I should also like to point out that, as much as I like Giorgio Agamben and think of him as an intellectual heir to the Situationist International, I think that there's a certain bitter irony to his life and work, which may have resulted from a failure to assess what happened to the Situationist International on his part. They originally set out to liberate the art world from the form of social control that it had established. They later became a living caricature of a clandestine spy ring. Agamben has stated that Walter Benjamin was the "antidote" that let him survive Martin Heidegger. He later became as a philosopher king. It is precisely the pretense which led Heidegger to support the Third Reich that Agamben later came to embody for the Left.

Though my somewhat troubled political history, I have kind of done something similar. Originally, I was operating under the assumption that the intelligence community, primarily the Central Intelligence Agency, a set of factions within MI6, and set of people to have come out of the Gehlen Organization in Germany, was primarily responsible for the development of the political project of Neo-Fascism and, therefore, most of the Western political plights, that is, of course, if you don't consider for the Russian Federation to be a Western nation. By thinking about the intelligence community for kind of an extensive period of time, I became subject to a certain pathology that eventually resulted in that I became as a living caricature of a spy. The fixation upon a set of political adversaries, often, at best, only those who are so responsible for whatever it is that has gone wrong in a person's life or mind, paradoxically results in that you come to an odd kind of similarity with them. It's how self-fulfilling prophecy functions.

Anyways, what I celebrate of Debord's political and philosophical legacy is his theory of The Spectacle. It is often assumed that The Spectacle is merely the mass media, which is a way of interpreting it, but I think that it would be better to take it for the entire political foray. In the late 1960s, due to the emergent popularity of Pacifism, there became what people call "the battle for hearts and minds". So as to highlight another political paradox, Richard Bartlett Gregg developed a concept for what he called "moral jiu-jitsu" in The Power of Nonviolence. He theorized that Pacifists had the upper hand in any political dispute because of that they had the moral highground. This idea was later incorporated within the Hippie movement and the notable martial historical curiosity of The First Earth Battalion. The hippie's strategy of utilizing experimental psychology so as to bring an end to the Vietnam War could be cited as what had driven The Weather Underground mad and The First Earth Battalion later became American psychological operations, what people generally call "PSYWAR". Though I, admittedly, haven't read Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, I would suggest that Robert Jay Lifton's analysis of totalitarian psychological warfare relying upon what he called "thought-terminating clichés" to be to the point. What I suspect of The Spectacle is that it can be characterized as a kind of diffuse psychological warfare, though often limited by the legal prohibition against political coercion and that most people would prefer to celebrate a genuine life of the mind, and that, what is not tenable of contemporary politics is that people have become convinced of that, in order to counter the form of authoritarianism that is created out of a kind of cult pathology in believing in the necessity of psychological warfare, they should engage in it. It's why politics is so often characterized by thoughtless sloganeering and condescending appeals to a rather mythic mass. Information warfare, something that radically differs from what people could believe for our beloved free press to be, is the master's tool. The various classes who put it to use in their various attempts to secure and retain power is the master's house. The classes differ, but I would suggest that this is as true as it is in the United States as it was in the former Soviet Union.

To return to the original question posed in regards to change and individual liberty, I would suggest that there is a certain irony to Conservatism in that they originally set out to cultivate a way of life that they believe to be virtuous and that, in the process of attempting to retain the form of control that they secured so as to set this out, they invariably have created a socio-political, intellectual, and cultural climate that is nothing but hypocritical, cynical, and evidently corrupt. From Silvio Berlusconi to Donald J. Trump, it is nothing but all too readily apparent that the reactionary attempt to retain Conservative ruling orders by what, through a kind of botched pragmatism, has resulted in the form of "mob rule" that they pathologically fear.

How I think that political strategists develop machinations such as the presidency of either Berlusconi or Trump is that, at some point in their life, they had a vision for the world that they wanted to create, which, in the beaten process of bringing into fruition, they had somehow rationalized and justified its antithesis. As much as I appreciate and even have a gift for irony, particularly that which is dramatic, what, within a political context, is it other than to make light of any apparent hypocrisy? The Right tends to believe that politicians should be men who are worthy of respect. The two of them that I can name were Hans Scholl and Leszek Kołakowski. I, myself, am an Anarcho-Pacifist, but do think it rather cultish of the Anarchist movement to define Anarchy as the "abolition of all hierarchy". It's a way for them to absolve themselves of that there are people who do take on leadership roles, and often not well. It's also a way to skirt the charge of a certain degree of recalcitrance. Seeing that we don't live within a theoretical utopian society in the distant future, I acknowledge that, within any given social or political situation, there are people who are leaders and they ought to be worthy of respect. Though I am sort of a postmodern ethos that deconstructs the history of so-called "great men", I must admit that I do kind of long to see the day when these ostensive natural-born leaders become willing to engage within the difficult tasks from which a genuine Liberal democracy could be born.

That's kind of a lengthy cultural critique and I feel like I haven't quite answered your question.

How would you view the necessity of change which is often aimed at increasing individual liberty? — Levon Nurijanyan

I think that, at least, tacitly everyone, which is to say everyone who has a say in such matters, agrees to that we ought to let the world become as liberal as it can. Everyone who isn't engaged in some sort of political scheme or another, and there are right-wing intellectuals who are included within this "everyone", assumes that the democratic project ought to be undertaken so as to maximize liberty. True Conservatives tend to be concerned with the practicality of how this can be meaningfully effectuated. What people don't understand about the term, "reactionary", is that it was created to describe people who have no interest in doing this whatsoever and are merely clinging to what somewhat illusory power they have by more or less every means that are deemed to be necessary.

I am of a kind of "nihilistic optimism". I believe that freedom proliferates by its expression alone. To wax spiritual, I almost believe within a grand serendipitous project for the common liberation of all of humanity. When I consider my political experience, however, it often seems to me that, regardless as to what anyone does, only so much will ever substantially change. I am almost so inclined to suggest that. three-hundred years from now, we will finally recover from the aristocratic co-option of the Liberal democratic project and the distorted utopianism of more or less every totalitarian ideology, and a genuine Liberal democratic project will be finally established. In seven-hundred years, we could even see an ethical and equitable participatory democracy. I am only so hopeful, however.

What I think that everyone has to understand, in order to disengage from the spectacular battle for hearts and minds, however, is the world just becomes how it naturally does with or without you and will become all the more better should you, and I as well, let go of control and just let it be.

I see it that freedom is effectively universal as it is the primary contention within political debate. Though not so inclined to say anything of human nature, I posit that the primary concern that all parties have within any political debate or dispute is, first, of their freedom from coercion, as no debate can be had without it, and, second, of the cultivation of their own liberty. I do not agree with Isaiah Berlin. Though everyone prefers to be let to cultivate a way of life than they do to demand not to be subjugated, as the former is contingent upon the latter, it will always be demanded first, which is to say that, despite that positive freedoms are more lofty than negative freedoms, politics just simply are predicated upon negative ones.

Albert Camus coined "the Absurd" to describe the post-war malaise of a world devoid of meaning. Given the sheer number of genocides in the Twentieth Century, it is difficult to believe in the Age of Enlightenment meta-narrative of civilized progress. The apparent catastrophe of the First and Second World War left people without hope for the new age of industrialization. To apply Camus's concept to a political context concerning freedom, I would think that you would have to consider his time in the French Resistance. The legal and extra-juridical regimens of Fascism are nothing but entirely absurd. No political satire can adequately mock the tyrannical hysteria, evident hypocrisy, ruthless rancor, or nefarious duplicity of a Fascist regime. You can call them criminals, a political mafia, war profiteers, imperialists, serial killers, or megalomaniacs, but there is no insult to level at a Fascist that is more to the point than to call them what they just simply are, which is a "Fascist". That the abuse of power came to be actualized by men who are beyond even caricature, to some, seemed as if it were a punishment from the divine. Though I don't claim to be among their ranks, I would also suggest that there is a certain poverty to the resistance against totalitarianism. Because it is not the sort of thing that people talk about, it is difficult to describe. I've always felt that it was best embodied by a character playing the ocarina in the sewer in Andrzej Wajda's Kanal. When your existential status is contingent upon that a resistance movement is effective, you have no opportunity to cultivate a way of life. Life, for them, becomes a theatre of cruelty. You grow old as a young man and bitter. You learn to let go of hate, not because you aren't righteous in your indignation, but just simply because you have to. The youthful revelry of revolution fades with the first shot. You become calculating. You're no longer reckless, but all the more suicidal. You hate only what it has made of you, which is calculating and cruel. You think that they must be like that too, but you don't know and could never find out. You wonder if they just don't have an advantage. They know what it's like to consign themselves to power. You do your best to hold onto what faith you had in your ideals, but you start to see things differently. Politics cease to have anything to do with it at all. They just want you dead and you can barely even justify remaining alive. You forget about humanity and history. It just becomes about you and other people, mostly men, like you.

I have become taken by my prose and have forgotten what purpose I had in writing this. I guess that I just wanted to talk about the composer in Kanal. I don't think that even Wadja knows why he constructed the situation that he did. I don't think that I do either, though am willing to make a guess. I'd guess that I'd say that he just wants to play the piano. Everything else in the world and his life fades and he only remains in the resistance so that he can play the piano. It becomes about something like that. It becomes all too personal and absurd. He just wanted to play and felt like they wouldn't let him. He's now willing to die for something like that. It's things like that that people just don't let go of. That's what they don't understand about people like him.

So as to return to my original purpose, what you don't want to do is what you will always necessarily have to, which is to demand liberation. What you do want to do is what only people of certain classes, and class is not exclusively relegated to material wealth, can, which is to cultivate a way of life. I harbor not jealousy of the ruling classes, however. Were I to have been born in wealthy family, I would have become a wealthy artist. I see no reason to express animosity towards a person who has done what I would do were I to be them. What I must refuse, however, is to become subjugated by them. What, to me, seems to be absurd is that they seem to believe that I have to prove this to them. Having to prove this to them is what results in the many absurdities of our intellectual environment. Consider the philosopher that I have chosen to independently study, Giorgio Agamben, for instance. Though certainly profound, perceptive, original, elegant, and extraordinarily intelligent, his writing, even in his works of political philosophy which lay out his axioms in such a manner that he must believe to be clear, is nothing but high-flown to the point of an idiosyncratic eccentricity. The reason that philosophers utilize high-flown speech is not, as some rather recondite left-wing intellectuals seem to believe, to conceal their theories from omnipresent gaze of the Intelligence community, but rather to encode it in such a manner that leaves their political opponents without any form of plausible deniability to what they call to light. It's like an alternative universe of Franz Kafka's The Trial wherein a young Italian actor became the world's foremost legal theorist, specializing in the legal history of the Third Reich, so as to finally make it impossible for Neoconservative legal analysts to make passing jests in relation to the obscure theories of one, Carl Schmitt. Agamben was effectively born in response to the fraternal habits of right-wing Law students at Yale. What is held as paragon within Critical Theory effectively just prevents people from taking what associations a person could make between Arthur Rimbaud's Illuminations and a set of conspiracy theories concerning The Illuminati too far. To invoke the actual art movement of Absurdism, what I think that Alfred Jarry's Ubu Roi calls to light is that authority is actually quite ridiculous. What is tragic of this, however, is that we are not up against a clever, clandestine, and decadent evil, but, rather, a set of half-baked political machinations that are ultimately kind of low. There would be poetry in the grand quest for liberation were we to up against a theatrical mastermind. There is no poetry is the attempt to counter what Hannah Arendt called "the banality of evil", a cynical and hypocritical reign of schadenfreude and other thought-terminating clichés.

Of course you don't. You don't even moderate this forum. You are affiliated with a set of left-wing intellectuals who are antagonistic towards my person. I would like to put our dispute aside. They do not agree to doing so. They keep engaging in crypto-Fascist mafia collaboration so as to put me in a bad sort of way. I have made it so that they can't do this unless they spread misinformation. Seeing that I am here, how that misinformation could be spread is through you. You are not going to do so. I have just told you why. This is how I deal with people who let the social ecology of the world turn into a Sartrean hell because of what is thought to be "cool".

Leave now.

I don't think you understand. If they issue another threat, it's not going to be those Lenin boys. They only have one party to come after me with. It is only the far-Right in the Mafia. You know this. We're not playing a game of chess. I am telling you that information will be given to every party whom I find for it to be relevant to if you spread misinformation about my person. You will be declared a Fascist collaborator. Those are the rules of this game. You are right. I am desperate.

I think that there should be established an Israeli and Palestinian state along what people generally call the "'67 borders" and eventual state with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians.

I've attempted suicide too, but I don't use it to defend war crimes. I'm saying that your posts in this thread read as counter-intelligence to discredit me. You're probably just kind of out there, though. You should figure things better out, y'know.

I'm also not entirely sure that I believe you. You're just so like what you could be like so as to do a certain thing, though you could be like that. I don't want to even begin with that sort of thing, though.

I think that you have failed to understand the explicit purpose of my previous ramblings, which was to make it impossible for the forum to spread misinformation about my person so as to be let to cultivate social capital from a set of clandestine Anarchist socialites. I can prove that I have done this with this tidbit of information.

"Samizdat originated from the dissident movement of the Russian intelligentsia, and most samizdat directed itself to a readership of Russian elites. While circulation of samizdat was relatively low, at around 200,000 readers on average, many of these readers possessed positions of cultural power and authority.[9] Furthermore, because of the presence of "dual consciousness" in the Soviet Union, the simultaneous censorship of information and necessity of absorbing information to know how to censor it, many government officials became readers of samizdat."

- Wikipedia]

It is now lacking in plausible deniability. The dispute that I have with these Anarchists will be put aside and I will just simply move on with my life. I'm now just trying to figure how to either leave or trail off of the forum well, but am somewhat at a loss on account of having to explain too much.

Anyways, according to Wikipedia, "a war crime is an act that constitutes a serious violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of crimes include intentionally killing civilians or prisoners, torturing, destroying civilian property, taking hostages, performing a perfidy, raping, using child soldiers, pillaging, declaring that no quarter will be given, and seriously violating the principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity.

The concept of war crimes emerged at the turn of the twentieth century when the body of customary international law applicable to warfare between sovereign states was codified. Such codification occurred at the national level, such as with the publication of the Lieber Code in the United States, and at the international level with the adoption of the treaties during the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. Moreover, trials in national courts during this period further helped clarify the law. Following the end of World War II, major developments in the law occurred. Numerous trials of Axis war criminals established the Nuremberg principles, such as the notion that war crimes constituted crimes defined by international law. Additionally, the Geneva Conventions in 1949 defined new war crimes and established that states could exercise universal jurisdiction over such crimes.[1] In the late 20th century and early 21st century, following the creation of several international courts, additional categories of war crimes applicable to armed conflicts other than those between states, such as civil wars, were defined." I think that that definition should suffice. They do seem to be entirely reprehensible, even when committed by Israelis, and, despite my, at least, feeling a need to defend myself as I have here, you will thankfully not find another person who doesn't think just that.

War, in general, is condemnable. You, I am sure, will attempt to explain that is just some sort of fact of human nature, but you, I think, have listened all too well a particular set of Jack London's readership. That is neither here nor there, though.

What you ought to do is not to attempt to engage within the propagandistic feud that you are attempting to and consider as to whether or not you have become subject to a nihilistic and cynical pathology and if you shouldn't liberate yourself from it so that you can eventually secure a better quality of life. You are doing any Jews any favors by demanding a definition of a term when you damn know what it means.

Anyways, that joke from Catch-22 relates to the kind of mindset you adopt when you end up in a fight that you can't bail yourself out of. Solidarity just doesn't mean anything at all when you get into that kind of fight. It was just a funny thing to say to me, though. It's a funny thing that you said.

Freedom is just being able to do whatever you want to, aside from not being forced to do anything at all. Everything about freedom is good. I am just promoting the reasonable cultivation of what is good.

I'm not saying that they're lacking in agency. I'm saying that they're not truly free. They're subject to whatever religious sect they're a part of.

I am an Anarcho-Pacifist. You are giving a defense of Israel and accusing me of an uncritical support of the nation-state because of that I am in favor of human rights. Human rights came about in response to the humanitarian catastrophe of the Second World War. In your topsy-turvy world, though, advocating human rights is a form of subjugation. In a way, I could see how that could be the case, but people who violate human rights kind of lose what general sympathy I have for criminals. I think that they, too, ought to have some form of restorative justice, but, that is not something for me to decide. Generally, I consider for a person's attitude towards human rights to be sort of a litmus. If they don't like them, you do kind of have to ask why. I rather like that the United Nations loosely defined self-determination and think that it could both be meaningfully invoked in both Palestine and what is oft-called "Kurdistan". That's just whatever, though.

Israel is portrayed as the center of the world and the centrifuge of the West. In a way, to me, it's just like any other Western nation-state. It's just like France or the United Kingdom. I have much to critique and only some to laud by that account. In a way, it's not, though. I've written a post to get at that, but I don't think that you'd get it. That's neither here nor there, though.

You should watch this video of Werner Herzog. I think that you'd appreciate it. As much as I agree with his sentiment, I do still support the cultivation of goodness, though. Maybe I'll find out what it is someday?

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference" — Andrew4Handel

From a purely existential standpoint, that's a way of interpreting the Absurd. We have the capacity to produce good in the world, though. While being reasonable, why not create it?

That's not freedom, though. That's just an unwitting form of subjugation.

If you read my posts, you will discover that I support the two-to-one state solution effectively endorsed by the people in Fatah who have put enough thought into how to facilitate an effective peace process, though they'll probably tell you different things at different times.

I'm of the opinion that a general purpose of life should be to extend it, all of it, not just human life, indefinitely. People can get lost in that, though.

I feel like the adverse reaction to my ideas is indicative of that society is to blame.

The Absurd is the Absurd, but Camus was in favor of freedom as well. Say what you will about whatever, but I still contend that freedom is good.

You seem kind of distressed. What I'm saying is that you necessarily don't want to be in a cult. I'm not saying that people aren't conscripted into cults. You don't choose to be in a cult. You can only want out of a cult. You may not realize that you do, but, within the full breath of your reason, you would.

In any given political scenario, given the opportunity not to look down the barrel of a gun, a person will choose to do so. That's what I'm saying. People necessarily demand to be free from coercion. That is how the natural right of the freedom from coercion exists. It's not that people aren't held a gunpoint. It's that, being capable of speaking freely, they will always say that the other party has no right to do so. That's only so to the point, but I feel like will clarify this for you.

Freedom is good, man. Believe in what's good, man.

Reality is anarchist and your position may survive or it may not. — Andrew4Handel

Only as it has come to be commonly understood. Anarchists today have mistaken Anarchism for generalized chaos. They've let historians in the United Kingdom make it out to be akin to the civil war between England and Normandy that occurred between 1135 and 1153. Anarchism is actually a political philosophy. The entire movement has become wholly untenable because of that people think things like you think about it, though.

I have plenty of things to explain to plenty of people, but you just aren't one of them.

This has nothing to do with you, but I should like to point out that what I mean by "crypto-Fascism" is that a person is cryptically engaging within a form of Fascist praxis. It is just what it would be defined as. It means that a person is behaving like a Fascist under the guise of their doing something else. Lot's of people use this term, and not well. I am using to literally refer to what it denotes.

Anyways, I posit that natural rights exist because they are always demanded in every given situation. A person necessarily demands to be free from coercion. Generally, however, human rights are good and you should just agree to that because of that they would do good in the world were they to be substantiated. God may not have granted me my freedom of speech, but I have used it better than any other American citizen. I don't need to have a philosophical argument about the First Amendment to know that I agree with it.

My claims have nothing to do with sanctimony, which, as, as a Pacifist, I could use to my advantage, but generally prefer not to. I ascribe to a kind of situational ethics that I assume to more or less just kind of be in effect. I think that ethics stem from the other. Because there are other people in the world, the situation for ethics arises.

I am sorry for your brother, but don't think that you should use such an anecdote to promote the nihilistic cynicism that you have adopted.

I don't think that you are correct in your assessment of the conflict. It has something to do with collective delusions and forms of pride, but there is much to said of both of those things and you reduce it all too much.

That idea resulted in this, which are these Anarchists posing as Communists' claim that an effective spontaneous global revolution can be waged à la God's call to the Twelve Tribes of Israel, which is how you are correct. There is an odd kind of serendipity to certain kinds of communication, though.

The "barbarism" is a raison d'être for an entendre of "Marxism-Stirnerism". Max Stirner, himself, seemed like kind of an alright guy, as well as the obvious implication that the Communists should have a greater preference for individual liberty, but they were suggesting that they should just get rid of a certain set of Stirnerites. It's why I've previously tried to exclusively define Anarchism as "libertarian socialism". People in the libertarian Left and Anarchist movement, particularly Anarchists, exploit the philosophy of Egoism so as to justify ruthless acts that are only within their own self-interest. It's how Stirner was interpreted by Fascists, which is how it's just crypto-Fascism, even if they aren't even collaborating with Neo-Fascists. The problem with levelling the charge of crypto-Fascism, however, is that it is often done unfairly. Nihilists, Anti-Civilization theorists, Egoists, and Post-Left Anarchists are all blanketly characterized as crypto-Fascists. Those philosophies are where they do tend to congregate, but they can actually be found within nearly every faction of the Anarchist movement.

I am in agreement with that Israel is just kind of like any other Western nation. I have a lot to say about it, but also already have in this thread.

There aren't too many good reasons not to believe in human rights, though. The only thing that you can say about them is that they're ineffective.

What we call "barbarism", and, because of its colonial connotations, we don't often do so, are any number of Machiavellian, in the pejorative sense of the term, political schemes that people, in every set and subset of the political spectrum, out of a kind of cynical pathology concerning human nature or history, occasionally attempt to set into motion. For the Central Intelligence Agency, it was justified by Ethical Egoism and Game Theory. It's difficult to say what convinces anyone else of such things. They become convinced nonetheless.

unrl to u 'gain.

They will only think that this is the incorrect song because they don't know that it was originally on 3.. 6.. 9 Seconds of Light. Here it is:

"Put the Book Back on the Shelf" by Belle and Sebastian

☮!

As I must continue to clarify, I don't just convert to left-wing Liberalism because they are in closer proximity to parties of whom I would just as soon avoid. The truth has now set us free. I guess that I'll put on some Belle and Sebastian or something.

He's talking about the phenomenal cases where they do. That's what his theory is about, how the message, when it is just kind of put out there in the ether, finds its way to its recipient, often when its author does not even know who they are.

Perhaps in Israel or Palestine, but we Libertarian Communists, Anarcho-Communists, Anarcho-Pacifists, and Environmentalist Anarchists, and "lifestyle anarchists", though we weren't all Pacifists, and I, at least, even liked Communization, were just simply so inclined to believe that the word should travel well, which we took mean peacefully. It was a set of fairly recently established political factions within the Anarchist movement and libertarian Left who took issue with this and saw to it that we were isolated from the movement. Such praxis belongs only to me now, but it was generally thought to be agreeable among more or less the entire community, particularly that which does have a historical lineage, and only became a point of contention when the barbarism began at home.

It's not really a preference in Israel or Palestine, though. For all intensive purposes, the Palestinians were the indigenous population there. There is much to say of the motivation for the creation of Israel, but you can't really cite a time before the common era so as to make the claim that this or that population was somehow already there.

"In the 1870s, Tolstoy experienced a profound moral crisis, followed by what he regarded as an equally profound spiritual awakening, as outlined in his non-fiction work A Confession (1882). His literal interpretation of the ethical teachings of Jesus, centering on the Sermon on the Mount, caused him to become a fervent Christian anarchist and pacifist.[3] His ideas on nonviolent resistance, expressed in such works as The Kingdom of God Is Within You (1894), had a profound impact on such pivotal 20th-century figures as Mahatma Gandhi[9] and Martin Luther King Jr.[10] He also became a dedicated advocate of Georgism, the economic philosophy of Henry George, which he incorporated into his writing, particularly Resurrection (1899)."

- Wikipedia

"Kropotkin was a proponent of a decentralised communist society free from central government and based on voluntary associations of self-governing communities and worker-run enterprises. He wrote many books, pamphlets and articles, the most prominent being The Conquest of Bread and Fields, Factories and Workshops, but also Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, his principal scientific offering. He contributed the article on anarchism to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition[14] and left unfinished a work on anarchist ethical philosophy."

- Wikipedia

As per the unfortunately appropriative and essentializing code of the informal Anarchist and libertarian Left intelligence operation, we are the Palestinians in the West Bank. I could just as soon do without the code, though.

What I am, however, trying to explain to @StreetlightX about the website is that there now is no longer a reason for me to go on as such. While I do have kind of a habit of entrying various social organizations, reorganizing them in such a manner that either improves their social ecology or renders it not a problem for me, which I learned from A Thousand Plateaus, and then just kind of taking off, seeing that I've already successfully done that, there's no reason to be concerned about my continuing to do so.

There's all kinds of complex circumstances that play into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. People say that it's just about land, religion, Western exceptionalism, Islamic extremism, Jews, Arabs, Jerusalem, or whatever else, and you can look at it in all of those ways, but it was created out of a lot of circumstances and both has and does not have the complex history that it is occasionally said to.

He's just going to keep at it in a refusal to admit that the Anarchist movement is a cult and in attempt to save the political, cultural, and intellectual legacy of Johann Georg Faust from the writings of Christopher Marlowe. It is not just a land dispute, though.

I just found for him to be fairly amicable. I could never really wrap my head around what he was on about, though.

For posterity:

/lit/ is home to a crypto-Fascist racket, as per Jacques Camatte's usage of the term in "On Organization", effectively an informal legalized labor racket, that both a left-wing Liberal and a certain Anarchist, whom we can codename "Bloom", attempted to utilize in order to conscript me within their respective cults of personality, among other things. I have since put my disputes with both of these people aside, arguably destroyed said racket, made what amends I either can or should with anyone involved, and said my peace of everyone else. Because Bloom could someday be published by semiotext(e) and a number of Anarchists were effectively complicit within any number of crypto-Fascist machinations, none of whom I really know by name, they keep perpetuating a myth that I harbor some form of intellectual jealousy and am out to destroy this person, whom à la Vampire Weekend they are sworn to protect, which is very difficult to disprove, as it often seems like I am making an attempt to divide and conquer the Anarchist movement, a situation only further compounded by that I am a Pacifist and that Pacifism has become wildly unpopular within it. Rather than try to take it over, I left.

Having clarified this will finally provide me with the assemblage with which I can just move on with my life and no longer have to go on as such. Apologies, I guess. I'll talk to anyone whenever.

Also, in my defense, Anarchists, hipsters, and a litany of nefarious clandestine parties have destroyed my life to such an extent that it just wouldn't be a good idea for me to lead a political movement.

It seems to me that they'd just restore some form of Liberal democracy. Should the geo-political situation worsen to the point of revolution being necessary, more or less the only way in which it could happen, which the various ruling orders of the world take care not to let, the only thing that would happen, in the best of all possible worlds, is that a better Liberal democracy would be created. I'd like to see a better Liberal democracy too, but accelerationism, at best, is just kind of pointless.

It's there so that anyone who tries to put this into effect knows what they're getting into.


I could have written several sentences, but I figured that I should just sum it all up in one. Meta-Anarchism is just a nonviolent gradualist approach to Anarchism that assumes for the Anarchist movement to be untenable. I've made a lot of explicit claims, but they do make sense.

I was just born out of the manifest fantasy of Progressive music.


No. Because there are Anarchists outside of this forum who seem intent upon digging up what is in the past so as not to let me leave the movement, as they fear what I have to say about it, I felt that I should clarify as to how our dispute began. It's not some sort of code. That is realpolitik. I would've just left it how I wrote it had you not asked, though.

Though often inclined towards irony, the literal statement that I have just made does explicitly describe what I was attempting to in the original post.

That is what people who are fairly keen on such things mean by "crypto-Fascism" and why I took such great efforts in previously clarifying as to what a certain four-letter word ought to refer to.


God only knows. I have thrown enough paint at that wall to produce a work by Jackson Pollock. Bring back Popul Vuh, perhaps?

In War and Cinema, Paul Virilio puts forth a concept of the "slight machine". What it consists of are mafia co-conspirators within the art world and Anarchist community. What they do is to engage in various forms of manipulation, none of which ever technically qualify as coercion, so as to either facilitate that drugs, primarily cocaine, are trafficked in such a manner that benefits the far-Right or tacitly aid and abet any number of mafias in various acts of coercion, though never in such a manner that makes them legally accountable. They only ever consign themselves to mafias so as to secure their place within either the art world or Anarchist movement, and, so, can never really be held accountable. That is the ground truth of what the above statement says.

I would also like to state that all that I really wanted was to participate within a community garden and start a band that just simply was, but was never explicitly referred to as an "Art" act. Some people will just never let you live your life, however, and Politics really is just complete and total bosh.