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