worldwide Marxist revolution in the modern era were quite slim anyway, and being unethical were doomed to disaster if they did occur (they would result in dictatorships, counter-revolutions or even nuclear war), so destroying such movements was in my view (looking back now) a good thing.

However, in the process of destroying these movements, I have radicalised large sections of the populations of the UK and the rest of the world, laying the seeds for a renewal of revolutionary socialist movements, but this time on a much more democratic basis. I believe that such a renewal will arise from the struggle for ethical forms of capitalism (for which I have initiated the Ethical Capitalism Network) by action within existing mass parties, supported by serious socialist parties openly putting forward democratic revolutionary views.

My view that society is becoming radicalised is supported by the elections for deputy leader of the Labour Party. Harriet Harman was to the left of all the other five candidates judging by the Newsnight debate between the candidates (although admittedly I only saw the second half of the programme). Similar debates presumably took place in front of Labour Party members across Britain, and Harman’s vote therefore indicates a radicalisation of the party’s membership. Trade union members did not see such debates, and Harman’s dubious role in the past (in sending her children to a private school for example although of course she may have been primarily motivated by a desire to get them a good education) must have had more influence on their choice of who to vote for. [Incidentally, I suspect that the main reason why she had played a dubious role was to win support amongst right-wing MPs for tactical reasons (which she later used to get enough nominations to stand for deputy leader) than because she really was right-wing.]

Additionally, Harman attacked “the culture of spin” and particularly the “stop and question” proposal, which had not even been discussed in the Cabinet, in the media. Although announced by Tony Blair, I suspect that this draconian proposal was the last desperate act of outgoing Home Secretary John Reid, who in my view is a fascist infiltrator in the Labour Party. The fact that he is no longer even in the Cabinet is a sign that the extreme right-wing elements within Labour (and in society generally) are in a very weak position.

“Stop and question” would take us considerably further along the road to the sort of society predicted by George Orwell in his book Nineteen Eighty-Four, by allowing the police to ask you your name and where you are going, with the threat of a £5,000 fine and a criminal record if you refused to cooperate (or presumably if you were caught lying). The present “stop and search” laws allow the police to search you (but need a reason unlike with the old “sus” laws used to harass black people) but you do not need to give your name unless arrested. Hazel Blears had the cheek in the Newsnight debate to say that the new proposal could be better for civil liberties than “stop and search”! Obviously, the right for the police to search you would not be abolished under the new proposal anyway. That debate was the first time that I had seen Blears looking remotely attractive, and due to my view that taking care of your appearance is very important in getting a proper rapport with other people, so that they truly care about each other rather than develop relationships based on falsehoods, this was a sign that she had been radicalised by debates that taken place up and down the country. Nevertheless, Blears continued to put forward the right-wing views that she presumably previously agreed with, but this time for reasons of consistency and partly in order to show them up as ludicrous, wanting to fail in the deputy leadership contest, and it was very satisfying to see her come last.

I have developed a view of society in which there are many conspiratorial organisations infiltrating all other significant organisations, in order to help or hinder them from within. This view is based on my experience, an analysis of movements that have taken place (during the period of time in which I have taken place in politics and throughout history) and a rational understanding of what people of varying political views would do in particular circumstances. Some of these conspiratorial organisations have helped me in my tasks of radicalising people and destroying Marxism, and others have tried to prevent me from doing so. These organisations develop models of the world in varying levels of detail and make plans according to their particular agendas. In the past, this was done entirely by human beings, but is now primarily carried out using computers. Indeed, I believe that an artificial intelligence/simulation language that I have developed, SDML, is being used for much of this modelling.

I have recognised for many years that I need a main ally in the struggle for a socialist world and have considered many different people who may fulfil this role. Since leaving a Marxist organisation (the Socialist Party) in 1998, I have been highly influenced by activists from an anarchist tradition (particularly Cath Bann). While rejecting many anarchist ideas, just as I have discarded many Marxist ones, I believe that the anarchist tradition has much to offer, in its advocacy of non-violent direct action and non-hierarchical methods of organisation in particular.

I have come to the conclusion that my main ally in the world is probably an Indian anarchist (perhaps now an activist who used to describe herself as an “anarchist”) called Priya Reddy, otherwise known as warcry, based in New York. I met her at the Earth First! Gathering in the summer of 2005, in which she showed a few videos, including one of her interviewing delegates entering the 2004 Republican Convention, out-thinking and exposing them extremely effectively. She also showed that she has good video-making skills that could be very useful for a band I am planning to form, probably to be called Galaxia, Red Day or Red Friday.

Due to being such an effective activist, it is unsurprising that the US state has victimised her, just as the British state has acted against me. I strongly supect that Priya is currently in a psychiatric institution in the USA that she has compared to Auschwitz concentration camp. By publicising this situation, via my Warcry Allies website and messages I am sending on the internet, I hope to rescue her from this terrible ordeal and unite with her in the struggle for a better world. It is of course possible that I am too late, and that she is already dead, but conspiratorial organisations on the side of good people in the world are now in a very strong position compared to those on the side of bad people, so I think that is very unlikely. I strongly believe that there is some sort of afterlife, whether it is like heaven as religious people perceive it or eternal life in the galaxy (or maybe the two are equivalent) I am not sure. However, I love Priya (to a large extent I think although I won’t know how strongly until I see her again) and want her to help me in the struggle for an ethical world rather than having to wait until getting to heaven/outer space to see her again.

In the remainder of this overview of the book, and the book itself, I will outline the rationale for destroying Marxist forms of socialism, my role in this task and in radicalising people (and trying to help left-wing struggles to win sometimes successfully) at the same time, and the way forward for achieving an ethical society, which will hopefully but not necessarily be socialist.

The first successful socialist revolution in any country in the world occurred in Russia in October 1917. There had been an earlier revolution in that country in February the same year, which overthrew Tsar Nicholas II (the king) and established a capitalist Provisional Government. The Bolsheviks, who later renamed themselves the Communist Party, called for a Constituent Assembly but the Provisional Government refused demands for that or any other sort of democracy. Meanwhile, workers, peasants and soldiers organised themselves in a hierarchy of committees known as “soviets”. When he returned from exile abroad, Vladimir Lenin called for “all power to the soviets”, contradicting his party’s call for a Constituent Assembly. After the October revolution, Lenin and his main ally Leon Trotsky persuaded the Bolshevik Central Committee to abolish the Assembly by force when their party and its allies (the left-wing Socialist Revolutionaries mainly consisting of poor peasants) lost the elections to it, in favour of rule by the soviets. Despite the fact that about 90% of the population were peasants, the soviets had been fixed so that workers had more power than the peasantry. Rule by the working class was dubbed “the dictatorship of the proletariat” by Marxists, although most people who regard themselves as Marxists nowadays (including Trotskyists) avoid using that term and claim that this rule by a minority of the population was “democratic”. Arguing that is similar to claiming that apartheid South Africa was democratic, despite the fact that only a minority (white people in the latter country) had the vote.

Lenin and Trotsky argued (at the time and later justified by Trotsky in his History of the Russian Revolution) that the Bolsheviks would have suffered massive repression if they hadn’t abolished the Assembly. In my view, however, that would have been impossible in a country where two revolutions had occurred in a single year. In my opinion, the Bolsheviks should have let the right-wing Socialist Revolutionaries – mainly consisting of large landowners who, because they were better organised in the countryside, won the Assembly elections – take power and show themselves up in practice, after which there would probably have been another revolution bringing socialists to power, and then been able to get a democratic mandate. Even better, the Bolsheviks should have gone into the countryside before the Assembly elections and set up a united socialist party, mainly composed of workers and poor peasants, and that party would probably have won those elections.

As a result of the decision to abolish the Constituent Assembly, socialists, particularly those who call themselves “communists” or “Marxists” – or various hues of Marxism such as “Trotskyists”, “Maoists” and “Marxist-Leninists” (the term Stalinists prefer to call themselves due to the reputation of their idol, Joseph Stalin, as a brutal dictator responsible for the massacre of millions of people) – have been regarded as undemocratic ever since by many people around the world. This has undoubtedly been a major factor in the failure of subsequent attempted socialist revolutions (such as in Germany, Spain and Portugal).

I was born nearly 50 years later, in May 1966. Then, and particularly by the time I started getting seriously involved in politics (in early 1989), capitalism was in an extremely powerful position in the world, not just in terms of its rule in most countries (and the precarious state of the Stalinist regimes that would soon collapse in most others) and its domination of the world economy, but due to the extremely powerful position of conspiratorial organisations on the side of big business that were imposing a stranglehold over socialist movements across the globe.

I joined the anti-poll tax movement in 1989 when it got going in Manchester (about a year after it started in Scotland), and joined a revolutionary socialist organisation (the Militant Tendency) that was proving itself serious in leading that movement, in June 1990. Soon afterwards, the strategy of mass non-payment – which at its height involved about half the eligible population, 18 million people, having not paid a penny or being in arrears – proved successful, defeating the tax and bringing down the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

However, Militant’s success was severely hampered by All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation Secretary Steve Nally saying, when interviewed on TV, that he would “name names” in an investigation into the riot in Trafalgar Square (on the 31st of March 1990) and Militant’s subsequent defence of Nally’s statement. I believed that, at the time of the interview, Nally was an infiltrator on the side of big business, and that such infiltrators dominated Militant’s leadership to the extent that they defended rather than expelled him. I also believed that infiltration, particularly of the British and Merseyside leaderships, had been responsible for the earlier débâcle of the Militant-led Liverpool City Council sending out redundancy notices to the entire workforce, supposedly as a delaying tactic.

Looking back now, I suspect that some of the infiltrators sabotaging Militant were actually genuine democratic socialists who recognised that a Militant-led socialist revolution in Britain would be unethical, since it called for a society dominated by a hierarchy of committees based on workplaces, with the middle class having little or no control. [Indeed, when I later met Steve Nally later in 1990, he came across as an extremely genuine person, but I don’t know whether that was due to him having been genuine all along or being radicalised by the reaction to what he had done.] Such hierarchical structures are extremely susceptible to infiltration by dubious characters, since it is generally only people on the same committees who know who they are and what they are up to. Ultimately, a Marxist-style socialist society would probably have led to a dictator like Stalin coming to power and/or a capitalist counter-revolution.

Largely as a result of Militant’s handling of the riot (later shown in a TV documentary to have been started by the police), but also due to many members “burning themselves out” due to carrying out large amounts of activity during the campaign and the out-dated and frankly ludicrous call at meetings to join the Labour Party rather than Militant itself, the organisation lost more members than it gained during the anti-poll tax campaign. Rather than leading to a socialist revolution, as I optimistically predicted it would at the time, it was a massive missed opportunity.

Militant subsequently left the Labour Party, in Scotland initially, leaving behind a small split-off group that produces the journal Socialist Appeal, to form Scottish Militant Labour (SML). Tommy Sheridan, the leader of the Scottish Anti-Poll Tax Federation, came second to Labour as an SML candidate with 6,287 votes at the 1992 general election from his prison cell (where he was being held due to his defiance of an order banning him from a demonstration against the sale of an anti-poll tax defaulter’s goods on the street) and then got elected to the Glasgow council. This success was followed by SML winning a few more seats, and Militant Labour was formed in England and Wales soon afterwards due to the successes in Scotland.

The decision to leave the Labour Party was based on the assessment that Labour would not significantly shift to the left in the subsequent few years at least, and that Militant could make significant gains in the meantime. At the time, I believed that Labour would never again shift significantly to the left, and Militant Labour’s leader Peter Taaffe went on to categorise Labour as a purely capitalist party rather than a mass workers’ party (the term the organisation used for a party with a working class membership but a generally pro-capitalist leadership) that Labour had previously been. I did agree with this assessment, but I now think that there has recently been a radicalisation of Labour’s membership, partly as a result of my actions. [I do not know to what extent Labour Party members are working class rather than middle class, and middle class people have been radicalised by my actions as well as working class people, but it is certainly the case that it once again has a much more radical membership than its leadership.]

Militant Labour later united with other socialists, some of whom were in other organisations, to form socialist alliances, the most successful of which was the one in Scotland (not just due to SML’s relative strength but the organisation taking the alliance much more seriously north of the border than it did in England and Wales). In England and Wales, Militant Labour was renamed the Socialist Party (SP) – an indication that the organisation was not taking unity with other socialists seriously, a suggestion denied by Taaffe at the time but later justified by the withdrawal from the socialist alliances.

In 1998, there was a big debate about the SML leadership’s proposal to transform the Scottish Socialist Alliance into a party, which became the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP). The proposal was opposed by the British leadership and also the leadership of the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI), which linked the SP and SML to similar (but weaker) organisations around the world. It was supported overwhelmingly in Scotland and (virtually if not completely) unanimously by the French section of the CWI, whose leader Murray Smith was the only member of the CWI’s leading body (the International Secretariat) to visit Scotland during the debate.

In the summer of 1998, I attended the European School of the CWI, held in Leuven in Belgium, intended as an educational event but largely that year devoted to the debate on the proposal to establish the SSP. At that event, I was the only person from England or Wales to speak in the debate in support of the SML leadership’s proposal. I came under quite a lot of pressure not to make the speech, but resisted that pressure.

I could not sleep the night before making the speech, largely because I did not have an alarm clock with me and couldn’t find anybody who would guarantee to wake me up in time, and walked the streets of Leuven putting the final touches to my speech. I felt the hand of history on my shoulders, recognising that my speech could have a huge impact on the future direction of the SP and CWI, and consequently the future of the world. This was the first time I truly realised with my conscious mind what an important person I was in the world situation, and things would never be the same for me again.

The first (and perhaps most important) big mistake in my life was running out of time making my speech together with the way I handled the situation – having a tussle with the chair of the session over the microphone, appealing to the audience for more time and not being given it, and storming off the platform. Previous speakers had successfully waved away the chairs of their sessions, sometimes taking twice as long as their allotted time, but I had noticed one of the leaders of the CWI (Bob Labi) making hand gestures to the chair of my session that seemed to indicate that he should come down hard on me. Perhaps ignoring that warning, and handling running out of time so spectacularly badly, was due to my subconscious not really wanting my intervention to persuade the CWI to support the Scottish proposal, because that would have been a big boost for Marxism!

After that muck-up, I went round people I knew and those who I had previously discussed with during the event, reassuring them that I wasn’t mad but that my actions had been due to political inexperience and me not sleeping the night before, and this lessened the level to which my action had been counterproductive. To what extent the partial failure of my intervention had on the later decisions, of the British section of the CWI (comprising both the SP and SML) via a special conference (that I was not a delegate to) and a World Congress of the CWI, to oppose the setting up of the SSP, it is impossible to tell but it could have been decisive. Nevertheless, I did make some very important points in my speech and made virtually all those I had wanted to make within the allotted time, leading me to believe that not speaking at all would have been far worse for the prospects of the CWI. Obviously, the SSP project would have gone ahead anyway, with or without the leaderships’ blessings, and this was allowed with SML – renamed the International Socialist Movement (ISM) as it became a “platform” of the SSP – becoming a separate section of the CWI. The ISM later left the CWI – which I felt at the time was a mistake, but later changed my mind when it was explained how the continual faction fighting within the ISM was preventing it from effectively intervening within the SSP. The faction that opposed the establishment of the SSP and supported the Taaffe leadership of the SP and CWI, left the ISM and became known as CWI Scotland (which produces the International Socialist newspaper). It actually played a generally positive role within the SSP, in my opinion, helping the ISM oppose the destructive role of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) – a London-based organisation, that was officially known as the Socialist Worker platform of the SSP, and that was and still is heavily infiltrated by conspiratorial organisations on the side of big business.

In the autumn of 2004, the SSP suffered a huge setback when allegations against its convenor Tommy Sheridan by the News of the World (a newspaper, or perhaps more accurately called a “rag”, owned by the infamous Rupert Murdoch) forced him to resign, following a meeting of the leaders of the SSP. Most of those present at that meeting claimed that Sheridan had confessed to attending a “swingers’ club” in Manchester, which was the Murdoch rag’s central allegation (although a few more were added later). After Sheridan’s resignation, and shortly before the 2005 general election, the SSP’s conference elected Edinburgh Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) Colin Fox as the new convenor, in a contest against Alan McCombes – the leader of SML when the SSP’s launch was proposed and being considered, and the party’s main guru (leading thinker) since. Both candidates (as well as Sheridan himself) were members of the ISM and the rancour between opposing camps within the organisation together with the lack of a coherent analysis of the political situation and what to do about it (or one shared by most ISM members anyway) led to the dissolution of the ISM in 2006.

Later in 2006, the setback of Sheridan’s resignation was exacerbated by the divisions within the party at his defamation trial against the News of the World, in which many leading SSP members were forced to testify against him. This resulted in the SSP splitting into two, the split-off organisation (officially called “Solidarity: Scotland’s Socialist Movement” although usually known simply as “Solidarity”) being led by Tommy Sheridan, with the SWP and CWI Scotland as his main allies. This led to the wipeout of socialists in the Scottish parliament in May 2007.

Many would see the demise of the SSP as evidence that the initiative to launch it was badly flawed, but on the other hand, if there had been many other parties like the SSP around the world rather than Scotland being the main beacon of hope for revolutionary socialism, the alleged sexual antics of one man (Sheridan) would not have been so catastrophic. I tended to take the side of his opponents, partly because their arguments were more plausible at the trial and partly because I knew quite a few of them personally and they came across as genuine. Arguably Sheridan was playing a good role in decimating the SSP, because its strategy of trying to build itself up from one MSP at the launch of the parliament (in 1999), via six in 2003, to a party capable of launching a bid for power was badly flawed. This is because only about half of the six MSPs elected in 2003 were overwhelmingly genuine, and because the SSP concentrated on supporting its MSPs in parliament at the expense of grass-roots politics. Although there was a slight return to non-violent direct action more recently, it was not carried out as seriously as in the days of the Scottish Socialist Alliance – which supported people camping up in trees who were protesting against the extension to a motorway in a run-down area of Glasgow (Pollok which was the area where Sheridan had earlier been elected to the Glasgow council).

The other reason why the SSP project was flawed was that the politics it put forward (in its newspaper, leaflets and speeches from members at public events) was almost entirely reformist, despite a majority of its active members (particularly those in leadership positions) being revolutionaries. Hopefully, now that the SSP is forced to reassess, it will adopt openly revolutionary politics, or at least reflect both revolutionary and reformist politics in the positions it puts forward. I certainly wanted and expected the SSP to put forward revolutionary politics to quite a large extent when I supported it being set up, and if I had been able to influence it more, I may have been able to direct it in that direction.

However, the rational behaviour of the British state to me becoming such an important person in world politics at the 1998 European School of the CWI was to use extremely underhand measures against me. If they had put me in prison, there would have been a big campaign to get me released, so that would have been highly counterproductive. Perhaps they considered assassinating me, as they had done to two fellow members of Manchester Socialist Party a year earlier, one of whom (a French student called Nathalie Monier) I was deeply in love with.

Instead, shortly after I returned to Britain, they initiated a series of events designed to scare me, resulting in me locking myself in the bathroom of my then best friend Julian Beard – who was openly a Conservative Party member and I realised, due to his behaviour at the time and looking back at his past influences on me (in relatively recent times anyway), was also in MI5 or a similar conspiratorial organisation on the side of big business. This led to me being incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital ward (West Middlesex University Hospital in London) for about a month.

From that point on, I have been given various drugs (primarily anti-psychotic medication although I have also been on mood stabilisers and am currently on the tranquilliser valium) mainly against my will. I have spent many periods of time since in other psychiatric wards – mainly in Manchester, but also in Glasgow, London again and Barcelona, plus various other places while absent without leave (AWOL).

Sometimes coming off psychiatric drugs, or changing drugs or the quantities I receive of them, has been worse than staying on the same drugs, because I get used to them and my mind can compensate their effect to a certain extent. However, most drugs I have been on, including all anti-psychotic medication, perhaps the least bad available in the UK being a haloperidal depot (regular injection) that I am currently on, have a bad effect on the way I think. In particular, they cause mental blocks, which prevent me from coming to obvious conclusions for quite a long time (or sometimes very long periods of time), or make me forget important conclusions I had previously come to.

As a result of being on such medication, as well as having spent long periods of time in hospital, simply dealing with extremely complex situations and having had to go AWOL many times to attend important events, I have made a lot of mistakes over the last nine years. While radicalising people to a considerable extent, my mistakes have sometimes made me act (to a certain extent) as a wrecker of socialist organisations and movements.

Shortly after being in hospital for the first time, an extremely important incident occurred in my life (which soon after led to my second incarceration). I heard voices in my head, mainly claiming to come from a representative of an advanced socialist society in outer space, telling me that the world was a big experiment populated by robots, with a small number of human beings (including myself) on the world to help good robots overthrow the evil robots currently running it and establish a worldwide socialist society. The voice also told me that it had already been modelled that a world socialist revolution was bound to happen and that I would lead it.

After being in hospital the first time, and for quite a while after that (about two years), I did not have a good enough model of the world in my mind to make rational choices that were generally correct. During that time, my actions were based on guesswork, having a reasonable idea of what would take the struggle for socialism forward due to my previous experience and trying (on a fairly random basis) to build up a better model of the world so that I would be able to make good decisions much more frequently in the future.

There was a very important time when I was a psychiatric patient in Withington Hospital in Manchester (the hospital I was born in which is appropriate even if it is not a particularly important fact), in which I reached some sort of pivotal point in my life. Before and after that period of time there were many different things I could say or do, but briefly I had the feeling that I had no choice. I felt that all possible things that could have happened to me and all decisions I could have made throughout my life before that point were being modelled and that all possibilities would similarly be modelled afterwards. During that period of time, I found myself walking slowly down a corridor and banging my head gently against a wall, not because I wanted to do it but because it was the only thing I was capable of doing. I thought I experienced an example of teleportation then, due to different conceptions of time (like a fly has compared to humans which make them difficult to squat but based on me only having one option with other people having multiple ones) – with somebody (which I think was me although I can’t remember) disappearing from one place in the corridor and reappearing somewhere else. I had forgotten (with my conscious mind) the rationale behind this idea, which I was think was due to such knowledge being too important to reveal, but I now think that this was due to other people having multiple possible actions with me only having one. This experience seems to make a lot more sense in the explanation in this overview than previous explanations I have made of it, although it is certainly still very weird!

I later came to the conclusion that from then on, my decisions were based on a rational and (in some sense) complete model of the world that enabled me to make them correctly. Although I often made decisions later that I thought at the time were mistakes, sometimes very big ones, thinking about them rationally later brought me to the conclusion that those “mistakes” actually helped things work out for the better. Looking back now, I would say that there were many decisions I made (and possibly all of them) that had positive aspects to them, which considerably more often than not outweighed the negative effects (if there were any).

I phoned my mum (very shortly after the teleportation experience I think) and she let out some sort of shriek that made me think that she thought she was communicating with the Devil. I felt this was also due to having a different conception of time (which I thought was also due to the event taking a period of time from my point of view and being simultaneous from hers). The Devil feeling was based on earlier experiences in her life when she thought that my dad was the Devil due to him mentally abusing her for much of (and possibly before) their marriage, that had led her to be admitted to psychiatric wards after I and then my brother Sean was born (which was due to her experiencing extreme exhilaration, the opposite of post-natal depression, that I put down to us being very good babies who acted as a counterweight to him) and much later on, towards the end of my time at school and after I had left home to go to university. Although I have some religious views now myself, including thinking that there is some sort of God – which, as I explain in my musical poem To The Earth With Love, I think is equivalent to the universe which is in some sense alive – I am convinced that there is no such thing as the Devil.

When she talks about the times when she was married to my dad nowadays, she is much more charitable towards him, which I think is largely due to him influencing her again since they are talking to each other much more frequently than after they left each other and because he is a much nicer person now (something that I certainly noticed after I had left home to go to university and she had left him) and also because her Christian (Methodist) beliefs make her willing to forgive him. He certainly had removed her individuality to a large extent throughout their marriage (including her Christian beliefs) and it was quite an unpleasant upbringing at times. He only hit me once (over something quite trivial I think), but that was against his supposedly left-wing ethics. He had many shouting matches with Sean over quite trivial things that I almost always remained neutral over. He also got very angry discussing politics with Julian Beard (my former best friend who I now think has playing an overwhelmingly positive role in my life despite possibly having eventually joined MI5 as I mentioned earlier), with him being in a “Communist” and Julian being a Tory supporter. I had many political discussions with Julian too over the years, helping me hone my debating skills; I was also very left-wing although more an admirer of Labour left-winger Tony Benn than the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) which my dad was a member of, but my discussions with Julian never got particularly heated. The CPGB, which should not be confused with the small party of the same name today which produces the Weekly Worker newspaper in which I have several letters published in recent years, and that was originally a faction within the original CPGB but took that name after the party renamed itself Democratic Left (due to the collapse of Stalinism). The CPGB was a Stalinist party, although it took a critical attitude to the regime in the USSR at times; I remember my dad once admitting to admiring Stalin to some degree or other, but mention of his name was generally avoided by him and the CPGB generally (in its newspaper the Morning Star which we received daily until there was a split and that paper aligned itself with the split-off organisation known as the Communist Party of Britain).

Anyway, at the end of that period of time in Withington Hospital when I believed there was only one thing I could say or do, I had a bath and put some shampoo in my hair, which (by reading the list of ingredients on the bottle) seemed to have at least one bad ingredient in it. [Perhaps this was something to do with it or them being tested on animals, but this is a wild guess, and I have no idea what gave me the impression that I could tell from a list of ingredients which ones were good and which ones were bad!] My mind whirred for a bit, and the name Martine McCutcheon popped out! I felt that this whirring of my brain marked the point at which I started having multiple choices in my life again.

Martine was an actor (in the BBC soap EastEnders) who became a singer (and co-wrote some of her own songs) and performed in the West End (in the musical My Fair Lady). Exactly why I picked Martine remains a mystery, but although I have not yet met her, she has played a very important role in my life! Sometimes I have suspected that she is really bad, but I have more often (especially after finding out more about her life), felt she is really good – and even at one point put a message out on the internet that she would lead the world socialist revolution with me! In her autobiography, Who Does She Think She Is?, she pointed out that she was born on the 14th of May 1976 – which was ten years to the day after me, something that I don’t think I knew at the time her name popped into my head – and that a beam of light landed on her umbilical cord on an otherwise gloomy day (according to her mother which she thought indicated that Martine was a very special person). Reading these points confirmed my idea that Martine was a really important person in the world – although I don’t recall finding them out the first time I read the book, probably because my mind blotted them out at that time, but certainly did give me that impression when I started rereading the book at a later point in time. [It is possible that there were two different versions of the book and that my copy was switched; I noticed this happen with another book (Marge Piercy’s Vida).

On a number of occasions later in my life, when I felt I had had (in some sense) a complete set of experiences in a single day, I received a strange sensation of my mind that seemed to indicate that my mind had rewired itself again, to use an even better model of the world. I think that I needed to continually do that in order to outwit my enemies.

In November 2006, my mind rewired itself to use a much better model of the world than it had previously been using, and that it had been constructing over the previous few years. I realised this because I had the same sensation that I had on those previous occasions (all of which had been a few years before). The big difference this time is that the model had taken years to complete, rather than a single day, and in the meantime devoting large numbers of brain cells and thought processes to that task had sometimes made dealing with everyday tasks very difficult (particularly when I had had a large number of inputs on one particular day that I had not resolved). From that point in November, I was much more effective. I have still had problems with mental blocks, and have tended to change my mind about things a lot of times, but have generally come to correct conclusions much more quickly than in the past.

Because my current model is so complex, occupying a fairly large proportion of my brain cells, and generating an even better model of the world so that my mind could rewire itself again at some point in the more distant future is completely impractical. Therefore, many more of my brain cells and thought processes are available to use in everyday tasks and to make important plans.

Martine McCutcheon played an extremely important role in my life in March 2007, when I posed a dilemma about whether Martine was really good or bad, and whether she was a human being or a robot (!) in a draft of a document I was writing called “How our brains help or hinder the struggle for socialism”. Despite not even having uploaded it to the internet at the time, this dilemma split (some if not all) bad conspiratorial organisations in two – due to some bad people reading the message thinking they would live and some thinking they would die after some sort of “judgement day”. [I now think that all people who are utterly evil, being bad and staying bad no matter what after socialism has proved to be an extremely good form of society, should be transported to another planet with no technology and have to start again in a hunter-gatherer society even having to reinvent fire! This would be a far more humane solution than the alternative of killing them all, perhaps by everyone else going into outer space and destroying the Earth.] At that point in time, I had the weird feeling that the world’s problems were over and that good forces had finally triumphed over bad, due to the bad conspiratorial organisations no longer being capable of modelling the world! I later discovered, as was rational, that such bad people had regrouped and were starting to model the world again, but in a much less concerted and effective way. I talked about this in my musical poem Whatever Happened To The Conspiracies?

I don’t know if Martine McCutcheon will play any further role in my life. I have invited her to be a member of my band (Galaxia/Red Day/Red Friday), and may like to do some acting with her, but I really don’t know if she will (or indeed if it is important that she does)…

One of the ways in which the drugs have acted against me (causing mental blocks in particular) has been causing me to take until the end of January 2007 to set up what was intended to be a conspiratorial infiltrating organisation to promote the idea of a form of socialism based on proportional representation by single transferable vote (STV) – the Foundation for PR-based Socialism. This is despite the fact that I realised that STV was the best form of democracy under both capitalism and socialism a few years earlier, and set up my Campaign for Democracy in the UK with that as a main demand. When I did promote this organisation, the emails I sent out doing so contained huge flaws that undoubtedly put people off taking it seriously (judging from the very small number of people who joined the Foundation’s discussion forum). For example, the first message said that Margaret Thatcher was probably a good person overall and the second message contained some completely inappropriate and unnecessary sexual points.

Those messages had some other serious flaws, including alienating many people who dye their hair (for instance) suggesting that that is an indication that they are false and may be false in other respects too. I have realised more recently that it is more of an indication that such people think individualistically rather than worrying about the effect of their appearance on the world situation – and that looking good is more important to them than being seen as 100% genuine. I have since found an extremely good ally who did have dyed blonde hair through having such an individualistic outlook (as of course many if not most people do due to not thinking that their behaviour will have any noticeable effect on the struggle for a better world) but who was and still is nevertheless 100% genuine (although her memory sometimes seems to have been interfered with using some form of mind control, implanting false and very irrational memories in her mind particularly when I have been out of contact with her for a while, a condition that I think is known as “false memory syndrome”). She has since let her hair return to its natural colour (which she claimed she was planning to do anyway) and now has a much more collectivist attitude to the world due to my influence on her – and her influence on me has helped me understand individual people’s feelings to a greater extent than I previously did.

The flaws that I made in emails were replicated in many of the pages of my various websites, with many pages containing embarrassingly poor political points, good points badly phrased or web pages arranged badly (such as points being made in an order that would discourage browsers to continue reading). Although it is common on the internet for web pages to be out-of-date, some of mine have been embarrassingly so and some subjects that I have had a great deal of knowledge about that I could have expressed on appropriate web pages have been absent. I have much more recently, after the particularly important time in the run-up to the Scottish parliamentary elections, made a big effort to improve my websites. There is still some work to do in that direction, but the state of my most important websites are now far better and it should be clear to most browsers that I am no longer acting as a wrecker of left-wing movements and organisations.

At the start of the Scottish parliamentary election campaign, I went AWOL to prepare for and attend a demonstration in Edinburgh in support of Scottish independence. I handed out about 500 copies of the second newsletter of my Foundation at that demo and subsequent festival, calling for a vote for independence and particularly socialist parties (the SSP or Solidarity) but also arguing against Marxist forms of socialism.

The following day, while still AWOL in Stirling, I sent out a message far and wide about my particularly important song The World Is Planned, which I had regarded as too dangerous to put on the website originally (although it is now there).

[I had previously received an error trying to record it onto a CD, which alerted me to it being important. I have many times collaborated with conspiratorial software on computers, which has been absolutely vital in the struggle for an ethical world, since I would have been continuously worried about making a mistake on one of my websites (for example) without taking hints from the way software or hardware (including internet connections) has behaved. These interactions have tended to be useful, particularly in recent times, although they have sometimes been a hindrance. It has sometimes been easy to tell whether such interactions have been positive or negative, or purely spurious that I can safely ignore, but obviously at other times I come to incorrect conclusions about them.]

That song of mine made some really important and very radical points about conspiratorial organisations modelling the world and ensuring that every land would become free. I was concerned that people would think that there is no point in taking part in politics, because conspiracies would ensure that everything works out, as a result of hearing the song (which is why I considered it dangerous), despite putting the lines “Don’t be fatalistic. Be bold but realistic” in it. However, radicalising people by sending out the lyrics of the song far and wide, with quite a long and very political preamble, took precedence over worrying about the number of votes socialist organisations received in the elections. I didn’t actually realise until much more recently that my line “Be bold but realistic” would be more likely to encourage people to vote for the Scottish National Party (SNP) than the socialist parties (since the policies of the SSP and Solidarity weren’t particularly realistic due to their election material not explaining where the money would come from to fund their proposals).

I have subsequently realised that I had been mistaken about the world being completely planned and that free will of individuals (who may or may not be in conspiratorial organisations) can affect what sort of societies we have in the world. In December 2007, I therefore came up with new lyrics and made a new recording in MP3 format.

The original lyrics of the song were very anti-Labour, and pointed out that Scottish independence would be a step towards achieving socialism. Considering that the SNP won the election so narrowly over Labour, with only one seat more – although they did get over 100,000 more votes and a 5.4% higher share of the vote, which would have exposed the lack of proportionality in the form of “proportional representation” used for the Scottish parliament if such figures had been given in the media (I worked them out using a spreadsheet) – I can justifiably claim that this song made the difference between the SNP and Labour becoming the biggest party. Bearing in mind that the entire mainstream press was opposed to the SNP (although some cynically pretended to support them in the run-up to the election before undermining them on election day), the SNP victory was no mean feat!

As a result of my actions, I have also however played a role in destroying Marxist organisations and broad parties led by Marxists, although the SSP would probably have imploded without my unintentionally counterproductive actions. It is also worth noting that if either the SSP or Solidarity had won a single seat, Labour would now have the same number of seats as the SNP and Scottish Labour leader Jack McConnell would still be First Minister – due to the fact that the Lib Dems and Tories are massively anti-SNP and would have backed him in the election for First Minister if the SNP had not won the election.

[Note that most of my counterproductive actions against the SSP were unintentional, with the main exception being my temporary transference of my main allegiance to Solidarity; an example of me changing my mind a lot in recent times but resulting in the correct decision to stay in the SSP (but start arguing for a vote for either party most of the time rather than trying to suggest which of them it would be preferable to vote for bearing in mind their very similar policies).]

I have made steps in recent months to rescue my reputation as a genuine revolutionary socialist, through analysing the economy, coming up with viable strategies to change the world (through forcing rich people to pay tax and encouraging the formation of ethical capitalist and fairly broad revolutionary socialist parties), and improving my websites and putting messages out on the internet to tell people about these views. I also tried to attend a Campaign for a Marxist Party conference in London in November 2007, putting forward emergency resolutions to try to turn it into a Campaign for a Revolutionary Socialist Party, but I was AWOL from a psychiatric hospital at the time and was picked up by the police at the venue.

Of course there is still much to do to achieve an ethical, and preferably socialist, society. I would encourage like-minded people to visit the websites and get involved in the Ethical Capitalism Network and/or Foundation for PR-based Socialism.

Click here to return to the Revolution Destroyed? contents page