How our brains help or hinder the struggle for socialism
by Steve Wallis
Version 6, 8th March 2007
This document contains my current opinions about how people’s (and other mammals’, birds’ and possibly amphibians’) brains work. Most attempts at such analysis consider low-level concepts such as neurons firing and the balance of chemicals within the brain, but it is only through adopting a high-level approach like mine that it is possible to understand why people behave in the way they do, especially with regard to the future of the planet. Scientifically, it is necessary to test out hypotheses such as those in this document, which is something I do all the time in my interactions with others and reasoning about my actions.
There is a continuous struggle between GOOD and BAD forces in everybody’s minds and reflected across the whole of society in organisations of all kinds – including political parties, trade unions, campaigns, charities, religious organisations, social and sporting clubs, companies, organisations of the state and conspiratorial organisations (including many that are not part of the state) which infiltrate others in society in order to help or hinder them from within.
At any point in time, a particular person is either GOOD or BAD overall. I define a GOOD person as somebody who genuinely tries to do good things, to help people or animals that he or she cares about or to make the world a better place. To be GOOD, a person needs to genuinely care about other GOOD people, irrespective of gender, sexuality, race, nationality, religion, age or disability (or lack of disabilities). Divide-and-rule is a strategy often used by BAD people to stay in positions of power and influence, and if somebody is prejudiced against others on any of those grounds then he or she is helping those BAD people – and I would argue that that person is objectively BAD too. I don’t think that it is necessary to avoid having preferences on any of those grounds to be a GOOD person, although it is (in my opinion) a positive attribute to be friends with, and consider having relationships with, people of different races, nationalities, religions or disabilities. Preferences on grounds of gender are natural however. I now describe myself as bisexual (95% heterosexual and 5% homosexual), because I have loving feelings towards men but not nearly as strong as those towards women. I have sometimes regarded myself as a well-balanced heterosexual, thinking that I would never want to have sex with another man. However, it is anal sex (with a man or woman) that I am turned off by, and I might eventually want to have oral sex with another man – but probably quite a while after losing my virginity to a woman (I am saving myself up for someone I love very much).
Jesus had the philosophy “love thy neighbour”, which in encouraging people to love those of other races or of the same gender (in contrast to the homophobic points in the Leviticus book of the Bible) played a very positive role. However, loving BAD people as well as GOOD people is dangerous – they may betray you if you give them the opportunity and it is better from the point of view of creating a better world to resolutely act against them some of the time than to always treat them as friends. [I believe that Jesus did act in this way and that “love thy neighbour” was a simplification of his position.] The most positive thing you can do for BAD people is to try to convert them into GOOD people, but I tend to find that exposing them for their role in helping big business stay in control of the planet (while perhaps being friendly at other times) is a more effective way of converting them than overlooking their faults, and if they prove very stubborn in their attitudes it is often better to excommunicate them from my life than to let them continue to influence me and people around me. Jesus did not die to save humanity (as Christians would have you believe) but because the world was not ready for a socialist revolution. Jesus was, in my opinion, the first great revolutionary in history and a completely GOOD person; the fact that Jesus is regarded as the second most important prophet in Islam coupled with him being Jewish (and there are some good organisations like Jews for Jesus) opens up possibilities for uniting people of different religions. I plan to help do this by establishing an organisation called the Socialist Church (in conjunction mainly with a gay female Muslim with dreadlocks who converted from Catholicism in 2006 called Jo Sims, a pseudonym), in which it is better to have doubts including about whether God exists than to have blind faith, and based around helping the struggle between GOOD and BAD on the earth (similar to Buddhist philosophy).
Concern for the future of the world, including the way society will be organised and the environment (including avoiding a global catastrophe via nuclear war or global warming), is an important aspect of a GOOD person. Incidentally, global warming would not threaten life on this planet for several decades and would easily be averted by a socialist society adopting tidal power; in any case humans will be able to emigrate to other planets in the meantime if we are allowed to by beings up there (see the end of this document for more on this issue).
It is understandable that many people (GOOD and BAD) feel that they cannot make any significant difference in the world and therefore concentrate on influencing others around them, tending to believe that their children will be their only legacy when they die. Even though many people I have met in Glasgow are aware that I am playing an important role in the struggle for socialism, it is only a small proportion of them who attempt to influence me to any significant extent, presumably due to the rest not having particularly strong political views, having a clear idea what difference their influence would achieve (if any) and not being part of any side’s “program” (like one on a computer but literally on one for some conspiratorial organisations). This latter group of people can be considered to be playing a neutral role in the struggle for socialism.
Capitalism has existed for a long time and there is consequently a massively complex web of conspiratorial infiltrating organisations acting below the surface of society, each with a preferred form of society and strategy for achieving it (or preventing its overthrow for those in favour of the status quo). I lived in Manchester for over 20 years before moving to Glasgow in April 2006, and the conspiratorial organisations are present to a much greater degree in that city than in Glasgow. The influence of those organisations, including people who were not members of any of them but had decided to cooperate with some organisations and compete with others, and people who were being manipulated by them using mind control methods (perhaps including mobile phone masts, genetically modified food and nanotechnology) was so great that I felt for quite a long time that nobody was neutral! However, I rejected that viewpoint towards the end of my time there.
People who are GOOD can have a wide range of political views – some are in favour of a sudden thorough change bringing in a socialist society (i.e. they support a socialist revolution, perhaps but not necessarily carried out by force), others think that socialism can be brought in by a series of gradual reforms (a flawed strategy because reforms in the interests of ordinary people that capitalists can concede in periods of boom will be replaced by counter-reforms when there is a recession) and there are also many who are merely in favour of reforms under capitalism (because they think that capitalism is the best way of organising society or lack belief that socialism can ever be achieved). There are even some GOOD people who genuinely believe in the severely flawed “trickle-down” theory that making rich people even richer will benefit society as a whole, but there is quite a strong correlation between people holding left-wing political views and being GOOD, and conversely people with right-wing views tend to be BAD.
What determines whether people are GOOD or BAD, however, are their intentions rather than their political views. Furthermore, it is their intentions deep down in their subconscious minds, which may differ from what they think their intentions are in conscious thoughts some or all of the time, that are important. People tend to think they are good, even if BAD forces are (at that point in time) dominating their minds. People can switch from BAD to GOOD or vice versa as a result of them thinking things through or interacting with others; if they couldn’t, revolutions would never happen.
I find it very useful when I am trying to work out whether someone is GOOD to assess his or her demeanour – someone who comes across as friendly, smiles a fair amount and takes care of his or her appearance is much more likely to be GOOD than somebody who does not. There is also a certain tendency for people who dye their hair to be less genuine than those who do not, although this is a much less reliable guide (because dying hair is extremely common in Western society nowadays and some people look much better with a different shade of hair colour or without grey or white hairs that show their age) – somebody who pretends that he or she has hair of a different colour than its natural one may be false in other respects too. Using highlights or only dying part of your hair gives off less of an impression that you are being false. Men who shave their heads look like fascists, unless they are black, look gay or are balding naturally; they may choose to do so because they really do hold right-wing views, because they want to pretend they are fascists or because they are unaware of the attitude people will have towards them because of that hairstyle (perhaps because they are at an experimental stage of their lives). In my opinion, BAD conspirators have deliberately encouraged the adoption of shaven heads by young people particularly in order to encourage them to adopt right-wing views, and they have been aided (sometimes but not always deliberately) by black friends of those young people encouraging them to adopt similar hairstyles. Because of the huge prevalence of shaven heads in the UK, it is a much less reliable guide here than in countries like Russia where skinhead haircuts are strongly associated with fascism. In Catalonia (where there is a very strong mood for independence from Spain as I discovered when I visited Barcelona for a series of anti-capitalist events in 2002), people speaking German causes a very bad reaction, obviously reminding people of fascist rule by Franco, and shaven heads may similarly cause such a strong association there too. Commentators often point out that there are two main categories of men, sometimes called “rough and ready” and “sensitive”. Shaving your head or having short-cropped hair is a way of looking “hard” (except for those who look gay) and tends to indicate that such people are rough and ready. There is a strong correlation (but I’m not sure how strong) between people being rough and ready and them being BAD, and between being sensitive and being GOOD. Similar points could be made about two types of gay women (perhaps a bit stereotypical but with a basis in fact). It is important not to rely too much on such assessments but to judge people on their words and deeds as well; some very BAD people have a lot of charisma and may genuinely think (with their conscious minds) they are doing good things when they are doing the opposite.
GOOD people who make an effort to show they are GOOD (such as by smiling and looking attractive) find it easier to achieve a genuine rapport with other GOOD people, forming friendships where the friends genuinely care about each other. Naturally attractive people tend to find it easier to achieve such a rapport, but what counts is whether or not (or how frequently) you make an effort. False smiles, such as the ones Tony Blair often uses, can be quite easy to detect and may not have the desired effect. In contrast to GOOD people, BAD people tend to form “friendships” that are false, where one (or both) of the “friends” does not particularly care about the other (and tends to be much more concerned with his or her own interests than those of the “friend”). A BAD person may deliberately form a one-sided friendship or relationship with a GOOD person to undermine him or her and try to prevent GOOD people getting into a very strong position by collaborating with each other in the struggle for a better society. GOOD people may consciously do likewise with BAD people, although this is undoubtedly a much less common phenomenon – some infiltrate right-wing organisations such as the British National Party to try to prevent it from becoming a force strong enough to challenge for political power, but this is a very dangerous practice that should only be carried out by those with well-worked out ideas of what they are doing and how to prevent their attempts backfiring or them being found out.
When somebody is a member of an organisation, particularly an open political party or a conspiratorial infiltrating organisation, he or she may feel constrained to be less honest about his or her true views, for good or bad reasons, and adopt some or all of the collective views of that organisation when raising issues publicly. This may of course depend on the extent to which the organisation encourages its members to think for themselves and express their personal views in public, how prominent the member is in the organisation, the level of commitment the member has to the organisation, the member’s strategy for changing the position of the organisation on the issue he or she is talking about or the member’s level of trust in the person or people he or she is talking to.
GOOD people may be (fairly or completely) open about their intentions in influencing an organisation or they may use subterfuge. In my opinion, current Tory leader David Cameron (despite having been educated at the exclusive Eton private school and still having a posh voice) is a GOOD person shifting his party to the left. I am not sure how left wing he is (he may even be a socialist in disguise rather than the pro-capitalist good guy he comes across as), but his role in shifting his party and therefore political discourse in the UK to the left is in my opinion very positive.
Former Tory Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was probably BAD but may have been GOOD for completely different reasons – by overriding the opinions of many of her advisers and introducing the poll tax, she (perhaps deliberately with her conscious mind or in her subconscious) created a situation whereby a mass revolt of working and middle class people could take place. She may not have been aware, although some GOOD people advising her would have been through analyses of society carried out by their conspiratorial organisations, that the struggle would be led by revolutionary socialists (specifically the Militant Tendency, which I joined during the struggle, later to become Militant Labour and the Socialist Party in England and Wales, with its Scottish component establishing the Scottish Socialist Party). Thatcher did a lot of bad things, shifting views in society considerably to the right during her time in Downing Street, so I suspect she switched sides to become GOOD late in her premiership – or was BAD at all times but became overconfident and was outfoxed by socialist conspirators in her own party. Her strong friendship with the former (and now late) Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet also had good repercussions – inviting him to the UK, from where a Spanish judge wanted to extradite him for brutal crimes against Spanish citizens in Chile, exposed both the Tories and New Labour (the latter believing his sob story about not being fit to stand trial, a pretence that he dropped immediately on return to Chile).
I have sometimes even been of the opinion that Tony Blair is also a socialist infiltrator! By shifting his party (Labour) to the right and sucking up to the extremely unpopular George W Bush, he has created a massive vacuum on the left in British society that genuine socialists (largely revolutionaries) can fill. However, I now think that that is a positive side effect of the primarily BAD role he is playing (negated to a certain extent by Cameron) of shifting political views (especially those expressed in the mainstream media) to the right. Blair’s encouragement of repressive measures by the state, including larger periods of detention without trial, the proposed introduction of ID cards linked to a central database containing huge amounts of information about us all and now the road pricing proposal of devices in all vehicles transmitting signals about where they are at any point in time is symptomatic of that – such measures may be mainly used against Muslims in the short term but the real targets of the big business conspirators that pull the politicians’ strings (and probably Blair himself) are those who threaten capitalist society itself, i.e. revolutionary socialists. The road pricing measure has provoked a huge number of people to sign an on-line petition against it due to fear of “Big Brother”, that would undoubtedly lead to a massive campaign of civil disobedience should New Labour attempt to force such devices on car owners.
At one stage John Reid was seriously tipped to become the new prime minister and Labour leader after the leadership contest that will take place in 2007. Reid is known as a “hard man” and certainly fits into my analysis as a BAD politician. Reid’s incompetence in his current role as Home Secretary (causing a lot of scandals for which he has shouldered much of the blame) has now made that prospect very unlikely. However, if the Labour Party did pick Reid in the leadership contest, then I think a major realignment in British politics would be very likely with the Tories becoming the most left wing of the three main political parties! At the time of the last general election in 2005, the Liberal Democrats were the most left wing of those parties on most issues due to Labour’s huge shift to the right under Tony Blair (as part of a process initiated by Neil Kinnock). However, the Lib Dems have shifted considerably to the right under Menzies Campbell’s leadership, ditching their proposal to tax the rich (with a 50% tax rate for those earning over £100,000 a year) and adopting a policy that the Tories were particularly keen on before Cameron of reducing income tax rates – benefiting the rich more than the low paid (because of the resulting cuts in services that poor people need as well as the effect on their pay packets) although the Lib Dems have tried to present it as having the opposite effect. If, as is by far the most likely outcome, Gordon Brown becomes prime minister, it is unclear what direction he will take the Labour Party. Brown comes across as a “dour” politician and in his role as Blair’s Chancellor of the Exchequer he has definitely been overwhelmingly right wing. However, in rare moments (particularly after the birth of his latest child) he has appeared “fresh faced” and had a genuine smile. The most credible explanation for this is that at times he has switched sides, from being BAD to GOOD and vice versa. It is possible, particularly if there is a shift to the left in political views across society generally, that he will become quite a left-wing prime minister. If he continues steering a right-wing course like Blair, then Cameron may take the Tories to the left of New Labour even without Reid in power.
In Scotland, the Tories will find it much more difficult to present themselves as a left-wing political party, due to the increased level of resentment to their role in the past, on issues such as the poll tax (which they introduced in Scotland a year before England and Wales, a very useful move due to it enabling mass non-payment to become established north of the border before spreading to more right-wing areas of Britain) and devolution (on which the Tories refused to grant a referendum). Additionally, the presence of other left-wing parties, represented significantly in the Scottish parliament due to the use of proportional representation (PR), means that there is little scope for the Scottish Tories to pick up support by adopting left-wing positions.
Those left-wing parties are the Scottish National Party (SNP), the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), Solidarity: Scotland’s Socialist Movement (a split-off from the SSP) and the Scottish Green Party. Some may disagree with my suggestion that the SNP are left wing, and they certainly have some right-wing members and big business supporters, but those four parties all support independence, the granting of which would massively improve the prospects of socialism in Scotland. This is of course the reason for the entire mainstream press north of the border opposing an independent Scotland, a situation that may unfortunately prevent the pro-independence parties from gaining a majority in the Scottish parliamentary elections on Thursday the 3rd of May. It is important that socialists concentrate on arguing for independence as a step towards achieving socialism rather than merely mentioning the advantages of a capitalist independent Scotland compared to remaining in the UK (such as it enabling Scotland to become nuclear free and avoid sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan). Socialism in Scotland is much more likely than in the UK as a whole due to people being generally more left-wing, socialist parties being much stronger and a fairer electoral system (although the form of PR is far from ideal, it is much fairer than first-past-the-post that is used for the UK parliament). Once socialism is established in one Western country (and Scotland will probably first), it could rapidly spread across Europe and the rest of the world.
Having said that, an independent capitalist Scotland that ditches nuclear power stations (how ironic that New Labour wants more of them when supposedly very worried about terrorist attacks) and abandons the existing Trident nuclear “deterrent” (which would kill massive numbers of GOOD people attempting to rise up against a vicious regime considering launching such weapons if it was ever used) would be a huge step forward, probably dealing a fatal blow to New Labour’s proposal for new Trident weapons at an estimated cost of £100 billion. An independent Scotland should invest heavily in tidal power, a technology that has been around for decades, that doesn’t cause blots on the landscape and that is not dependent on the vagaries of the British weather, but that has been rarely applied by capitalist governments, so that they can justify nuclear power stations, which have by-products that are needed for nuclear weapons.
The only serious argument against investing in tidal power is probably its effect on marine life. Fish and seafood (unless you include bits of dolphin meat consumed in tuna – it is scandalous that it is up to consumers to buy “dolphin-friendly” tuna rather than the government banning tuna caught in nets that kill a lot of dolphins) are cold-blooded. They do not have feelings in the same way as warm-blooded creatures – humans, other mammals and birds. In my opinion, the struggle between GOOD and BAD forces takes place in all mammals and birds, but not in cold-blooded creatures such as fish, reptiles and crustaceans. If I remember correctly, amphibians are part way between being warm and cold blooded so I am unsure as to their role. I am currently a pescatorian – a vegetarian apart from also eating fish and seafood. I was not aware (with my conscious mind) of the important distinction between warm and cold blooded creatures when I first became a pescatorian in 1988 I think (I wanted more variety in my diet that I could get through being a strict vegetarian, not being acquainted with many vegetarian dishes with ingredients I liked) but I regard it as a key difference now. Sometimes when I have tried to be a strict vegetarian or pescatorian, I have had cravings for meat. I believe my subconscious was telling me that I needed to eat some meat to improve my model of the world. I now think my knowledge of the world is good enough without eating any more meat, so I have become a strict pescatorian again, but if I get cravings again I will consider reverting to eating a small amount of meat.
How could I gain a full enough understanding of “mad cow disease” (BSE) and Creutzweld-Jacob Disease (CJD), which it becomes when passed to humans causing a long painful death, if I didn’t eat beef (and therefore get a bit of that disease into my system). Incidentally, the Tories deliberately pretended that beef was safe to eat (with John Selwyn Gummer famously offering a burger to his son, who refused to eat it, in front of TV cameras) when the evidence was overwhelming that it was not.
Similarly, how could I understand bird flu without eating some poultry? The scandal around the outbreak of bird flu at a Bernard Matthews factory in February 2007 (at which turkeys are kept in extreme proximity to each other in very cruel conditions) says a lot about BAD people’s attitude towards human health. Most TV coverage has said that turkeys are perfectly safe to eat as long as they are cooked. However, there was a news item on the BBC in which it was stated that it is important to wash your hands with soap and water after preparing the poultry for cooking. In itself, the omission of this obvious bit of advice in most coverage of the issue is scandalous. However, there is a big problem with hand washing that I have long recognised – if you have germs on your hand, turning the tap on transfers some of the germs onto the tap, then when turning it off after washing, you pick the germs off the tap again! There are ways to avoid this such as turning the tap with an elbow or using a paper towel to turn the tap off, but this is awkward and few people do such things except in places where hygiene is taken seriously (hopefully including most hospitals). Taps that turn themselves off have long been available – you can sometimes find them in public lavatories and hospitals – but the forces of big business deliberately supply taps with that huge drawback. They want working and middle class people (particularly working class people) to become ill! That way, we will spend less of our time fighting back against capitalism and perhaps even die before we have become a serious threat. Better educated people, such as the very rich, generally take more precautions with hygiene and tend to become ill less often and live longer (although there are many other factors such as diet and housing conditions).
Big business tries to scare us with the prospect of a “pandemic”, claiming that a strain of bird flu could mutate into one that can be passed from human to human. They even give very accurate predictions of so many millions of people or some percentage of the population that could die. If they do not even know what strain would mutate or exactly how it would mutate, how can they be so precise? They are obviously lying! If the human immune system really was so unstable that a random factor like that could threaten millions of people, then it is only rational to suppose that the entire human race could be wiped out! After all, if infection-control methods fail to stop millions from being affected, then it could well be impossible to protect the remaining billions! If significant numbers of “experts” predicted that the human race could potentially be wiped out, then there would probably be a mass movement demanding a complete end to poultry farming across the world! Instead, they want to worry us and use measures like keeping poultry indoors, so that free range poultry and eggs are harder to acquire – and even try to con us into thinking that battery eggs are safer than free range ones! They want us to feel guilty about the barbarous conditions animals and birds are kept in, and use divide-and-rule between vegetarians and omnivores. I have long made an effort to avoid meat at left-wing events, even if I am consuming it some of the rest of the time, because the impact I have in appearing ethical is far more important than the issue of precisely how many animals or birds die.
For the same reason, I have avoided wearing or carrying leather or suede for quite a while, even during omnivorous periods of my life. Leather and suede are by-products of the food industry and arguably less of an ethical problem than meat, but are also used by big business for divide-and-rule. It has generally been very difficult to buy shoes or boots that are not made of leather or suede, and even harder to buy ones that don’t look as though they are (particularly important for me), but such footwear is now quite easily available in Glasgow where I live.
What is important is not just that socialism is implemented, but the form of that socialism. I am in favour of a socialist society in which the government is elected using proportional representation (PR) by single transferable vote (STV), in contrast to Marxists who generally argue for a hierarchy of committees based on workplaces. I argue for PR partly because it is fairer (with everyone in control rather than just the working class) and partly because it is less likely that BAD people (bureaucrats, potential dictators or infiltrators on the side of big business) will dominate (since it is generally only people on the same committees who know who the BAD people are and what they are up to). STV is the fairest form of PR due to it being possible to specify preferences for votes to be transferred to (if the preferred candidate gets too few or too many votes), eliminating the need for tactical voting; it is also necessary for enough representatives to be elected per ward or constituency to generate roughly proportional outcomes (in contrast with only three or four per ward in the Scottish local elections this year). If a Marxist form of socialism is implemented, Stalinist dictatorships and/or counter-revolutions leading to the re-establishment of capitalism could result. The worst possible scenario, which could come about if the world remains capitalist or if a Marxist form of socialism is implemented in some countries, is nuclear war and probable extinction of the human race.
Whereas most BAD people will become GOOD, before, during or after the world socialist revolution, some BAD people may remain BAD no matter what. Such people would try to cause capitalist counter-revolutions years after socialism has been established and proved itself in practice. Such people could be considered EVIL.
A few years ago, I got a strong hint that Martine McCutcheon – who played Tiffany in EastEnders, became a singer and songwriter (she had a number one hit with “Perfect Moment”, some other hits, had an excellent album called “Musicality” with songs from musicals and has a new album due out this year), appeared in My Fair Lady and has returned to acting in the film “Love, Actually”, the ITV1 drama “An English Harem” and the MI5 drama “Spooks” – has a really important role in the world. On an important occasion in my life, my mind whirred for a few seconds and her name popped out of my head without me knowing the significance. I presumed that this meant she was either very GOOD or very BAD.
I have identified 12 people plus myself, including four who I want to be the main members of my band (Cath Bann, Jo Sims, Hira and myself), three others in the UK who I am in email (and possibly phone) contact with (Paula Mitchell, Bruce Edmonds and Sean Wallis), two in the USA who I am emailing (Priya of
War Cry Independent Cinema and Mark Rabinowitz) and four who I am not currently in contact with (Alan McCombes in Scotland, Derren Brown in the UK, Gwen Noel in Canada and Murray Smith in France), for whom having sex may be too dangerous due to our intelligence and knowledge of how the world works. [The band was going to be called Galaxia but I now want it to be called Red Day (like Green Day but explicitly socialist); the decision on the name will be a collective decision.] If one of us had sex with a BAD person, who up to that point showed no indication of being anything other than 100% genuine, that would transfer a lot of that knowledge to him or her, which could put the future of the world at risk. I have not discharged any sperm for about eight years, making it physically impossible for me to lose my virginity, clearly due to me recognising the importance of that (with my conscious mind later reflected in my physiology). A woman in the same situation would have no similar indication, unless she consulted a doctor due to difficulties becoming pregnant. Martine McCutcheon has been reported to have had a miscarriage. This may be misinformation, in which case she may be a very GOOD person, as I think is by far the most likely possibility, and there will remain many EVIL people left on the planet indefinitely. On the other hand, if Martine really did have a miscarriage, she can’t be a particularly important GOOD person, and therefore must be the most EVIL person on the planet! If I can convert her into a GOOD person by interacting with her before, during and after the world socialist revolution, perhaps inviting her to join my band and/or acting alongside her, then doing so would convert all other BAD people in the world! A world consisting only of GOOD people would have no crime, as in a “communist” society envisaged by Marx and Engels. I disagree with the idea that money would not be necessary under communism, due to the finite resources of the planet.Most people who have seriously investigated UFO sightings have come to the conclusion that there are aliens out there and that they are very interested in what is happening on Earth. It is no coincidence that a huge number of UFOs were spotted over Mexico at the time of the Zapatista uprising in January 1994. The obvious reason for them not making full contact with us and inviting us to join them in outer space is the presence of many BAD people in the world. If somebody like George W Bush was allowed into outer space, he could blow up whole planets (with “great balls of fire” as my karaoke speciality by Jerry Lee Lewis says)! Aliens (and humans if there are some of us out there, perhaps even including some who have died with outer space being essentially the same thing as heaven) must ensure that only GOOD people are allowed to travel long distances for the galaxy to be self-sustainable, and the galaxy must therefore be socialist – or communist since it has virtually infinite resources. Relativity theory claims that when one spaceship travels at nearly the speed of light and passes another spaceship travelling at the same speed in the opposite direction, their relative speed is somewhere between that speed and the speed of light. In my opinion, this is clearly a nonsensical false conspiracy theory used to justify the inability of capitalist society to fully interact with aliens, by pretending that it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light.
I therefore believe that at some point after a completely socialist world has been established, we will make contact and GOOD people (and other mammals and birds) will be invited to join the socialist galaxy, with there being some sort of foolproof test ensuring that no EVIL being leaves the Earth. After this, the most rational and safest solution is to destroy the Earth, killing those who are utterly EVIL. Whereas I am completely opposed to the death penalty under capitalism, since it leads to many innocent people dying including those who want to help change society, it will be the best way of dealing with those who are utterly incapable of being GOOD. If I have converted Martine McCutcheon from being very BAD as I suggested above, we could all be allowed full participation in the galaxy without the need for destroying the Earth – but I think it extremely unlikely that Martine is BAD, so destruction of the Earth and those remaining on it will probably be necessary.
I have recently set up my own conspiratorial infiltrating organisation, the Foundation for PR-based Socialism, to argue for a kind of socialism based on proportional representation, publicly and covertly, on the streets, in meetings and in many different organisations in society. It is largely a virtual organisation with a website ( www.PRsocialism.org) and discussion forum (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PRsocialism), but will probably also have cells (small number of conspirators collaborating together) and branches in some areas. I am sending some of my important messages and documents to that forum first, particularly those with positions I am less sure of, to invite comments and suggestions, before sending the final versions to a wider audience, and I am raising some questions there to make it an interesting forum for debate. I believe that members of other conspiratorial organisations, some of whom will have similar views to mine, will want to interact with conspirators on my forum so that we can influence each other in the struggle for a GOOD society – a socialist one based on PR. [Note that some of you may be concerned that organisations like MI5 will find out about you if you join my forum; the best solution to that is to create another email address on the web. I recommend a UK-based provider such as yahoo.co.uk for those based in this country to avoid censorship, which is a particularly serious problem with providers based in the USA (including Hotmail even with addresses ending “.co.uk”) due to the use of artificial intelligence programs designed to detect spam that also read and may censor some political emails under the orders of the US Department of Homeland Security.]