Socialism and Conspiracies
by Steve Wallis
Version 5
There has been a continuous conflict between classes in
society for as long as they have existed (ever since the classless
hunter-gatherer societies known by Marxists as `primitive communism'). The
ruling class has conspired to remain in power and the masses have conspired to
neutralise the conspiratorial organisations of the ruling class enabling them
to overthrow the ruling class and establish a fairer society.
As time has gone on, the form and sophistication of the
conspiratorial organisations have advanced, but I now believe that establishing
conspiratorial organisations is a rational response to the class struggle so
the conspiratorial organisations have existed in one form or another for as
long as the classes themselves have. In their simplest form, the conspiracies
are merely alliances between friends or relatives pursuing a common cause, but
the most powerful conspiratorial organisations today use computer modelling to
predict the future and determine what needs to be done to advance the interests
of the classes the organisations represent.
The continuous struggle between opposing class interests
does not just go on between people; it actually goes on within an individual's
mind to try to get that individual to act in the interests of a particular
class. I used to think that people could be neatly divided into those acting in
the interests of big business or the working class, but I now realise that
society is far more complex - people acting in the interests of big business at
one moment in time can act in the interests of the working class at another
moment in time. Furthermore, mind control techniques can be used to make
somebody act against the interests of the class that they want to act in the
interests of.
So, why do I think that mind control is at work? Well,
basically, I know that it is possible so it is naïve to think that serious
conspiratorial organisations would fail to utilise it. My evidence for mind
control is sixfold:
o
Some cults use brainwashing to get their followers to
believe incredible things (like humans evolving from clams in the case of the
Church of Scientology);
o
Magicians like David Blaine and Derren Brown demonstrate
mind reading and mind control to quite a large degree for entertainment
purposes;
o
I was hypnotised as a student, by a stage hypnotist, so I know
that hypnosis is not a hoax;
o
I feel that my mind was controlled in a meeting that I went
to with two other people (who together could exert more control than one of
them on their own), during which I came to a decision I was determined not to
come to beforehand when presented with very superficial evidence;
o
A former best friend who I have now cut off all links with
(Julian Beard) was very successful on the telephone at persuading me to do
something I was inclined not to do. He was out of contact with me for a while,
during which I assume he was trained to speak hypnotically, and when he got
back in contact with me his voice had completely changed;
o
I actually tried out a bit of mind reading and mind control
on a train from Manchester to London two or three years ago. Two children were
playing the game "Guess Who?" in which you ask a serious of questions
to eliminate various characters and identify the card the opponent has chosen.
I tried a variant of that game where you guess a character simply by touching
the opponent on the arm - and got the character correct both times. I then got
my opponent (the older child who I think was a girl) to guess the character I
had chosen by touching me on the arm - asking her to say the first name that
came into her head without really thinking about why she had chosen that name.
She got the character correct both times as well. There are about 50 cards in
that game, so the odds against that being a coincidence were about six million
to one. When I tried the same thing with the younger child, it didn't work -
either because his brain had not developed enough or because he was a boy.
The idea of mind control being at work in society is pretty
scary, but it is important to recognise that there are limits to how it can be
used. I don't think that it can be used to persuade somebody to do something
that they are very determined not to do, and it probably takes more than one
person with mind control abilities in close proximity to bend somebody's will
to a large degree. Furthermore, it can only be used on individuals - mass
hypnosis of the population (e.g. via the TV) is not possible; if that was not
the case then the mass demonstrations against the war on Iraq could have been
prevented.
I strongly believe that another factor in society is robots.
I have worked in the field of Artificial Intelligence and know that all the
fundamental problems of building a robot that emulates a human being have been
solved. However, the sorts of robot that the powers that be acknowledge can be
built are so primitive that it is clear that cover-ups in science are at work.
There are such large vested interests at stake that I suspect that the field of
biotechnology has also evolved to the extent whereby robots that look and act
human can be built, and that they can mingle in society.
Three beings who I have met in recent years have exhibited
such repetitive behaviour that I have strongly suspected that they are robots.
I first went public with this assertion on the most
important web page you will ever read.
After the Russian Revolution in October 1917, 18 countries
sent their armies to Russia to try to crush that revolution and failed. So the
ruling class (big business) were naturally very frightened about the
possibility of the revolution spreading. If you can't crush them from the
outside then you have to resort to crushing them from the inside.
Infiltration is occasionally recorded in the history books.
It is fairly well known that the leader of the Bolsheviks (who later became the
`Communist Party') in the Duma (Russian parliament) was a police spy.
So what would the rational response of the ruling class in
Britain be to the Russian Revolution? Well, they obviously wouldn't want the
fledgling Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) to get off the ground. And
when it did, they'd want it to hold workers back rather than letting it lead
workers to a successful revolution. And it is well known that it did hold
workers back, most spectacularly and disastrously in the General Strike. The
usual Marxist explanation for the failures of the Communist parties in the West
is to blame inexperience and the influence of Stalin (who was afraid of losing
his own power if a genuine revolution were to take place elsewhere). However,
why would the international ruling class (i.e. big business) be so naïve as to
rely on such factors when they can utilise the strategy of long-term
infiltration to try to ensure that the Communist Parties betray the workers
they purport to represent? They would have had the opportunity to ensure that
most of the trade union leaders in the CPGB at the time of the General Strike
were state agents or heavily influenced by them.
It is only to be expected that the state would particularly
target the largest socialist/communist party in the country. The largest such
party was the CPGB for many years but it is now the Socialist Workers Party
(SWP). Most genuine socialists who want to fight for a better society join the
party that seems most serious and this is usually the biggest. The party for
which commentators have recognised the greatest extent of state infiltration is
the US SWP (no relation to the SWP in Britain) - the infiltration by the US state
was revealed in a court case, which the SWP won, and I believe that that
infiltration was a major reason why that party collapsed to the pathetic party
it is today (of maybe a few hundred in the whole of the USA). There have also
been allegations (including in a book by the journalist Stephen Dorril) of
state infiltration playing a significant role in the collapse of the Workers'
Revolutionary Party (WRP) in Britain.
By far the most influential socialist organisation in
Britain in recent years has been the Militant Tendency. It had three Labour
MPs, led the Liverpool council struggle (which inflicted the first defeat on
Thatcher in winning extra money for the city, but was ultimately defeated due
to the betrayals of councillors elsewhere) and led the poll tax non-payment
campaign which defeated the tax and led to the fall of Thatcher. If the state
was not already significantly targeting Militant beforehand then it certainly
would have started to in the mid-1980s. Militant made some bad mistakes, which were
sometimes (at least) largely caused by state infiltration, and were very costly
in terms of recruitment. However, the biggest factor in the decline in
membership (from about 8000 at its height to about 400 at the time I left) was
the collapse of Stalinism and the capitalist triumphalism which resulted.
There remains the question of what the state did as Militant
declined in size. Did it withdraw most of its agents and allow the organisation
to regain its strength? That would be extremely foolish! No, I suspect that
most stayed in and are now a strong force in what is now the Socialist Party.
This, I think, explains the fairly recent sectarian behaviour of the Socialist
Party (such as pulling out of the socialist alliances and generally preferring
to conduct its own campaigns rather than uniting with other left-wing
activists).
In an earlier version of this document, I expressed the view
that moves away from sectarianism by the SWP (such as getting involved in the
Scottish Socialist Party, socialist alliances in England and Wales, and taking
campaigns involving other left-wing activists more seriously) were a result of
the balance of class forces changing within the SWP. I now think that this move
away from sectarianism was a cynical move by the SWP leadership who are
composed entirely of big business infiltrators - the main evidence for this
viewpoint is the fact that the SWP have transformed the socialist alliances in
most areas into reformist electoral fronts for their own party. I have also had
the opportunity to study the Socialist Worker platform of the Scottish
Socialist Party firsthand at the party's 2003 conference, and the ridiculous
positions of that platform indicate that they have not changed for the better
due to uniting with the rest of the left in the same party.
So how do the conspiracies work? Well, everybody builds
models, to varying levels of detail, of other people's minds inside their own
minds. This is necessary in order to conduct a meaningful conversation, never
mind doing something to change the world for the better! We also build models
of organisations and parts of organisations to enable us to deal with them in
our everyday lives.
The brain is partly motivated by the desire to promote a
certain kind of world - and there are two clear choices in the world today, a
capitalist world of wars, poverty, famines, unemployment, environmental
destruction (etc.) or a socialist world which will solve these problems - and
partly motivated by concern for individuals who the person cares about. Some
people are more clearly on one side (the working class or big business) than
others, but they are all acting to promote the interests of socialism or
capitalism even if they are not aware of it with their conscious minds. We
cooperate with those who we think are on the same side, compete with those who
we think are on a different side, and are cautious while awaiting further input
with those who we're not sure about. Some of us (including myself) act alone on
this basis, others form together in small groups, and still others join larger
groups with some sort of organisational structure. The larger groups are
generally most powerful but they are also most prone to infiltration by people
with different agendas.
Some groups rely entirely on the combined effect of the
models in their own minds to model other people and organisations and to
develop strategies and tactics based on these models. However anything a brain
can do, a computer can do, so it is only rational for the most powerful groups
to utilise fast powerful computers to help in their modelling. Computer
languages like SDML, which I developed over a period of about eight years (see http://sdml.cfpm.org), can be
used for this task. In fact, I strongly suspect that SDML is the primary
computer modelling language used by conspiratorial organisations today.
There is probably one dominant group on every side at any
particular moment in time, which has a strategy about how that side can achieve
its aims. Other groups on the same side will generally go along with this
strategy although sometimes in-fighting takes place that may result in some
other group becoming dominant. The dominant group on each side is almost
certainly not the obvious one - such as MI5 in the case of the ruling class - a
much more secret multinational organisation is more likely.
Marxists recognise that there are two key sides in society -
the working class and the ruling class (big business) but there are also vested
interests which may have conspiratorial organisations of their own such as
Liberal Democrats, fascists, Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Catholic
Church and Islamic fundamentalism. Since the ruling class is the dominant
class, the other vested interests are largely being manipulated by that class,
but they can be manipulated by the working class or smashed as the balance of
class forces changes.
Some of those vested interests indulge in infiltration
themselves. For example, the fascist organisation the National Revolutionary
Faction have on their website (http://www.nationalbolshevik.com/nrf/nrfadviceforcadres.html)
advice for their cadres who are infiltrating socialist organisations and other
organisations in society such as the National Health Service and the police.
I think I first became aware that big conspiracies were
going on involving state infiltration when I read the Morning Star (the daily
paper that was then the organ of the CPGB) regularly as a child. Why was the
paper of a `revolutionary' party so bad? I remember at one point wondering what
I could do to make the world a better place and writing some suggestions down.
I don't know what happened to that book of paper - I probably threw it away
realising that keeping it could be dangerous. However, from that point on (if
not before), I believe my subconscious has been working on the problem.
I didn't significantly get involved in politics until 1989,
when the anti-poll tax movement was getting started in Manchester. I could tell
that this campaign had great potential to make a difference. However, I didn't
join Militant until the 6th of June, 1990. I went on the People's March Against
the Poll Tax from Liverpool to London later that year but was fairly low
profile in most of my time in Militant/Militant Labour/the Socialist Party. I
did however do quite a lot of work on the internet, putting forward socialist
views on various newsgroups and setting up a mailing list for the CWI (the
international organisation that Militant/the Socialist Party is affiliated to).
I also had the CWI website on my work computer for a couple of years or so.
However, it wasn't until 1998 that I attained any significant positions outside
cyberspace, getting on the Steering Committee of the Greater Manchester
Socialist Alliance and the Regional Committee of the Socialist Party. I think
not becoming too prominent too soon helped me avoid too much state interference
too soon in my political `career'.
It was at the 1998 European School of the CWI in Leuven,
Belgium, that I first became a significant threat to the ruling class. There
was a big debate between the leadership of the Scottish comrades (then called
Scottish Militant Labour) and the British/International leaderships. The
Scottish comrades were proposing the setting up of the Scottish Socialist Party
which they would become a faction of (called a `platform'). This was opposed by
the British and International leaderships, and they had convinced the other
sections of the CWI except for France to go along with their opposition. I was
the only comrade from England or Wales to speak in the debate in favour of the
Scots. As a result I came under quite a lot of pressure not to speak in the
debate and I was moved later in the schedule until finally being slotted in
first thing in the morning before most of the comrades had arrived. I reordered
my speech to move what I thought were the most important bits to the end, but
the Chair cut me off and took the microphone off me just before I could make
those points. I ended up storming off the platform! Others had been allowed to
massively overrun their allocated time but not me!
I spent much of that week discussing with comrades from
around the world trying to convince them of the Scottish case and I was fairly
successful. I went round them again after my speech in a damage limitation
exercise reassuring them that I hadn't gone mad, but that I hadn't slept the
night before my speech and that as a fairly inexperienced comrade the pressure
got to me. It seemed to work!
The conclusions I finally came to with my conscious mind,
about state infiltration of socialist organisations, arose as a result of that
week in Belgium. This was supposed to be a gathering of 200 of the best
revolutionaries on the planet and at times most of them behaved like sheep.
There were clearly some processes going on below the surface that could only be
explained by infiltration.
After coming to these conclusions, I thought of setting up a
counter-network to act against the state infiltrators. This is the only
rational course of action apart from giving up. Therefore it is not surprising
that such networks already exist! The ruling class infiltrates our
organisations so we have to infiltrate their organisations - and our own to
defeat the enemy within.
Of course infiltration is not limited to socialist
organisations and the `security services'. Campaigning organisations, the NHS,
the police, the internet, companies, trade unions, etc., are also infiltrated.
I hope that the US military is sufficiently infiltrated so that if George W
Bush gets trigger-happy and presses the nuclear button nothing will happen.
This is not a game - socialism or nuclear annihilation is the future of the
human race.
But there are reasons to be cheerful. The Scottish Socialist
Party had six members elected to the Scottish Parliament in the elections on
May Day 2003 (partly due to my intervention in Glasgow). The SSP is strongest
in Glasgow, where it received over 15% of the vote and had two members elected
(Tommy Sheridan and Rosie Kane). I now realise that it is essential for me to
move up to Glasgow in order to influence events much more than I can from down
here in Manchester (but I will continue spending some time in Manchester since
it is another important city - socialism has to spread throughout Britain and
the world). I am confident that the SSP can come to power in Scotland in 2007
at the next Scottish parliamentary elections if not before. A socialist
independent Scotland will be a tremendous beacon for the working class and
promote revolutionary upheavals across the world.