Yesterday I finished writing the third version of my New Good
Intentions Manifesto, providing my socialist philosophy based on
people having predominantly good or bad intentions. This version
includes a justification of Marxist class-based analyses as partially
correct, explained in terms of such intentions. Thus, it should
encourage Marxists to unite with me to a greater extent than has
previously been the case when I was (often consciously) undermining
Marxism. The manifesto also includes a new section on implications for
the environment, which is a particularly important issue in the run-up
to the global summit on climate change in Copenhagen in December.


The New Good Intentions Manifesto

Written by Steve Wallis (www.socialiststeve.me.uk, www.socialiststeve.in)
Version 3, 2nd September 2009
This document can be downloaded for printing/distribution from either
of the above websites.


Purpose of the New Good Intentions Manifesto

This manifesto contains an overview of my analysis of society,
particularly highlighting the roles played by those who have
predominantly good intentions (and are caring towards others) and
those who have predominantly bad intentions (and are selfish). People
with good intentions tend to want a more harmonious world with the
problems of capitalist society (such as war, poverty, discrimination
and environmental destruction) solved; while those with bad intentions
tend to prefer conflict and the continuation of such problems. The
more foresighted of those with bad intentions, including at least some
of Barack Obama's advisors (and perhaps Obama himself who I am unsure
about as I explain towards the end of this document) want to avoid
problems like global warming becoming so severe that they threaten the
end of humanity, because it is selfish to want yourself and your
descendents to live! Implications of this manifesto for the
environment are so important that I have added a section on that
topic.

This manifesto presents an alternative worldview to Marxism with the
aim of influencing political activists and politicians, and others yet
to become politically active or influencing society outside politics.
I regard genuine Marxists as allies in the struggle for socialism
(most of the time anyway) even though their analysis is flawed as I
will demonstrate. Apologies if I over-generalise; the analyses of
Marxists vary and some now support proportional representation (PR),
including the Socialist Party of England and Wales and the Socialist
Workers Party's Alex Callinicos.  Let me start by explaining what sort
of world I am fighting for.

I have argued for some time for a form of socialism with a government
elected by PR, and set up the Foundation for Proportional
Representation-based Socialism (www.PRsocialism.org). I would support
some degree of workers' control, plus representatives of local
communities, in addition to PR - this is sometimes called
"participatory democracy" - preferable to nationalised industries
completely controlled by government appointees, or indeed bosses
dating back from when they were private entities as with the newly
nationalised banks in the UK (which should be mainly controlled by
borrowers and savers). I would also welcome discussions and referenda
taking part on-line, to encourage greater participation of ordinary
people in the decision-making process (although I would be wary of
such developments under capitalism with the possibility of fraud as
happened in the US presidential election between George W Bush and
John Kerry). To guard against politicians selling out (failing to
honour manifesto commitments or defecting to other parties), I would
also advocate annual elections and the ability for some proportion of
the electorate to force a new general election via a petition.

More important to me than the issue of whether we have socialism or
capitalism, or indeed anarchy or communism, is the ability to choose
between different forms of society via elections. Undemocratic forces
such as fascists should also be allowed to stand and put out their
propaganda, although I would strongly oppose them coming to power and
support the right of postal workers to refuse to distribute their
leaflets. I would strongly advocate PR irrespective of the form of
society.

There is an ongoing debate on the left about what form of political
party or network the left should form in order to achieve our goals. I
advocate democratic revolutionary socialist parties (particularly in
Britain) calling for both PR and participatory democracy - more wishy-
washy (broader) parties were arguably better before the current
economic crisis, under which massive cuts in public spending and/or
tax rises are inevitable under the capitalist economic system, so we
now need to point out the need for a sudden thorough change of society
(a "revolution" whether or not we use that word but I am encouraging
its explicit use in the name of such a party in Britain). I recognise
however that many people are playing a good role in massively varying
organisations and in society generally, and see all our endeavours as
part of the solution rather than one particular organisation as key,
unlike most Marxists.

Many Marxists, particularly Trotskyists, argue that world socialism is
vital for it to work, because capitalist countries that remain in the
world would otherwise invade socialist countries or perhaps drop
nuclear bombs on them. It is my contention that such nightmare
scenarios could be avoided if most people in power have (mainly) good
intentions. However, I have recently realised that when the choice
between capitalism and a very democratic form of socialism is clearly
on the agenda, most people with good intentions will be in favour of
socialism, and similarly for bad intentions and capitalism, so my
position is closer to Marxism than I previously thought.

Whereas I believe it is vital for some Western countries to become
socialist in order to ease world poverty, and I think the United
Kingdom could well be first in that regard, renamed of course to
reflect the abolition of the monarchy, I would prefer a more varied
interesting world to a communist utopia as envisaged by Marxists in
which there is nothing left to struggle for. I am highly dubious about
the possibility of eliminating all prejudices and crime (as Marx and
Engels envisaged after years of socialism with the state "withering
away") due to tensions over religion, love and homosexuality, plus
environmental shortages. But I am prepared to be surprised, and if the
world gets too boring, some could set up a different form of society
elsewhere in the galaxy!


Problems and advantages of a class analysis

The role a particular person plays in political struggles within
society is affected by many different factors, including his or her
genes, upbringing, education and occupation, the other people he or
she has known and interacted with and the organisations (including
political parties, single issue campaigns, trade unions and
conspiratorial organisations like MI5 and the CIA) he or she is a
member of.

Marxists believe that the main determining factor about a person's
role in such struggles is his or her class and that the most important
struggles to win are those for the domination of one class over
others. They believe that the current ruling class is big business
(the bourgeoisie) and want to overthrow it so that the working class
(proletariat) is in control of society via hierarchies of committees
based on workplaces (sometimes called "the dictatorship of the
proletariat" although they rarely use this term nowadays for obvious
reasons). Some Marxists keep quiet about this part of their programme,
but the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) mentions their desire for such
"councils of workers' delegates" in the "What the SWP stands for"
column in every issue of their newspaper Socialist Worker.

Part of the problem of winning people to the ideas of socialism with a
class-based analysis is one of perception, with fewer people regarding
themselves as working class than in the past. This is a particularly
big problem in the USA, undoubtedly deliberately fostered by the big
business-controlled media, resulting in politicians concentrating
their rhetoric on what they will do for the middle class. Marxists are
not particularly consistent in their interpretation of the middle
class; they often call it "the petty bourgeoisie" which literally
means owners of small businesses, but the term was also used in the
Socialist Party (SP) of England and Wales, when I was a member in the
1990s, for middle management, poor peasants and large landowners (in
Russia in 1917 for example), and more privileged students. The above-
mentioned Socialist Worker column bizarrely claims "The working class
create all the wealth under capitalism", implying that even self-
employed people and owners of small businesses are working class! My
own class is a bit of an enigma, with both my parents having gone to
Cambridge University and obtained PhDs (doctorates), and with me
having lived in quite middle class areas and attended good
comprehensive schools (state schools for children of all abilities),
having made a fair amount of money from royalties through writing
computer games, but with my parents being poor enough for me to get a
full university grant. Working as a university researcher was not the
most working class job in the world, but I regarded myself as
identifying with the working class when I was in the SP.

Marxist arguments can weaken the struggle for socialism by
perpetuating the selfish "I'm alright, Jack" attitude put forward by
right-wing politicians. They argue for workers uniting together, going
on strike, generating solidarity for each other on the basis that such
acts are in their interests - that acting collectively benefits a
working class person more than acting individualistically. This is
true in some cases but in many it is not, except in the long term if
their efforts uniting together help bring about a socialist
revolution, and socialists should help the efforts of idealistic
people who really care about others. It is no wonder that many former
Marxists sell out, and act in their own selfish interests rather than
those of other working class people or society as a whole, when they
get into positions of power and/or acquire wealth.

A further problem with a class analysis is that fascists as well as
socialists consist of both working and middle class people, yet
fascists are bigger enemies than big business (in situations where
they stand a chance of coming to power at least).

To balance the above problems of a class analysis, it should be noted
that working class people tend to be less selfish than those in other
classes, particularly if they have chosen to work in a profession that
encourages helping others (such as nursing or teaching). Some choose
to work in the public sector in their desire to help society rather
than maximise the profit of a boss, but workers banding together to
carry out a strike in the private sector too tends to help their
camaraderie and therefore good intentions towards fellow workers.
Conversely, owning a successful business often requires being ruthless
towards your competitors and staff (although a good workplace
atmosphere can help motivate workers be more effective). Middle
managers tend to be careerists, primarily motivated by their wage
packet and achieving promotion within the company. Therefore,
Marxists' class-based analysis is correct to a large extent.


The Good Intentions Hypothesis

I argue in this manifesto that whether somebody genuinely cares about
other people and wants to help make the world a better place is a more
important determining factor in what that person does than his or her
class - which I call "The Good Intentions Hypothesis". Such people
(with good intentions) tend to be better allies in the struggle for a
better world than those (with bad intentions) who are predominantly
selfish and want to make the world a worse place or deliberately
hamper attempts to improve it.

There are, of course, a lot of grey areas between good and bad
intentions. Some people only care about a subset of the world's
population, such as their friends and family or people of the same
race, nationality, religion, gender or sexuality - I would tend to
regard such people as having bad intentions; even if they are allies
for a while, the use of divide-and-rule by the powers that be would
tend to make them enemies or at best unreliable allies, and people of
various bigotries tend to align themselves with each other or pretend
to hate each other while really being allies. Even if they really do
hate each other, it suits their purposes to use other bad people as
"bogeymen" (supposed opponents) in their struggle against well-
intentioned people who are the real threat to the continued control of
the world by bad people.

We have the free will to choose to be caring or selfish, and our
brains can be wired to prioritise one or the other of these
possibilities. Our mind can also change from being predominantly
selfish to caring (having bad intentions to good ones) or vice versa,
either by a variable that may take one of two values in the mind
changing or by the mind reconfiguring itself. I think that such
changes take place for most people as a result of significant events
in their lives, although for some people they take place frequently.
Minds can be configured in an infinite number of different ways and
many people have a mixture of good and bad intentions. Although I
think there are some entirely selfish people, who pretend to care
about others (particularly friends and family) as a means to an end, I
don't think that anybody is entirely well-intentioned, because it is
necessary to care about yourself to a certain extent in order to play
a good role. I tried to be as good as possible (but couldn't always
succeed, sometimes exasperating me) until early in 2008 when I adopted
the philosophy that it is good to be a bit bad, welcoming a varied
interesting world and the dominance of individuals' free will together
with the collective will of organisations.

Amongst people with both good and bad intentions, there are those who
think entirely individualistically (having no concept of a future
state of the world they are aiming for) and those who think entirely
collectively (having a single-minded approach to achieving a certain
kind of society). For the latter group of people, the effect on
individuals is merely part of the means to a desired end; they may
think they care about people but deep down in their minds they are
driven solely by a desire to influence society in a particular way
(and getting others to care about them may make that task easier).
There are also people who think partly collectively and partly
individually; such people may have some sort of preferred society but
no clear idea of how to achieve it, but I am one such person who does
have a clear idea but chooses to sometimes put individuals first
(which I think is generally a female trait with women better at multi-
tasking).

A point frequently made about people who have entered a life of crime
is that they have "got in with the wrong crowd". Associating with
people with bad intentions tends to make you bad as well. Conversely,
associating with people with good intentions can make somebody who was
previously bad into a good person. However, a big group of people with
good intentions, particularly if they act together in a political way,
could pose a significant threat to the powers that be, and bad
conspirators deliberately infiltrate such groups to try to reduce
their threat. Similarly, a strong union of two well-intentioned people
who are having a relationship can be effective and bad people
sometimes attach themselves to good people for such cynical reasons.
Women can be particularly vulnerable to this because many regard being
bad (or perhaps a bit bad) as an attractive quality in a man. If
conspirators use evil people (who cannot be converted no matter what),
this strategy is particularly likely to be effective at undermining
well-intentioned people. The best defence against this is to recognise
bad behaviour and body language which suggests that someone is not
genuine and ostracise such people.

An important caveat is that loyalty to a party or organisation the
person is a member of often overrides the wishes of that individual,
particularly if he or she sees it as the main instrument to changing
the world. Those who are disloyal tend to be members of a faction or
infiltrators from a secret conspiratorial organisation rather than
acting alone. Some organisations, including mainstream political
parties, have a leader with considerable power to influence policy and
appoint members to important positions. Such leaders often affect its
policies and strategy, partly according to their intentions. In more
democratic organisations, other members, particularly in their
leadership bodies, often do likewise.


Scientific basis of free will and good or bad intentions

Marxist and other atheist theories don't explain free will, and I
believe this is the main reason why physicists have still not devised
a "theory of everything" unifying quantum mechanics (describing the
very small) with general relativity (describing the very large). My
short document "Towards a Theory of Everything" (which you can read at
www.socialiststeve.me.uk/theory-of-everything.htm) suggests how this
dilemma can be resolved by incorporating free will of humans and
animals (somewhere between the very small and very large). The
document also suggests how the bizarre property of quantum mechanics
that measuring something can affect it makes more sense if everybody's
free will collectively comprises a super-organism like in James
Lovelock's Gaia theory.

The field of quantum mechanics was actually devised after the time of
Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels, the latter of whom
was responsible for the theory of "dialectical materialism" (where
"materialism" means everything is a result of material conditions), so
Marxists' confidence that their theories are sound is misplaced.
Indeed, Rosa Lichtenstein, who has perhaps studied it most, has used
the term "alien-class" on her anti-dialectics website (with a hyphen
to be less ambiguous than other Marxists who have used the same term
including Engels himself) strongly implying that there is a class of
aliens who do not adhere to materialism!

Marxists argue that class society, and the consequent struggle between
classes, originated when there was a surplus due to the cultivation of
crops and domestication of animals to struggle over. They suggest that
life was harmonious before this surplus arose, and therefore use the
term "primitive communism" to describe the earliest human societies
(for which the term "hunter-gatherer" is often used). Those who have
visited or studied primitive tribes that still exist today recognise
that some are peaceful and some are violent towards members of other
tribes. Animals exhibit such properties too. It is my contention,
therefore, that the struggle between those with good and bad
intentions originated before the class struggle. [I will leave it to
readers of this manifesto to come to their own conclusions whether
such a struggle was devised by God, and perhaps the Devil (if there is
one) who may always have existed or was created by God to make life
interesting, or by evolutionary processes responsible for life.]


Recognising good and bad intentions

I find someone's demeanour a useful guide as to whether he or she has
good or bad intentions. Somebody who comes across as pleasant is more
likely to actually be good than somebody who comes across as
unpleasant and unfriendly. This is self-reinforcing - if you come
across as a pleasant person, you will be more likely to attract
friends who are also pleasant and form genuine relationships in which
both people really care about each other, which encourages you to be
good. On the other hand, it is harder to genuinely care about people
who come across as unpleasant and bad people tend to form false
relationships where they have an ulterior selfish motive.

People sometimes comment that there are two types of men: "rough-and-
ready" and "sensitive". Rough-and-ready men tend to look tough and
actually be bad whereas sensitive men tend to look considerate and be
good. Your choice of hairstyle can massively influence which of these
two types you come across as - men with shaven heads or short cropped
hair tend to look tougher than those with longer hair (unless they
appear to be gay). A man with particularly long hair may look like a
hippie and appear to be good. The impression you give off is
influenced by the society in which you live - shaven heads are
particularly common among black men, and in some countries (including
Russia and the UK still to some extent), having one is associated with
fascism. Certain kinds of moustache may make you appear like a
dictator (Stalin, Hitler or Saddam Hussein) and I found when I had a
big beard that I gave off a different impression to different people
(I was compared with Jesus, Karl Marx and Osama bin Laden!)

Some women can come across as tough too, particularly those with short
hair, but in Western society nowadays, women most frequently affect
their appearance by dying their hair, putting on make-up or wearing
particular kinds of clothes. All these factors can give off a certain
impression that may make them appear genuine or false, depending on
the person who sees them and the context. Wearing fancy clothes and
make-up may be appropriate on a night out, but may have a negative
effect at a political meeting. There is quite a big correlation
between women who dye their hair and them thinking individualistically
(and sometimes but not generally having bad intentions) - being more
concerned about others finding them attractive than whether they come
across as false. If they are false as far as their hair colour is
concerned, people may suspect that they are false in other ways too.
Some women have very badly dyed hair with roots that look terrible;
this may be a temporary situation while letting the hair return to its
natural colour, but not taking care of your appearance in this or
other ways may indicate bad intentions.

Showing your real emotions (rather than making a conscious effort to
act in a particular way which people may see through and may be
difficult to keep up) is a good way of appearing genuine. In many
situations, smiling can give off a good impression, and somebody who
never smiles (or appears to be faking a smile when he or she attempts
it) is very likely to be bad. This is because having a good
conscience, about what you have done in the past and plan to do in the
future, is one thing that makes you happy; other factors include
confidence in what you are trying to do and optimism about the future.
Perhaps the correspondence between being good and smiling is more
pronounced around me than in other contexts, when things are going
well in my struggle to make the world a better place, because people's
confidence depends considerably on how effective my allies and myself
are at outwitting our enemies. Of course people can be happy or
depressed for irrational reasons, based on the balance of chemicals in
their brains, and this balance can be affected by legal and illegal
drugs. In some contexts such as at funerals, or when being forced to
testify at court against somebody who is supposed to be an ally,
smiling can be a very bad idea. Also, smiling at someone tends to give
off the impression that you get on with him or her, to that person and
others, so it may be better to refrain from smiling if you think he or
she is bad.


Implications for the environment

People generally assume that the weather is the one thing on earth
that cannot be controlled. The TV programme The Science of Superstorms
(reporting on seeding of clouds by the regime in the USSR to affect
where radioactive rain from Chernobyl fell) and reports of the Chinese
authorities taking measures to prevent rain during the opening
ceremony of the Beijing Olympics have countered this myth somewhat,
but there is evidence of far more dramatic manipulation as I explain
below.

I have a highly conspiratorial viewpoint in which various
conspiratorial organisations build computer models of many aspects of
the world, including people's minds, organisations and natural forces
including the weather, in order to predict the future and interact in
various ways (using mind control and/or infiltrators within other
organisations in society). Such conspirators are competing with each
other for control of the world with the free will of individual people
(and animals) in the middle; some of them are temporary allies but
they do use unethical methods (controlling the weather inevitably
costs lives leaving aside the effects of mind control).

I strongly believe that the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean was
planned, to try to engender moods of national unity in the two parts
of the region with the greatest pro-independence movements, which
suspiciously were those closest to the centre of the tsunami - Aceh in
Indonesia and Sri Lanka (where the Tamil Tigers have been waging a
long guerilla war). An earthquake soon afterwards, also nearest Aceh,
was suspicious too.

However, weather forecasts have tended to be much less reliable
recently, and more recent cases of extreme weather have not been
noticeably in the interest of big business, suggesting that such
forces no longer exert such a strong influence over it (and also that
big business is losing control in the world generally with the credit
crunch exposing weaknesses in the capitalist system that the left can
take advantage of if we get our act together). There have been two
incidents recently which strongly suggest that allies of mine are
exerting some control over the weather to help my analysis. Firstly,
on one occasion when I was discussing control of the weather, there
was a clap of thunder (the only one I noticed that day). Secondly, on
a day I was planning to finish writing this manifesto and put it on
the internet, accepting the consensus viewpoint on global warming and
change my home page to reflect my abandonment of scepticism about it
being primarily caused by mankind, there was a hailstorm - very
unusual for the first of September! Control of the weather can
literally cost lives, so it seems very unethical to me and those
prompting me in that way can only be temporary allies.

Irrespective of who is correct about global warming, this issue is
blatantly being used for the purpose of divide-and-rule - making
ordinary people blame each other for the possible future catastrophe,
in their own countries with many using aeroplanes and some being more
wasteful than others at home (not switching TVs or lights off or not
using low-energy lightbulbs for example), and in underdeveloped
countries where the masses want to catch up with the West. Control of
the weather can clearly be used to exacerbate such tensions - there
has recently been the coldest winter for 50 years in China, which must
be a big boost for scepticism there letting the regime off the hook
for not taking the environment seriously.

World leaders are meeting in Copenhagen from 6-18 December 2009 for a
summit on climate change. It is highly doubtful that they will come up
with a solution that is acceptable to both rich and poor countries,
and that is adequate for the scale of the problem (if the sceptics are
wrong). Those environmentalists who say that this is the last chance
to save the world (or the human race) are wrong, on two grounds.
Firstly, whereas conspirators on the side of big business relish
problems such as global warming as a means to staying in control, they
do not want the problems to get out of hand and lead to the end of
humanity, for selfish reasons - although the odd megalomaniac may
relish this possibility, such people are not influential enough.
Secondly, I confidently predict that there will be a worldwide
revolution leading to a mainly or entirely socialist world in the
fairly near future (I suggest within 10 years at most) and we can hold
a new summit, this time with world leaders who really care, and good
societies involving the participation of the masses ensuring that the
environment is a big priority. By then, conflicting evidence for
global warming or not can be assessed fairly without the big vested
interests skewing the debate. In the meantime, I strongly encourage
research, development and use on large scales of renewable sources of
energy, particularly concentrating solar power (an ideal use of
deserts) and tidal power, to weaken the divide-and-rule agenda, lessen
the amount of pollution and ease global warming problems in case the
sceptics are wrong.


Strategic implications

In earlier versions of the Good Intentions Manifesto, I tried to build
a Good Intentions Network with a list of eight principles to guide
other well-intentioned people in helping me change the world. You can
find those principles at www.goodintentionsnetwork.org/principles.html,
and follow a link from that page to read an old version of the
manifesto in which they are justified. I now think it is better for
different strategies to be adopted by different people (and perhaps by
the same people at different times as I have done); this makes us less
predictable and therefore harder to outwit by bad individuals and
organisations. Someone once commented to me that the Network could
start off with good intentions but we would end up like all the
others, which I now recognise to be the key reason why setting up a
network to link well-intentioned people together would be a very bad
idea. Additionally, setting up a network on the internet where we
can't see what our collaborators look and sound like (unless webcams
are used for our communications of course) makes it very difficult to
detect whether people really have good intentions. I compromised by
setting up a board on a different forum, but nobody expressed any
interest in building a network on that board and it has now been
overrun by spam.

There are many different strategies good people can use to try to make
the world a better place, one of which is loving our enemies, as
encouraged by Jesus and followed by many religious people today. At
times, I have adopted that approach, recognising that the views of an
individual are a result of his or her experiences, as well as their
free will decisions. At other times, I have been more choosy about who
I am friendly towards, which tends to polarise the situation more - it
may be worth alienating some people to help others recognise who is on
their side. I generally find now that it is better to give people the
benefit of the doubt until they do something to warrant exposing them.
Most people can be won over to become good given a bit of
encouragement, even if they are initially bad, and few people have
good enough models of the world to know what to do to act effectively
against me even if they want to.

On numerous occasions, I have tried to analyse politicians as to
whether they are predominantly good or bad. This has sometimes been a
useful strategy for analysing the world and deciding who to support
but ultimately all politicians reflect compromises within their party,
arising from their membership, and particularly their leadership. A
party entirely composed of (or led by) well-intentioned people could
ultimately be very powerful so hostile conspiratorial organisations
would be particularly keen to infiltrate it, or interact with some of
its key members, in order to try to lessen their effectiveness and
possibly win them over to their side of the struggle whether or not
they recruit them to a conspiratorial infiltrating organisation.
Similarly, parties entirely composed of poorly-intentioned people
could also be strong and a bit of deliberate sabotage or spying could
be very useful, but infiltrating some parties (particularly fascist
ones) may obviously be very dangerous.

I have supported one politician who is particularly important: Barack
Obama. Supporting his election to the US presidency was definitely
worthwhile in my opinion - ordinary people around the world are much
happier about political developments than would have been in the case
if he had lost, which would probably have led to a big upsurge in
racism and terrorism. Additionally, Obama is taking the issue of the
environment much more seriously than McCain would have done, including
pledging $61.3 billion towards energy projects as part of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, largely towards renewable forms
of energy and infrastructure to support such energy (see the Wikipedia
page for that Act for details and the previous section of this
manifesto for my analysis of the importance of action on global
warming). The arguments some atheists use that God wouldn't let so
many bad things happen can be countered by arguing that Obama's
victory shows things are working out for mankind after all, which they
may see as part of God's plan (but is really due to the efforts of
mainly well-intentioned individuals, and organisations uniting such
people, although I believe God has set up the conditions in which
people can make such decisions). Sometimes Obama has let himself be
influenced by ordinary people, helping him be a better person than
would otherwise be the case - notably passing orders to close secret
CIA prisons around the world (in which torture allegedly takes place)
as well as Guantánamo Bay, straight after his inauguration which drew
a massive crowd. He spoke to a huge crowd in Berlin before the
election and to large numbers of people in France and Germany at the
NATO anniversary too. However, he has appointed advisors wholly from
the banking sector of US capitalism ("finance capital" as Marxists
would say although the SP argued that finance capital already was in
control of the world when previous presidents had a more varied set of
advisors) who are largely members of three conspiratorial groups
according to "The Obama Deception" - the Bilderberg Group linking
capitalist leaders around the world, Trilateral Commission and Council
on Foreign Relations. I'm not particularly convinced about that
video's claim they are plotting to create a world government, but I
encourage readers to view it on YouTube and decide for yourselves.
Irrespective of whether Obama is playing a positive or negative role
overall or perhaps switches between the two, and socialists in the USA
are more able to judge this than myself, he is committed to the
continuation of capitalism one way or another! Whether he still will
be in a pre-revolutionary situation (when democratic socialism is on
the agenda) remains to be seen.

Some final advice: Think for yourselves and come to your own
conclusions about what to do to help make the world a better place. I
am very confident things will work out one way or another, but we can
all help shape the interesting future for the human race with our free
will. As mentioned in the previous section, I hold conspiratorial
views about organisations like the CIA using supercomputers with
artificial intelligence (AI) software modelling the world and humans
on it, which can in my view effectively turn people into robots. After
all, I developed and was the main designer of an AI/simulation
language called SDML in which such modelling could have been possible
(but some scaling up problems and a complex bug in a backtracking
routine could have prevented this language from being too powerful). I
also think some organisations with better intentions than the CIA have
access to such software and computer models, but I wouldn't trust any
organisation using unethical methods like mind control to hand over
control of society to the masses if they do win the struggle for the
world. Conspirators are sometimes worth cooperating with, and I
recognise that existing organisations result from millennia of
struggle and have a vital role to play in influencing what happens,
but let our own free will decisions, in conjunction with collective
action by such organisations, determine the future of the world!


To download the manifesto in PDF format for printing out using Adobe
Acrobat and distribution, go to www.socialiststeve.me.uk/good-intentions-manifesto.pdf
or www.socialiststeve.in/good-intentions-manifesto.pdf. You may prefer
the latter since there are no publicly viewable statistics at that
site. If one download fails, it may be due to internet censorship so
please try the other.


--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email address: revolutionarysocialiststeve@yahoo.co.uk
Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve
Other blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk [ Indian mirror
(with same files but without publicly viewable statistics):
http://www.socialiststeve.in ]
My pages at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/socialiststeve, MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia: http://www.galaxiamusic.net,
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-revolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180,
http://www.bebo.com/galaxiamusic
My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net, http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311341
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist
revolution will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net