Activism in the 21st century     

We must recognise the level of power that we now face, recognise our allies in the same struggle and galvanise to end its oppression

Quick spiel on a few activism events I attended over the last few weeks. They are all in the same fight, yet they don’t realise I feel, or more aptly don’t take account of the all encompassing level of power they all face. We all currently reside in a global socio-economic system where its manifestations are barbaric in its treatment to fellow humans, animals and the environment, with disastrous negative violent effects to everything, most notably to Public Health.

I went to each of these events with eyes open and enjoyed each one immensely, especially enjoyed and felt the vigour and passion with which the people speak and work tirelessly, giving me renewed hope for humanity. All of the groups and people involved looking to remove this barbarism and turn the corner to a civilised society of dignity, integrity and respect. The only thing that lacks throughout all the groups is an inspiration or resource allocation for galvanisation with like-minded groups. The immediate reaction to galvanisation seems to be on nuanced differences instead of recognition of the general similarity. A common goal of ending oppression and barbarism.

This common goal needs to be galvanised under, a banner, as activism in the 21st century. De Oppresso Liber- Liberate the Oppressed.

The Events

(The links will provide details of each event, my opinion given succinctly afterwards):

  1. London 14th October 2017

Revolutionary Communist Group

Days that shook the world

  1. London 21st October 2017

Stand up to racism

National Conference 2017

I searched for a news piece on this but couldn’t find one (post event). Very Slack.

Attendance would have been in the hundreds, possibly 3 – 400.

In one sentence and what grabbed me, quoting the hip-hop artist speaker, apologies I cannot recall his name. ‘Any form of racism is from this day unelectable’. We had speakers from trade union leaders, NGOs and politicians. Very informative and successful day, brought me to tears at one stage just to see the level of compassion and passion some people have.

  1. London 28th October 2017

Anarchist Book fair

The incident is a perfect example of the point I want to make in this blog. Anarchism has a label and associations of thugery yet its tenets and what it hopes to achieve or how it envisions a society is one of integrity, dignity and respect for your fellow human, animal and the enviroenmnt. Practice what you preach.

We had Carne Ross, and Dave Graeber speaking of the intricacies of anarchist models, a lively debate on the nuances of the current problems and solutions while in the other hall a mob harassed a couple of women for handing out leaflets. I will say however I don’t think it was as harsh as is said in the leaflet, I did see it, it was a bunch of people shouting “OUT” and blocking up the hallway for a bit.

Then someone let off the fire alarm, what a joke, in complete contrast to the tenets of anarchism. These people don’t understand anarchism and are only supporting this auto-prescribed vision of anarchism that the layman has of anarchy; wear all black and destroy the state. It’s difficult enough to persuade people of the beauty of anarchism: the trust one has in humanity to function together without coercion and in peace, without ‘self-proclaimed anarchists’ acting in that fashion,


We need you in this fight against oppression, realise and embrace that compassionate ideology that is anarchism. Do as you say, Act as you preach!

  1. London 11th November 2017

The Zeitgeist Movement UK chapter meeting

We discussed the nuances of the current system and what a new system would look like. Very intelligent, nuanced and amiable discussions with intelligent and friendly people however I can’t believe we got sucked into a racism debate for 20 mins. Completely antithetical to what TZM advocates.

-There was a young journalist student doing a documentary on a resource-based economy, which was interesting..

  1. London 18th November 2017

DiEM25 UK Meeting

We mostly discussed the structure of DiEM25uk and how to proceed in the future. Followed by beers and a meal in the local pub. Very amiable and lively conversations with intelligent and concerned people.


All of these events are different in concept, scope and area of concern yet they all share a common goal. From the emotional fault in society of racism and the fight for race equality to the technical fault of resource distribution resulting in poverty. A look into the deep parts of their arguments one finds a common denominator, one that has at its core the same core tenet and manifestations. The roots of each of these groups’ problems, of which they rage so adamantly against the symptoms, are all the same.

The basic core root of all their rage can be found in the precondition of precieved scarcity, the resulting inequality that stems from that and hence the artificial poverty that is generated. This perceived scarcity is a pre-condition for oppression (what the Anarchists are fighting against) and imperialism, imperialism a function of competition for scarce resources. What the Communist party is fighting against. The very core argument of free-market capitalism has its basis in the competition of scarce resources. This competition produces in-group out-group biases, hence xenophobia (what DiEM25 argue to rid the EU of), racism and bigotry. What Stand-up to racism are fighting against.

The zeitgeist movement at its core recognises this and works on solutions which I have summarised in the following video.

The goal; achieving abundance of resources using the scientific method, arriving at decisions and adapting to the planets limits- a resource based economy.

However, TZM also have no part of their activism that inspires galvanisation. The activism really is limited to ZDAY on March 15th each year and a Media Festival once a year, conversations with members and a verbal agreement between members to spread the good word. Which is fine but I demand more, especially of the people so well endowed with ‘smarts’ and the knowledge they’ve accumulated because of it. To not galvanise and fight is near negligence.

So, To Conclude, every person, organisation, NGO and Movement that answers yes to the following question needs to galvanise, meet under a common banner and work for its end: Do you wish to end oppression and live in an sustainable environment? Yes, Then galvanise! The power structures we face are galvanised, have their tentacles in every facet of life and are global in scope. We need to meet that power as one, devolve & control it. Then we can discuss the nuances of our particular problems at leisure.

This common goal needs to be galvanised under, a banner, as activism in the 21st century. De Oppresso Liber- Liberate the Oppressed.

Banner one- Universal Basic Dividend

Join TZM:

And DiEM25:

Thanks for reading ‘Waxy wick: another candle in the dark- shedding light on the abundant nonsense & posing solutions’

Comments welcome, follow me @gavgluaisteán or check out my YouTube channel ‘what’s the craic?-Gluaisteán’ for some savage banter.


The Transition

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing‘ -Edmund Burke

I find that the majority of people have no faith in humanity and don’t see the obvious fact that the values they have and the actions with which they prescribe their judgement are fully encased in a system that encourages the negative morale’s and ethics with which they perceive as ‘human nature’. I believe this must be step one, to appeal to people’s noble virtues, to proclaim avidly that humanity can easily be one of caring, altruistic, civilised, cooperative empathic people. We merely need a system that supports and encourages that part of our nature to flourish and hence see good morale’s, ethics and positive actions.

We must first capture their hearts before we can capture their minds. Their hearts can be captured in this fashion. All previous socio-economic systems are inherently barbaric; free-market capitalism is structured to support barbarism and neglect. Are you happy to live without dignity, respect or integrity? A new system, what ever that may look like should be at its core one of principles, integrity and respect for one another, there is no task nobler.

One does not concern oneself with the method of pruning plants when ones soil is contaminated. Clean the soil first. Have a plan for pruning, watering and caring for the plants in the most effective and economic fashion but first let us agree that the soil needs to be clean, nutritious and healthy or all our efforts to grow healthy, happy and productive plants will be in vain.

Spread this far and wide, this simple call for dignity. The non-apathetic will have questions with which answers the following:

What do you mean by ‘Contaminated Soil’?

Currently the system is based on a perceived level of scarcity of resources. I.e. there is x amount of bread and that’s all the planet provides, there is not enough to go around, therefore a system is needed to allocate what little bread we have to the most deserving. When this is adherently agreed upon with no question, competition ensues to secure your share, hence your survival, of the scarce resources. This is compounded by a bastardisation of Darwin’s tenet of ‘survival of the fittest’, it has been adapted to mean ‘strongest or most dominant’ when really it means most able to adapt to ones environment.

Naturally this fight for bread produces winners and losers as a mathematical certainty. We are not all equal and we all have different strengths, but in a system where the ‘inherently weak’ must strive to be the strongest when it’s physically not possible. The punishment for this failure is then starvation, a street or death. This is simply barbaric, shameful and negligent. A system that instead shames the ‘inherently strongest’ for not feeling proud to help her fellow human beings that were born less fortunate than her is the obvious path to dignity, respect and integrity.

This natural result of winners and losers is called inequality. Inequality has been shown to be the driver for all negative effects in humanity that we suffer today. From xenophobia to racism, behavioural violence to early mortality rates, prostitution to paedophilia, gangs to war.

There is also a phenomenon called ‘structural violence’ which is essentially what it says, that the system is structured in a certain fashion that produces violence as a natural manifestation, this is also based on scarcity.

The book the spirit level by Professor Richard Wilkinson gives empirical evidence of the negative effects of inequality in great detail. Further, the effects of feeling poor have huge ramifications to society, the humiliation of feeling less than someone else, natural in an unequal society, causes huge stress and negative psychosis, stress has proven to be a major cause of heart disease, the biggest killer of humans currently. Literally, inequality is killing us; there is an abundance of work on this topic in support of this.

Concurrently; this inequality produces poverty, as throughout the years the winners have structured the system to control more and more of the bread, less bread for the majority equals poverty. Nothing more needs to be said: The current socio-economic system forces and creates poverty, artificial poverty; the biggest killer of humans there is or ever has been.

Crazily and in stark contrast: the system also requires infinite growth, growth through the consumption of resources, on a finite planet. The mechanics of the system have moulded into the psychology of the people to advocate a level of constant dissatisfaction so that you will forever seek to be satisfied through the acquisition of goods (resources). This constant growth, through dissatisfaction, over shoots the planets capacity to recuperate. Negligence!

Can we really continue in a system so barbaric to the ‘inherently weak’ and negligent to the environment that supports us? Where poverty is naturally produced and forced on vast quantities of people?

I can’t…. and I’m sure you have enough dignity to agree.

So we need to decontaminate the soil.

How do we de-contaminate the soil?

I have gone through simple reform to the current system in previous blogs and there is an abundance of work here on how a libertarian socialist model would function: (I don’t feel I need to reinvent the wheel)

This is a manner of which you reform to a level of comparative security and health, then the majority will have become sufficiently dependent to become independent. I.e. good health, food, water and education. From there a major revolution can occur with the support of a vast majority of educated healthy individuals: devolve the power structures completely and build anew from a fresh slate.

But here I would like to expound on a manner more inline with reconstructing rather than dismantling. Building new efficient forms of social organisation in place of old, devolving and evolving in tandem. Essentially, I’d like to expound on the 5 key points of transition that were posed by Peter Joseph in his book ‘the new human rights movement- how to reinvent the economy to end oppression’.

(If you haven’t read this book, stop what you’re doing immediately and order it)

Bottom line: A new system must be based on maximising the abundance of nutrients to the soil or ‘bread’ or resources and spreading the nutrients across the soil evenly or allocating the resources equitably. Therefore transitioning from a system based on ensuring that nutrients are kept to a certain level and allocated to a select few (perceived scarcity) to one of abundance must incorporate mechanisms that subvert the controlling factors and maximise the production of nutrients/resources in a sustainable fashion, distributing them in an equitable fashion.

Cleaning the soil

The following four points are a goal that must be reached at some stage in Human history. Hopefully in our lifetimes. Further, a system that reaches these ambitious goals will need to be one adaptive and progressive, so reaching these goals will just mean continuing progress, adapting to whatever is required. The true nature of evolution and survival of the fittest. Are we fit enough?

  • Global community: The United Federation of Earth
  • Environmental limits dependent economy (Resource Based Economy)
  • Full stock take of earths resources: claim all earths resources as common heritage.
  • Common language

But enough of daydreaming, let’s get into what can be done today!

Key point 1- Automation

From Labour-for-income emphasis to Machine Automation emphasis. In the current system we would need to incorporate a Universal basic dividend to keep people fed while machines do rudimentary works, taking jobs.

  • Maximise productive capacity in a sustainable fashion
    • Hence minimising poverty (in a real sense)
  • Reduce human exposure
    • The less attractive, monotonous or arduous the labour is the more machine automation will be focused on it on an ever-increasing scale.
  • Increase efficiency
    • Doing more and more with less and less (ephemeralisation as coined by Buck Minster Fuller some 70 years ago).

Follow me on this thought process to the end before you make an opinion please:

A.) Leave your current values and preconceptions (brainwashed since birth in capitalism) at the door, use your imagination to extrapolate for society:

We currently have $81trillion dollars (global GDP). 50% of the wealth of the world is owned by 1% of the people. If we were to evenly distribute that wealth, even in the current system we could provide a lifestyle akin to a lower middle class family in the west to everyone.

Of course this is outrageously opposite to the current systems mechanics of domination. Further, if everyone lived in the current system as middle class westerners live we would need a hundred Earths to provide that quantity of resources.

The fact remains, we COULD live without poverty. So the question is then, how is the system structured that we cannot. The answer is exploitation and waste. With the full use of technology in a system of equitable distribution of basic resources, focusing on these 5 key points you can provide a ‘Middle class’ standard of living for everyone while remaining in the planets limits.

Obviously, a change in values will need to be recognised, where the ‘dissatisfaction’ is recognised and that you do not need a yacht, two Ferraris and a private jet. But everyone does have food, clean water, shelter and energy. That can be achieved very soon. A sensible middle class standard of living can be achieved.

Use machines, computers and robots to their full potential. They don’t take your jobs they alleviate arduous labour. The problem is access to resources, a socio-economic problem not a technological problem.

Key Point 2- Access

From Property ownership emphasis to Strategic access emphasis

  • Maximise good (e.g. a car) use-time efficiency
  • Minimises production pressure
    • Hence minimising resource consumption and waste
  • Increase over-all good availability for use

Follow this thought process of pure logic here please,

Say we have a city of 100,000 people. 10,000 of them play tennis. 9,000 play the odd time. 900 play once a week. 90 play 2-3 times a week. And 10 are professionals. Let’s say we’ve done the calculations and found that 100 tennis courts is sufficient to always have a place for them to play at anytime they want. How many tennis rackets do we need to manufacture?

If you said 10,000 please go back to A.

Yes, the correct answer is 400. Maybe we can argue for an extra 10% for good measure. So 440. 4 rackets needed per court to play doubles if desired.

Let’s say a standard racket requires:

  • 10 grams of nylon
  • 1 kg of aluminium
  • 10 grams of rubber
  • 1 gram of tungsten

The Best Available Technology (BAT) model requires:

  • 10 grams of nylon
  • 1 kg of aluminium
  • 10 grams of rubber
  • 5 grams of tungsten

Therefore we can now say we need to make 90% of the 440 in standard models because the people who play the odd time won’t mind having a racket that has zero impact to resources (would be calculated obviously for each good). And so on respectively until the avid players request and use the BAT model.

When the system accounts for the full quantity of resources available (proclaim earths resources as common heritage) and uses that information to provide models of goods that are BAT but not exceeding sustainability limits (BATNESL) then we have true good availability. A true level of scarcity.

But I would argue that we would have a true level of ‘abundance’ if you can follow me again for a simple thought process:

Think of the 9,000 tennis rackets currently sitting in the corner of some garage doing nothing for 99% of their lives, the others that even though used by a pro still probably are only in use 25% of the time. Think of the quantities of nylon, rubber, aluminium, tungsten, human labour and GHGs used to create it all. Now, think of ALL the goods in the world sitting around doing nothing. The millions of cars parked up. Pure waste.

In a system strategically sustainable emphasising access, huge resource consumption decreases will be seen. So, that part of your brain that I know said: ‘everyone will want the BAT’ (if you’re still convinced of this go back to A) becomes invalid, as the resources saved from the current system will produce an exceptional ‘standard model’ anyway.

Further, if you compound this by letting the 10,000 tennis enthusiasts have a say in what tennis racket they would like to play with, in an open source fashion, you will constantly see a level of satisfaction and improvement on the models that will trump anything you see today.
True technological progress within the planets limits. True sustainability.

Key Point 3- Open Source

From data hoarding, proprietary research, internal development (patents and I.P rights) to collaborative commons

  • Maximise innovation

Cooperation has been proven to solve problems quicker than competition. Nothing could be more innately logical to me; surprised this even needs to be said.

Thought process:

Imagine every car manufacturer sharing info on the latest advancements in technology that they have researched. Further, imagine a system where sustainability is a pre-requisite to manufacture. One can envision extremely efficient cars, high performance, with universal parts that can be easily fixed (imagine an engine that can be easily removed and fixed with standard processes and parts across the industry).

Further, imagine an online system where anyone can go on (me not being one of them but I know 100’s of people that would love it as a hobby and more who would do it as a profession if they didn’t have the burden of debt looming) and see schematics of the cars, details on latest technologies, parts, resource availability (proclaim earths resources as common heritage) and discuss the best models and styles they like. Imagine the car that would be produced. Genuinely top of the range, most liked models, made within the planets limits with universal parts easily changeable and recyclable.

Concurrently: the item that some company makes e.g. apple and the iPhone don’t own the intellectual property for this. The people that ‘invented’ that exact first ‘iPhone’ weren’t just born with all the knowledge of humanity that gave them the base knowledge to manufacture it. In reality, a small part of it ‘belongs’ to the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, Nostradamus, Da Vinci, James Watt, Alan Turing etc. and those people owe their inventions and brilliance to the people before them. Patents and I.P rights are pure nonsense.

Society owes to society; nothing is in isolation. The surplus of capital is owed to all the people. As goods availability and quality grows so to should the standard of living for all in tandem.

Key Point 4- Localisation

From globalisation to localisation, emphasising a networked design

  • Maximise production/distribution efficiency
    • Huge reduction in waste

Currently it’s estimated that about 33% of food produced in the west goes to waste, never makes it to a human stomach. While comparatively about 33% of humanity live in abject poverty, literally starving. So, immediately, this argument of hunger is due to nature’s inability to provide is complete nonsense.

There is plenty of food, there is ample technology to provide it for them, there is working examples of societal structures to organise it for them, so why are they hungry? Must be just nature. Conversation over.

Poverty has nothing to do with the quantity of bread and everything to do with where that bread is produced and who it is distributed to. Third world countries are exploited for first world benefits. Our decadence is in direct correlation to their degradation. The poor on the streets of Dublin don’t have a house due to a lack of housing; they don’t have a house because ‘bread’ or ‘houses’ are distributed in a certain fashion. I.e. through a historically heinous rigged system of resource distribution from the bottom upwards at an ever-increasing share the further you rise up the hierarchy.

If you said something like ‘people are poor because they’re lazy and can’t budget’ please go back to A. better yet, go talk to a homeless person and ask him how he ended up there, with a small bit of intuition one can see a pattern.

Follow this thought process please:

First, if you’re reading this and are not a vegetarian, grow up and have a bit of respect for animals! what did they ever do to you? it’s barbaric!

Imagine community run vegetable growth, using all available space including roofs to grow vegetables. If there is not enough space to feed the full community use vertical farming, aquaponics and all the rest of the immensely beneficial technology we have today.

A community run kitchen, where everyone’s food is cooked in one go. Zero waste, minimal heating elements, a magnitude less GHGs and the best bit: community interaction. If this were incorporated with a majority vegetable diet we would literally solve the Climate problem overnight.

Seven sentences to fix the planets climate.

Obviously this is hugely against the current economic structure of globalisation-exploiting poor nations for their labour to max profits. But again dignity, integrity and respect is the path I wish to choose, do you?

Obviously complexities regarding more complicated goods are apparent but the fact remains that feeding, watering, housing and providing electricity can be achieved locally and easily. The basic necessities of life could easily be provided for everyone, everywhere. This should not be a privilege in the 21st century, where as a species we are discussing the behaviour of quarks and supernovae. Technology is obviously at a level to provide a good standard of living for everyone. Once this is achieved we can deliberate at leisure on the nuisances of providing everybody with a snorkel to go snorkelling with whilst on holidays.

But there is something in technologies way. We all know what it is so let’s simply change it. Not easily done but simply done.

Simply: Quantify, produce and distribute earth’s resources in a structured, organised, sustainable, localised and equitable fashion.

Ok, so when we have reached a level of food security, how do we know how many snorkels to produce, where and when you ask?

Key Point 5- Networked Digital feedback

From a fragmented economic data relay to fully integrated sensor-based feedback system

  • Maximises feedback and information efficacy/utilisation
    • This will increase total economic efficiency

Currently, the socio-economic system sees resources as an endless pit. There is no part of free market capitalism that questions or polices the recuperation rate of the planets resources. Infinite growth through the consumption of resources is the only goal; maximise individual profit. All negative effects to the planet are in isolation and are externalities.

Each actor in the economic sphere merely acquires products related to demand of desired purchase and try’s to sell accordingly for individual gain. This failure of any approach of sustaianabilty is compounded by the comptetive nature and the wasteful practices touched upon previously.

Essentially, these isolated economic data tell us nothing about how, where, when and in what quantities resources can be used to maintain sustainability on a finite planet. At its very core our economic system is cancerous, viral.

The most wasteful and idiotic function of our current socio-economic system must be the phenomenon of planned obsolescence. Where companies, acting in complete isolation from one another and with a complete disregard for resource depletion, will purposefully make their product fail so as to ensure a repurchase or a necessity to buy their parts to fix it. Think of the tennis racket analogy above and the quantities of the tungsten etc. wasted….now double that every year.

In a system of planned feedback, deciding on what is needed to be produced in a holistic fashion, one would immediately cut out this ridiculous practice and achieve a true level of sustainability in harmony with the planets recuperation rate, constantly adapting to suit.

For goods of leisure, hobbies, tools, transport, etc.

COMPUTERS! If you don’t understand the power and potential of computers in the year 2017 to solve the relatively simple problems of manufacture and distribution computations then please go back to A, or go back to whatever rock you crawled out from behind recently.

Essentially: manufacture and distribute goods in an effective, efficient and truly economic (in the truest sense of the word) fashion. Everyone would have access to the system to feedback preferences. This is a truly sustainable, environmentally conscious system.

Caveat: ensuring global sustainability (as the climate does not stop at national borders) requires knowledge of resources globally. A full global stock take is needed. Not possible in a competitive socio-economic system. So again, the very core of our system is hindering human progress and essentially destroying the very environment on which we depend. Pure madness.

This shit has got to go’ – the late and great Jacque Fresco.

Essentially the steps to sanity:

  1. Galvanise with anyone/organisation that wants to end oppression and live in an equal and sustainable society.
  2. Rally under a banner
    1. The first: the UBD
  3. Then proceed to next step (banner) and continue in solidarity, forever progressing and adapting

Please join me and all the concerned individuals who understand this and want to progress, let us galvanise and whole heartedly turn the corner as a civilised species, away from our barbaric past and forward into a future of dignity, integrity and respect.

The following video was made in conjunction with this piece:

Join TZM:

And DiEM25:

Thanks for reading ‘Waxy wick: another candle in the dark- shedding light on the abundant nonsense & posing solutions’

Comments welcome, follow me @gavgluaisteán or check out my youtube channel ‘what’s the craic?-Gluaisteán’ for some savage banter.

Transitioning from a Reformed Capitalistic Model to a Libertarian Socialist Model- Revolution Needed

Capitalism is structurally violent. The war on terrorism/drugs is just a war on abused and vulnerable people. Workaholics are rewarded resulting in stress and emotionally detached kids who grow to be addicts.

It seems to me that there are 4 standard or umbrella modes of societal structuring and after listening on numerous occasions to Chomskys description of each along with hours and hours of further study and research, its clear to me that a libertarian socialist model is the correct model currently thought of. It best aligns with human nature and the environment. From there, as I’ve said, we can move to an even more efficient model, an RBE.

But, the question is:

How do we go from the various forms of capitalism we find ourselves in today to a more saner global model.

Firstly, the main point must be stressed that this will have to be a grass roots movement in the mainstream medias face, with strict goals and targets on revolution, gaining traction and support the more we proceed.

Furthermore, this transition/revolution can only work to an LSE model if the people of the US do it first in their country or if many other countries do it at the same time; the latter seems more plausible. As we’ve seen on countless occasions before, the US just doesn’t allow anything outside of their form of globalised free-market capitalism. No justification required on this blog, I assume the readers are aware.

To even begin a revolution at the core of standard doctrine, it seems to me, that we need a climate or zeitgeist among much of the population that a consensus is held on what are the problems and solutions. It becomes apparent in my experience of travelling, that there are many people who want change. Of the ones that do want change there are a minimal number of them who actually know what change might be. They realise corporations are rapacious, governments are unrepresentative and their neighbours seem greedy and competitive but they don’t link the structure of capitalism to any of these.

The need for relevant information dissemination is apparent, the protection of the Internet the most important. The reforming of the most damaging symptoms the next: equality (banking sector, corporations) in Life Support (Waste, Env protection), Security (WAR & Prisons) and Education (Schools and media), which I’ve briefly discussed previously. Then a consensus among the educated population and the ones who see the benefits must be reached and this must gain more and more traction and support while we continue to practise civil disobedience in the face of policies or measures that are outside our principles.

Once enough people have joined, we demand a change in the way corporations & banks work; within the guidelines of our principals. We then minimise the government to its required size-depending on our policies- until a satisfactorily small government is left. It couldn’t completely dissolve but would probably just be a small administrative organisation that will have strict policies onto itself.

This is the only route to an LSE, in my opinion, at the national level. But how to do that across countries, on the global scale and in the face of the global capitalists will be one for the history books!! But I can think of no more a noble cause, a no more required course of action and a goal that would most benefit Species, Planet and Life.

I plan to discuss in detail and find/discover routes to transition. I’ll also discuss how it might work and/or look and how when the power is in each and everyone hands, No big brother is required.

But from this moment on I proclaim that:

I am a Revolutionary,

What I do? is try to revolutionise the global economic system in such a way that it works in protection of ALL humanity and in the limits of the GLOBAL natural environment.

I will work tirelessly to that end.

I will unite with anyone who seeks this end and will move in tandem with them.

I won’t stop until I am dead or Victory is realised.

THIS SHIT HAS GOT TO GO‘- The late and great Jacque Fresco

Thanks for reading ‘Waxy wick: another candle in the dark- shedding light on the abundant nonsense & posing solutions’ new blogs forthcoming.

Comments welcome, follow me @gavgluaisteán

Security in Free-market capitalist society

Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country” – Hermann Göring, during Nurumberg trials

“War is a racket, it always has been” –General Smedley D. Butler

Salvador Allende was overthrown because he was a Marxist with great plans counter to American interests. That’s not allowed in a competitive economic system, the big bully on the schoolyard wants all the sweets for himself. So, really to stop war one needs to get at the root cause. Discussed previously

But let me quickly throw my 2 cents in. Firstly I don’t have a concrete opinion on every false flag or ‘terrorist act’ but I do believe a lot of people believe false flags to be true as the nature of democracy leaves War a tough thing to justify to the people.

Naomi Klien describes it well in her book; ‘the shock doctrine’ by saying a democratic nation needs a ‘shock’ to the populace as persuasion for aggression. Is it just a coincidence that Iraq has oil and the US consumes oil by the largest quantity per capita (32 times more than the average African). Or a convenience that the US’s military industrial complex pretty much requires constant war to satisfy itself and that about $750B of tax payer money is spent on the military a year. Crash+“WAR ON TERROR”-Refugees=$$$$$ (for the 1% who profit).

Read more about US interventions and the reasons for them in Naomi Kliens book linked here

But, this is all a requirement in a system of this type where we must compete; it all serves an agenda which keeps the establishment established, i.e the rich rich and the poor as servants. We cannot stop false flags, destructive crony capitalism and imperialism in isolation because it will just rare it’s ugly head somewhere else when the core system incentive remains the same.

We need a new ‘core’ to the system, one of altruism and cooperation as the only means to true peace.

This is discussed in my core piece on economic problems. This among others as simple reforms in areas of modern society as steps toward a transition to a Libertarian Society economic model described in my piece entitled “transition” this then can be grown to a system of relative utopia where money is no longer required and everyone and everything is safe, secure, healthy and happy.

Finally and important, arguably the stupidest thing in the 21st century: The justice/prison system. We have an economy that requires wage slaves and results in poverty as the money goes upwards. Which forces poverty and degradation on a percentage of society, those people are raised in poverty and when they act out by stealing or becoming addicted to drugs, arguably as a means of numbing pain we chuck them in cages as ‘punishment’. It’s not rehabilitation it’s punishment, in the cages with other people all being punished. They come out worse most of the time I imagine. Prisons that profit from the quantity of prisoners they have is a tragedy of the highest order. No further justification is required on this it is absolutely absurd. Constitutions that were written hundreds of years ago are also ridiculous, the world is so different now and changes daily. We need an adaptive law that is based on nature, a natural law.

Thanks for reading ‘Waxy wick: another candle in the dark- shedding light on the abundant nonsense & posing solutions’ new blogs each week.

Comments welcome, follow me @gavgluaisteán

Thoughts on education and the media in free-market capitalism-simple reform

The fact is that given the challenges we face, education doesn’t need to be reformed — it needs to be transformed. The key to this transformation is not to standardize education, but to personalize it, to build achievement on discovering the individual talents of each child, to put students in an environment where they want to learn and where they can naturally discover their true passions.”

– Sir. Ken Robinson

The media

Information: Genuine Facts about what’s happening or what has happened

Misinformation: Facts presumed as such but are incorrect

Disinformation: Facts provided with the knowledge of falsehood

The mainstream media is currently fully controlled by vested interests in the interest of advertising their products, it’s abundantly obvious to the immediately learned man, they regularly practise disinformation in the interest of their corporate owners and hence the interests of the competitive market, with detrimental effects. To the layman stuck in its charm I feel sympathy. But again, this is not a piece on criticism; there is ample work on this.

I only wish to postulate briefly on a simple reform technique at the national level:

  1. Provide a national media outlet, run by the people for the people
    • No private interests allowed or tied to this organisation
    • EG: The Irish National Media Organisation (INMO)
    • Organised as a cooperative, not-for-profit, answerable to viewers
    • National ‘freedom of speech’ rating provided by the people
    • National ‘transparency index;’ provided by the people
    • National ‘unbiased index’ provided by the people
  2. Provide incentives to encourage community based media outlets
    • Control the concentration of capital to maximise quantity of outlets
    • remove the advertisement incentive for media outlets, subsidise if necessary
  3. Any media organisation is required to be fully transparent and answerable to the people.
    • Private ones can continue but must be fully transparent on who owns them, their balances etc.
    • Each time the INMO finds they have provided Mis or Disinformation they will be reduced in rating until they are shut down.
    • The people will then know the quality of information


Currently we have (in the west anyway) an education system that is more like a factory line up with robots dictated to with no genuine life skills learned. Finally to be punished when they can’t operate effectively in the ‘market’. The more money your parents have the better the school you go to, the more opportunities you have, the better the job you get. The cycle continues with social mobility ever decreasing. Is it rigged in this manner to maintain a stock of worker drones? Probably, but again I’m not here to criticise. See this piece for that.

But let me talk on simple reform here.


NO PRIVATE EDUCATION, always not-for-profit, answerable to the parents/people

Flip the education ideals

  1. Homework should be online ‘khan academy’ style, information dictated to them directly under parent’s supervision, obviously in a fun manner.
    • Children that can’t afford a home computer, the government will provide a ‘learning tablet’
    • One can imagine super cheap ‘learning tablets’, solely with the curriculum downloaded.
  2. Teacher briefly quizzes them on content knowledge from homework and groups accordingly
    • Children who didn’t watch it, don’t get grouped and it’s solely the parents fault
  3. Then class is solving problems related in groups
    • Promotes critical thinking and problem solving
    • Make them be wrong and reward being wrong

Should Children be grouped by age or capability?

  • Age to start with but as they grow older they join groups of like minded children OR unlike-minded ones BUT in an ever refined grouping strategy to make the most effective problem solvers
  • The teachers will require training on how to notice young children’s strengths and weaknesses and scale and group them accordingly

Everything one needs to know about proper schooling can be found by listening to lectures by Sir.Ken Robinson.

Bottom line, this mans education ideals need to be enacted at national level.

With this simple switch in strategy one can imagine a child ever increasing her capabilities in areas that she is strong in until finally graduating with a strong confident knowledge in her strong field, which she can be of maximum benefit to society in.

Check this lecture out on corporate attack on education

Have a look at these great people promoting democratic schools

Sir. Ken Robinsons lecture

Thoughts on free-market capitalism reform- Equality

“Give me control of a nation’s wealth and I care not who makes the laws.”- David Rockefeller

Credit Suisse in 2015 stated that 1% of the worlds population holds 50% of the wealth.

So, It’s blatantly obvious to the learned man that the banking system/financial system is rigged and controlled by a few people in their very own interest with a system that supports their control. To the layman I thought it was obvious but it seems the average Joe feels there is a problem but cannot comprehend it. But, for the purpose of this blogs topic, I will not be talking about how the financial system is rigged, watch these documentaries, if you need information. I’ll only be talking about solutions but let me be clear: I am not an economic professor or very learned in this field, I just listen to the people who are and they have solutions. I will merely summarise the various options they present in a conclusive and concise manner, then give links to their works/sites.

Firstly, let this be clear, before maybe the 16th century interest was called usary and it was illegal in civilised society. What changed to allow the bankers to profit from other people? They will give you some spiel about ‘ratcheting up the economy’ like they always do in order to conceal their true agenda. But it should be obvious to anyone: a privately owned bank making money from your desperation and out of nothing (interest) is a serious problem. They give loans and then you must pay back more. If money is supposed to be a pricing index in direct correlation to goods and/or services, then this extra money (made out of thin air aka debt) will create immense inequality. They’re essentially loan sharks, concealed behind a nice suit and legislation made in their favour- obviously through provocation.

So, the steps to financial reform are: (links provided to organsiations working on/or with this reform)

  1. Separate the current banks into commercial and private
    • Commercial banks are government owned and give loans out to the people with zero interest, or a small ceiling’d rate. Having a proper ‘ratcheting effect’.
      • They are answerable to the people and can’t make silly bets on property that send the whole planet into recession
    • Private banks are then called Investment banks and people can choose to invest (gamble) with them if they wish
      1. They are required to be fully transparent
    • This can be done at national level soon
  2. Private banks cannot create any money from loans
    • 91% of money is created this way, it’s money from nothing, going to the top from the bottom
      • Also can be done at national level in tandem with step 1
  3. Close the FUCKING tax havens down
    • Multilateral legislation in the form of taxes paid only in original country
    • Multilateral legislation for agreed on corporate tax rate
    • This needs to be done at international level, very difficult in current ‘nationalist fervor’ state
  4. Global Tax on capital
    • Multilateral legislation on taxing the capital in an incremental way
    • Again, very difficult, international required

Obviously, this is extremely difficult in the current ‘nationalist fervor’ state we find ourselves in because each country has different legislation and are out for their own interests. The whore countries (like Ireland) need the economic gains, corporate investment and the people need the jobs. But to allow this to continue is a bigger problem to the planet as a whole and sacrifice must be made.

Again the problem here is a competitive economic system. It’s in a nations best interest to be a whore to corporate globalised interests. Especially small countries like Ireland or the caymen islands, who need to compete with the big boys. True reform of this needs complete reform at the international level but again we’re stuck in a multi faceted competitive economic system, controlled by the people at the very top in their interests. We need change at the very ,very core of the economic system and it must be demanded and enacted by the people. Anything else is just patch work but as I’ll describe in a later piece I feel these reform techniques are required primarily as a stepping stone to create the societal environment to enable the people to demand change to a better system, that works for them and adapts to the requirements of nature. More on this to come.

Read these 37 ways to reform an economy, very well done for a better summary of reform techniques

Watch Lectures by positive money UK

Check this website for Modern Money Theory reform techniques

Read this book by Thomas Pikkety for arguably the most accurate, data full economic literature to date.

Thanks for reading ‘Waxy wick: another candle in the dark- shedding light on the abundant nonsense & posing solutions’ new blogs each week.

Comments welcome, follow me @gavgluaisteán

Meat in Capitalistic economics and it’s negative effects- thoughts on simple reform

‘If we all regarded meat as a novelty and had one portion a week, we could drive all the cars we wanted, and fly in all the planes till we got sick of the lovely food” -me

Firstly, there is a paper written that states and calculates that “IF” livestock raring was calculated correctly (by this they mean that the standard practise of calculating emissions in this sector does not cover everything or disregards vital points) then this would equate to 51% of global emissions. If this is true, to a learned person in this field the above statement needs no further justification.

However, One can only argue how correct and accurate this is so let me discuss meat and it’s problems anyway:

Animal raring, and the by-products, for consumption are currently at unsustainable levels. The ramifications of the practise are causing serious problems to the climate, water security, species habitat and human health, not to mention the grotesque inhumane practices currently adopted to produce the products at the level demanded. Some quick facts about it:

  • The Amazon is affectionately called ‘Earths Lungs’
    • Amazon absorbs about a quarter of all the CO2 in the air by the land
  • Amazon being cut down at about 6,000 SqKm/yr
    • 91% cut down for raring livestock
  • Livestock emits 7,516MT of CO2 eq/yr in 2010 according to the UN FAO.
    • Similar to all the road vehicles (4972) and the planes in the world (751) according to the IEA
  • Species loss in the amazon alone is drastic
  • 2500 gallons of fresh water required for each kilo of meat
  • Manure from cattle flows into rivers and out to sea causing huge dead zones

There is the argument, and I can see where people come from, that it’s a natural thing to eat meat. I agree that the food chain is natural but I contend that if we know it’s unsustainable to eat meat and causing harm to our environment then the civilised/obvious thing to do is to cut down on consumption until we reach safe levels.

On the other hand, it seems ‘cool’ now to label yourself a vegan or vegetarian and then never enjoy any meat or cheese as if its now sacrilegious to do so. I’m 50% vegan, 90% vegetarian and 10% omnivore, what’s my label? quasi-veggie? This whole thing is ridiculous, stop the labels, eat less meat or none at all if you wish but don’t be a pretentious dick about it.

Anyway, Eating meat was required during our evolution, I imagine, when we struggled to find calories, but this is largely not the problem anymore. We now have an abundance of efficient technologies that can produce sufficient calories and feed the whole population on a diet without meat. Meat could remain a novelty item to satisfy the people who want it.

The problem again is the economic system. Poorer countries need to provide calories to their people, some are starving, therefore they rely on the products for export as a means of development. Brazil for example gains substantial GDP from Amazon destruction related industry but communities and families rely on the deforestation & farming for their livelihoods.

So essentially, in Free-market capitalism, if we wanted to save the atmosphere and have concern for animals & human health, the communities would go without pay, the economic system of the ‘poor’ countries would get worse and the livelihood of the poor would diminish (inevitably).

So the problem is with the economic system not with cows bowls or the farmers, it is just an unsustainable economic system that has no power, no inherent control, no clog in its machine to address problems like this. The problems are fully external, it cannot care.

SO, how do we reform it in a fashion that satisfies it’s current requirements and protect the environment sufficiently to give us enough time to change to a system that inherently reacts to the natural environment & human health?

  • At governmental level
    1. Policy that meat production is 1/7th of what it was per farm*
    2. Subsidise farmers so meat is 7 times the price
      1. Or, meat production substituted for veggies gets incentivised
    3. Policy of 1 portion of meat/wk/capita
  • At a personal level: Be happy to eat meat 1/7th of the time
    1. Chicken on Friday evenings
    2. Pork for Saturday Lunch
    3. Portion of Beef for Sunday Dinner
    4. Fish on Wednesday evening
    5. Condemn anyone who tries to show opulence by eating more meat
  • At community level: support farmers
    1. Work with them to ensure they retain their livelihoods
    2. Requires adapting to the changes and working together
    3. Requires a shift in values to support each other rather than compete

Quickly, an important point is that lots of perfect, fully ready to eat food is wasted (different quantities in different countries), essentially through poor management but you could argue the finer points. Again, it stems from a poor economic system as nobody works together, only against each other. To truly minimise this problem we would need an economic system that doesn’t see human health as an externality. Currently profit is all that’s required and the result is starving people while perfectly good food is produced and thrown out.

As a quick aside: another example of this for clarity: homeless people living on the street while there are empty flats & houses available. It’s not because there’s no house for them, it’s because they can’t ‘afford’ it. People aren’t hungry because there’s not enough food for them.

Quick reform techniques, to minimise it, in the pursuit of a saner system where providing food is a basic right to everyone and not depending on market fluctuations or financial access. (human and environmental health should not be open to the punishments of poor market decisions):

  • Waste reduction through ‘full life-cycle cost’ taken by producer.
    1. Producer must have infrastructure/facilities to fully recycle any good produced
    2. Incentive to use easily recyclable materials in goods production
    3. Incentive to minimise transport (GHGs) and to maximise distribution/reclaim efficiency
    4. This should reduce private property reliance also
  • Community based ‘grocery store-come-restaurants’ run by the community for the community.
    1. Ensures minimum waste as oldest food will be used first and knowledge will grow at exponential rate to ensure perfect quantities & minimum waste


At the start I said we could drive all the cars we want etc. but this is unsustainable too, really. We have the current situation because the oil oligarchs have fashioned it that way. There are plenty of alternatives to internal Combustion Engine (ICE) cars, especially privately owned ones where they sit for 95% of their lives then carry one person for the other 5% of their lives. Non-private (always full) Electric vehicles from renewable energy is the goal but the point here is that WE COULD burn all the fossil fuel reserves instead of having livestock, if we cut meat consumption right down and allowed the forests to grow. But this is just silly, cut them both down, solving one problem and allowing another to grow is not a solution.

But it does give us time to wrestle and wrangle up the lunatics, the oil oligarchs and the psychopaths playing their crazy little games, games that are causing serious problems and harm. Then we can choose the optimum way of species development at our leisure.

Thanks for reading ‘Waxy wick: another candle in the dark- shedding light on the abundant nonsense & posing solutions’ new blogs each week.

Comments welcome, follow me @gavgluaisteán or check out my youtube channel ‘what’s the craic?-Gluaisteán’ for some savage banter.


Refugees, Western Governments and Me

“WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.”

Smedley D. Butler, War Is a Racket

I just finished a week volunteering at the Dunkirk refugee camp in North France and I feel I need to blog about my experience, my reasons for helping and my position on the causes. This is a blog on macroeconomics and in my opinion all refugees today are economic refugees, as War is really just about economic control as Major General Smedley eloquently describes in his book.

Firstly I want to congratulate ‘Utopia56’ for the exemplary job they have done in making this camp liveable, even a place of dignity for the refugees. Further, a thanks to all my colleagues that give up time in their lives to help these poor displaced people. This is a point in my life I will never forget and that’s thanks to the organisations, volunteers and very grateful refugees. In my experience the refugees are decent people, just trying to make it in a crazy world, where for some reason people from a foreign land have caused them so much harm, forced them to leave friends and family, their home and country.

To say they are just looking for a ‘free-ride’ in the west is just offensive, ridiculous and reductive. Whoever holds this position is either ignorant, intensely stupid or arrogantly holds an agenda. The west tries to control the world and it’s resources, gets rich by exploiting countries in their own interest and then condemns people for trying to come to where all the resources are, just in pursuit of a better life. It is arguably the most ironically hypocritical circumstance in the history of humanity and it really gets me vexed.

My experience

I spent nearly a week in the camp, working with the organisation Utopia56. I worked 12 hour days, cutting vegetables, distributing food, cleaning the camp (involved clearing rubbish bags and providing new ones), Standing at entrances to the site for security, handing out donations, laundry, making things with wood, we also dug a trench for refuse water (under the guidance of a professional builder).


There is much more to do, but mostly I spent my time in the ‘bike workshop’ because I’m pretty good with my hands, basically a heap of old bikes and bits, try to make a bike from the pile. Also, help the kids that come along to fix up their bikes. This I found most rewarding, I started one morning trying to make a toddler girls bike out of the scrap, and by 5pm, with the help of a very capable Iraqi guy, it was ready to go. A young girl was ecstatic with it.

Over all, the work was not hard and the hours were long but rewarding. The refugees are very grateful for your help and are always happy to see you and say ‘hello my friend’ with a smile and are eager to learn about you/your culture. They are honest, decent people trying to make a living for themselves in desperation while still remaining positive, graffiti like ‘still I am positive’ and responses to ‘how are you’ with ‘I am surviving my friend’ are common. If you’re reading this and are concerned, I highly recommend sparing a week or more of your life helping (follow the link above).

Bottom line, it will take a lot more than a few bombs to destroy these people, they’re strong, you can’t win you crazy psychos, there’s people like all those volunteers I worked with there that are concerned for them and that will fight you every step of the way, keep your warmongering to yourselves. Plotting in your silly board rooms, tied up in your stupid looking suits.

My Reason for helping

Let me state; the governments of the west do not represent me, I condemn NATO expansionism, terrorism in all it’s forms and complicity to War. I went to Dunkirk to try to show those people, in what little way I could, that I am concerned for their well-being and apologise for the actions of the people that are/or have managed to gain control of me. I’m Irish and even though Ireland is not part of NATO I feel the same level of disdain and responsibility, for example we shouldn’t be allowing U.S planes to stop in Shannon en-route to bomb. I am also a EU citizen but more importantly a human of Earth, whatever is causing these problems to my brothers and sisters must stop. I am partly responsible for it, and so is everyone else. Our collective apathy is as bad as the actions.

My position

Imperial agendas, economic hegemony and hence NATO expansionism is the cause of this, NATO is the 21st century empires war department, and the refugee crisis in Europe is nothing more than a symptom of Imperial agendas by sociopaths. NATO’s purpose pre-Russian empire collapse was to protect against Russia. Now what are they doing? Expanding to the east of Berlin ever more. ISIS is a direct result of this, and it suits their agenda.

Continuing War is profitable as resources can be extracted more easily and the home-population can then be more easily lead, preferable to them in an ever-increasing autocratic manner. Study anything by Noam Chomsky on expansionism for a very well articulated explanation of this.

Further, a position I agree with as it seems logical, noted by respected and knowledgeable people like Ken o Keefe, Gearoid O Colmain and George Galloway, to name a few, is that ISIS is funded by the very people who claim to be fighting them, perpetuation of war is the agenda, it’s profitable!

It seems logical to me that If they really wanted to destroy ISIS they could. NATO is by far the most powerful force, probably ever. It’s ridiculous to think ISIS could contend if not supported and if NATO used its full arsenal. The result is refugees, displaced families, death and suffering. All in the name of profit. It sickens me but it’s just another symptom of a sick system, rotting at its core.

Addendum (27-05-2016)

It came to my attention that this is not obvious to some, so let me put it in to clarify: Obviously, the situation is very complex and it’s reductive to state that every problem is due to NATO expansionism or imperial agendas. The internal struggles of the region have a part to play, so does religion, so does a myriad of other things that I can’t even begin to comprehend. The Kurdish majority in the camp is probably due to some form of racial oppression but again….pandoras box. My point is that, imperial agendas in that region are to blame for a lot of the instability and as a ‘westerner’…I feel…VEXED about and somewhat responsible.

An analogy to conclude

Imagine a rotting tree please. The dying leaves at the bottom of the tree are the refugees or homeless; the few healthy ones are at the top, sucking all the nutrients. The twigs are jobs, holding the leafs, were more and more become skinnier and weaker, barely holding the leaf. The branches are corporations (globalisation), with a sole interest in broadening itself in complete disregard for the leaves and the Tree as a whole. The Trunk is a Nation, a Free-market capitalistic nation for example- ever growing, disregarding the replenishment rate of the nutrients. The roots are in competition-providing the tree with nutrients that are acquired at the expense of the other roots and trees, greedily disregarding the soils replenishment rate.

The soil is the environment or society as a whole.

If we want healthy & happy leafs, who don’t risk their lives trying to make there way to the top (where all the nutrients are) and who have strong twigs with responsible branches, a prudent trunk and concerned roots. We need only stop intoxicating the soil with poor values, educate in a proper manner. Provide nutrients to the roots that teach cooperation and altruism. How? Intends to be discussed in this blog.

Thanks for reading ‘Waxy wick: another candle in the dark- shedding light on the abundant nonsense & posing solutions’ new blogs each week.

Comments welcome, follow me @gavgluaisteán or check out my youtube channel ‘what’s the craic?-Gluaisteán’ for some savage banter.

Darwin, Dawkins and Deists

I just finished reading ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins and I want to get this out of my head before I go back to this blogs major topic: Economic system reform and thoughts on transition. Religion is a major topic of discussion but not part of the scope here, so let me get it out of the way and leave it there.

  • Theist=        Belief in a personal God that is in your head, answers prayers etc.
  • Deist=          Belief in a God that isn’t in your head, only started the universe.
  • Agnostic=    Equal argument that there could be a God as couldn’t
  • Atheist=       Don’t believe in a God

Dawkins claims to be Atheist but I pose that currently everyone that is atheist is agnostic, because that ‘Crane’ which he describes in his book to explain the evolution and beginning of the cosmos is currently non-existent, as he says. Darwin’s evolution of life, which is blatantly obvious, explains life on earth. This does not automatically qualify the same principals for the cosmos. Hence, Dawkins must be agnostic until the day we do prove this ‘cosmic crane of information’. Maybe an apt title would be ‘Ath-agnostic’ where ‘there is equal argument for God as not but I’m more inclined to believe not’ and people who are more inclined toward the ‘God’ side of agnosticism would be Thee-agnostic. But this complicates things even further, it’s already a rigmarole of labels already.

Which leads me to my main point here, that this whole argument is abundantly complicated, frustrating and currently unsolvable. The only ‘religion’ that tries to evaporate this cloud of ignorance is Buddhism and they aren’t considered a religion (in the truest sense), they merely say that the answers to these questions are unsolvable and only causes you ‘Dukha’*, the most apt English translation for that I found is: ‘angst’, when reading, ‘Buddhism plain and simple’ by Steven Hague.

So, I was born a Christian but always questioned the bullshit of it, Conceited to being a deist when I was old enough to pose my own argument or thoughts on the subject. Then after more research I related to Buddhism but only really the parts where they contend that ‘seeking these answers, cause you dukha’ and that life is like a river-just go with the flow, death and pain are parts of life. And it did cause me dukha, previously every time I sat on the toilet, I exhaled a sigh and questioned my purpose, it’s frustrating. But I did not agree with all the other bullshit they package with it-funny hats etc.

Therefore, I have a title for my beliefs (or non-beliefs) and the lifestyle that follows, and it is:

‘Apatheist’– key word is apathy. Where essentially, I care not for the discussion, there may or may not be a God but I don’t care to waste anymore of my energy on the question because it serves nothing, only more angst.

  • I will live my life as I see fit with the goal of pursuing maximum happiness.
    • The blatantly obvious fact (to me anyway, neo-liberals might disagree) that my happiness is fully dependent on everyone else’s happiness makes a ‘religion’ with positive morals- socially egalitarian.

This does not suggest that when we are apathetic to the question of Gods existence we are automatically Apathetic to the question of the beginnings of the cosmos. On the contrary, the goal of describing the crane of logic to the beginnings’ of the cosmos is the same, but now we don’t have to try dis-prove something that, in-fact, was never proved in the first place.

Creationist-‘Gods real because there is no other explanation’

Apatheist- ‘No time for your nonsense, I need to check my latest data’

The beauty of Apatheism is that: Engaging me on the questions of religion is against my religion. Therefore, nobody can ever annoy you or preach their ridiculous beliefs at you anymore, no longer do you have to suffer it, sigh of relief anyone?

Let me say now, I’ve never been happier since ascribing to this way of life. I no longer have this mind-power-wasting angst anymore. I just do whatever I want and don’t get hung up on ‘getting a job’ or ‘pleasing’ everyone else. It amplifies the Buddhist tenants of: life is a like a river, go with the flow, don’t resist it by trying to control everything, Death is just part of life, the river must meet the ocean sometime.

NOTE: Finished writing this, then googled ‘apatheist’, it’s a thing already! My mistake 🙂 well my beliefs are congruent with those of my apatheist predecessors.

Thanks for reading ‘Waxy wick: another candle in the dark- shedding light on the abundant nonsense & posing solutions’ new blogs each week.

Comments welcome, follow me @gavgluaisteán or check out my youtube channel ‘what’s the craic?-Gluaisteán’ for some savage banter.

*Dukha or Angst. It’s the constant niggling at the back of your mind that you should be doing something or impressing someone or figuring out what life is about and your place in it and why you ARE. This only causes angst, nothing more, ‘unsolvable questions that don’t require answers, spend that energy on something that creates happiness’

No climate problem, no energy problem, no hunger problem-just an economic problem and its effects

“It is now highly feasible to take care of everybody on Earth at a higher standard of living than any have ever known. It no longer has to be you or me. Selfishness is unnecessary. War is obsolete. It is a matter of converting our high technology from WEAPONRY to LIVINGRY.”

-R.Buckminster Fuller

That was said in 1981 in the book ‘Critical Path’, however I’m sure it was expressed sooner. The point here is that the technological level in 1981 was satisfactory for material abundance, this is abundantly truer in 2016, where technological advancements have seen leaps and bounds. The internet for example.

The problem we have is the economic system and it’s negative effects stifling technological freedom. I’ve said in a previous blog that there are no illuminati and no reptilian overlords, we only have an economic system with moral negatives at the core and the resulting world we see today with psychopaths & sociopaths in control is a manifestation of such. The resulting climate problems, poverty and environmental degradation are natural ramifications. To sort out all these problems we need only sort out the core problem of a competitive market place with greed as the motive and change to a cooperative one with altruism as the motive, the manifestations & ramifications will then be positives.

How can we achieve this?

Let me first discuss human nature. This is always the first argument in response to a more social socio-economic model ‘The problem with that is that Humans are greedy, it’s in our nature’. This makes me cringe; maybe it’s in your nature, or more correctly in your indoctrinated head. A human’s nature (emphasis on ‘A’ because there is 7.2 billion different humans) can be seen like a bandwidth, illustrated below.

Screen Shot 2016-04-27 at 15.45.38

Where person B has the capacity (nature) to be morally half ‘bad’ or fully ‘good’ and where person D has the capacity to be half ‘good’ or fully ‘bad’, in their ‘nature’. The environment one grows in has total influence on where person A or D will end up on the scale[1]. Hence, in an economic system that rewards and encourages greed/selfishness/competition (essentially, look out for yourself-step over everyone else) then Person B will typically end up half bad and person D will typically end up fully bad[2], if wishing to succeed. There are exceptions however, as person/s A do become fully good, raised in an environment where they are thought to not care for the established measure of success.

The point is: to succeed in this economic system, the more ‘bad’ you are the more successful you are, as a rule. Therefore, the ‘worst’ of us rise to the top while the ‘better’ people question what has happened. Therefore, we need an economic system that rewards the ‘good’ side of our nature.

So, If it’s not human nature, why has this historically manifested?

Because scarcity of resources was historically constant in our species evolution, so competition is apparent. This is the same for any organism on Earth, the difference now is that we are not like any other organism on Earth, we are fully sentient, have dominated and understood the Earth and Universe to a level that we can use tools and machines to manage resources and provide abundance.

So why don’t use our technology to provide abundance?

Because we continue this economic system of competition as the incentive and greed as the motive where it suits the establishment to have control, look out your window for justification. This is no longer required, we need merely make the decision to change to a system of cooperation as the incentive and altruism as the motive, free our machines to provide full automation for us and live in harmony with the environment. The problem is that the psychopaths that have risen to the top are so ingrained into it now, through generations of power, that they want it to remain as it is because they have full control, it’s a power complex of sorts I imagine. They have some how managed to get “HUMAN NATURE IS GREEDY” into everyone’s head, this then justifies their unequal portion of wealth.

So, let me clarify the core argument, and I will always relate back to this in the future:

  1. An ‘economic system’ is a system to manage production/distribution of resources
  2. Resources are the core of human needs, therefore an economic system is the core to manage society and should be used to maximum efficiency.
  3. An economic system with competition as the core human interaction results in negative manifestations in the real world-i.e. Inequality, Poverty, war etc.
  4. Therefore, an economic system with cooperation as the orientation should be incorporated- to instil positive manifestations in the real world- i.e. equality, altruism, environmental concern.

So, how do we get from here to a society of cooperative altruistic individuals?

Obviously a society of 7.2 billion people is very complex but when addressing the core of society it can be basic in theory, and a cooperative society seems an obvious goal[3]. This blog will discuss how we get to there on a point by point basis but essentially I see: (and I hate to use labels)

  1. A ‘Natural Law Resource Based Economy’ (NLRBE) with,
  2. A ‘Libertarian socialist economy’ (LSE)
    1. As a stepping stone to a NLRBE with,
  3. ‘Socialist’ reform techniques to the current ‘free market capitalist’[4] economy
    1. As a steeping stone to a LSE.

Again, I will not be giving a critique on our socio-economic situation; critiques are abundant and you need only look out the window for proof of fault. But I believe this route is the way to promote, encourage and reward the ‘good’ side of our nature. In the coming weeks/months/years I will discuss how I believe we go through steps 3, 2 & 1 on a transitional scale to a safe, friendlily, clean and fun environment for future generations.

Suggested extra content:


Thanks for reading ‘Waxy wick: another candle in the dark- shedding light on the abundant nonsense & posing solutions’ new blogs each week.

Comments welcome, follow me @gavgluaisteán or check out my youtube channel ‘what’s the craic?-Gluaisteán’ for some savage banter.


[1] This is even true in the womb, see lectures by Dr.Gabor Mate

[2] The question of what bad and good morales are is another debate. But I think we can all agree on core values i.e. altruism, friendliness, non-violence etc. are good

[3] Again, Indoctrination in the established norm is the reason why it’s considered ‘against human nature’.

[4] No country or economic system is purely capitalist today but again, it’s the label that most suits.