I see what you're saying then. I don't think that it's fair of you to allege any indoctrination, though. They've been involved with a number of coups and authoritarian right-wing regimes in Western Asia and Central and South America, as well as that the "stay-behind networks" came out of the Italian courts in the mid-1980s. This is well known, somewhat well documented, and widely discussed in parts of the world outside of the so-called "West".

I'm not saying that the Rockefellers haven't ever been involved with what you might call "progressive" initiatives or even the intelligence community; I'm just saying that they didn't set up British or American intelligence. That's what I thought that you had said, but, perhaps, I have misread you?

This thread may be somewhat dated, as the Biden administration seems to have recovered from the reshuffling of our security agencies on the part of the Trump administration, and, so, may be somewhat alarmist by that account.

Almost any conversation about intelligence is necessarily speculative, though. This documentary is about the "stay-behind networks". If you surf Wikipedia for long enough, you can uncover an often unspoken history of the CIA.

Things are better now, but under the previous administration, ostensive Tea Party Republican, Michael Richard Pompeo was the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. It seems rather doubtful to me that the director of the world's foremost intelligence organization could rationally believe in the Tea Party movement. It was this kind of popular manipulation that I found to be rather troubling of the Trump administration. If he was a Tea Party Republican, then, why was he leading our intelligence service? If it was kind of a ploy, it'd seem to be rather troubling.

William Joseph Burns seems to be pretty alright, though, as far as they go.

You had claimed the Rockefellers had set up either British or American intelligence, I don't actually recall, which is what I was discounting. Perhaps I merely misread you, though?

As per the title and content of this thread, though, though I'm one talk, it is not about the Rockefellers.

To speculate, though I previously have given a depiction of what I think that the political make-up of the CIA is like, I'd suggest that the alt-Right is a reflection of their social ecology to a certain extent. It's like something that they projected into the world for fear of what they, themselves are like. That's just speculation, though.

In the beaten way of an explanation, I will try to explain this again.

The Anarchist Library, regardless as to how well written or theorized anything that I put forth is, will just simply not publish me. The Anarchist movement has been making a conscious and deliberate attempt to cover-up what my ideas are because those who, at least, attempt to arbitrate it, believe for them to run counter to their own ideas. They have also been making a conscious and deliberate attempt to cover-up my reasons for leaving it. Even though I would prefer to be able to let them save face in the eyes of the world, I can not let them play spin control as they have, as it often relies upon spreading rumors about me that are detrimental to my person.

I have been institutionalized twice and diagnosed with psychosis, and, so, I may only imagine that some of these things are happening. In so far that they have been, however, I do have to alleviate what plights they have created for me.

Were I to post on r/Anarchism, should I put any of this well, my thread will merely be buried, and, should I do so otherwise, I will merely incur a certain degree of wrath. I have already attempted to do that.
In order to get what set of points across that I have to on r/CriticalTheory, I will have to encode the information that I have to get out there as theory, thereby defeating the purpose of doing so, as it is information that I need to be commonly understood.

That has left me with only this forum. Though I have, to some extent, attempted to remain on-topic, @Apollodorus is correct to assume that I do have another purpose. I already have the record that I need, though, and, so, what I have been trying to explain is that I have no reason to continue to engage in such things and would just kind of like to leave well now, since not too many people seem to be too terribly interested in chatting it up about my other ideas.

Apologies or whatever. I think that everything ought to be able to go well now, though. I don't know. It's not really all that much of a deal for anyone but me.

The Anarchist movement would not have let me moved on with my life without my having created a record of my reasons for leaving it. Though doing so has been an implicit purpose of my commenting here, I have made a conscious attempt to stay within the relevance of the original posts, though, have only do so successfully, being honest with myself or with everyone else. Despite what nuisance this may have been, having been already done, I'm just trying to leave well so that I can engage in my creative pursuits. Inevitably, I will eventually just bail, but it could be preferable for everyone otherwise.

I apologize for hi-jacking your thread to talk about crypto-vanguardism within the Communization current. As I thought it was actually about political conspiracy, I did genuinely think that my doing so was within its topic.

It's all good. I'm kind of just trying to take things easy now.

As for you "leaving a set of points out there", you needn't bother because most of that stuff is totally incoherent and hardly makes sense to anyone. No offense, but you seem to have issues that can't be resolved on an online forum. — Apollodorus

I have a need to put information out there in the world. I have information that needs to somehow get to some other people in the world out there somewhere. It's out there now, and, so, I don't really care.

You want recognition for what you think are obvious truths, fluently expressed. You assumed folk who were attracted to a site like this would agree with you, but instead found them contrary and difficult; they had the effrontery to critique your wonderful, erudite opinions. — Banno

What is an absurd demand of any community is to expect for it to let you cultivate social capital via a set of social ploys or whatever. What is not an absurd demand is for it not to intentionally produce an environment that is hostile to you. No one here knows anything about the far-Left, anyways.

There's a difference between being involved with intelligence and orchestrating it. I'm not discounting your claim in regards to what you have just cited of Rockefeller. I'm discounting that he set up either British or American intelligence.

People tend to assume that wealth is just behind whatever it is that they have qualms with when it comes to any form ruling order. I don't see things that way. For me, they're just after power. There are a lot of advantages that being wealthy offers a person, including that of a certain degree of political power, but an adherence to a kind of strict materialism in the general critique of capital, I think, is just all too simplistic of a way of seeing the world.

This thread has put forth a set of theories concerning the intelligence community, particularly the CIA, as they proceed from what I have posited of samizdat in the former ČSSR. I felt that it was a fairly interesting theory that was somewhat politically pertinent. Only you are interested in talking about this, however, and you just seem to be making an attempt to divert the conversation to one about the Fabians, of which you already have a thread going on. I, myself, diverted that thread to some extent, mistakenly believing for it to just be about political conspiracy generally, which I did apologize for, among other aspects of my general habits, and am fairly unsure, when I have explained to you that I am not terribly interested in the Fabians, as I don't live in the U.K., as to why you are so invested in engaging me in conversation about them.

My bad, I guess. I don't hold any of this against you or anything. I'm sure that Fabian control over the Labour movement is a somewhat pressing issue, but, as I don't live in the U.K., I just don't think that it ought to be too much of a concern of mine. That's all that I've really been trying to explain.

I feel as if you fail to understand my paradox. Because there was nowhere else to do so, I had to use the forum to leave a set of points out there for someone on the internet to find. Having done so, I've been trying to figure out how not to have my entirely sensible ideas appraised negatively so that I can leave. That half of this forum intentionally produces a somewhat hostile social environment for me in an attempt to convince me is precisely what keeps me here. If the general attitude towards my person within the field of Philosophy online expresses a certain degree of animosity, it is likely for such sentiments to carry over into the real world. You can always just destroy my life and career because of that I was critical of an intellectual trend, though.

My thread on that ramble from Nihilist Communism may be fairly arcane, but there is actual theory. I actually kind of make a fairly conscious attempt at being somewhat explicitly clear. It's kind of funny to me.

Sure thing, I guess.

I don't know you're on about. Everyone agreed with you in that discussion about the SPD's alliance with the German military. Besides, no one here knows anything about the far-Left and everyone just takes my idiosyncratic theories for psychobabble.

Though @Jack Cummins is right that I ought to stop griping about hipsters and the ostensive intellectual superiority of left-wing obscurants, it does make sense that I do as they took over the movement that I was formerly a part of.

Though I do, personally, feel slighted by that cut throat politics have been taken for Egoism and that any person whatsoever is let to engage in them via a rather vapid chic, in order to have any place whatsoever in any politics that I agree with, I don't really have any other options but to critique them in such a manner that admonishes the social capital in they have secured.

Being said, there's no real reason for me to go on about it here, though. I'm just kind of avoiding the mensa mind game it would take to get this across to r/Anarchism or r/CriticalTheory, as The Anarchist Library is, to some extent, their kin, if you will, along with Anarchist News.

To my estimation, the political debate is often more in the vein of political science than political philosophy. I'm mostly interested in relatively obscure theory, and, so, that's probably a reason, but people don't often seem too interested in talking about actual political philosophy. There's that and that it often amounts to kind of a lot of venting.

Sometimes, it's pretty good, though.

How is the second paragraph to it, "Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists,[6] especially social anarchists,[7] but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists.[8][9] These libertarians seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects to usufruct property norms, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.[10][11][12][13]" irrelevant? It says more or less what I've just said. If you read more, you'll see how it was connected to individualist anarchism.

Chomsky talks about how it was connected to classical Liberalism and then talks about turn of the century Libertarians who were influenced by Anarchists. I haven't made anything up.

What I'm saying is that the Rockefellers did not have the control over the intelligence community that you have alleged. That's how you are "waxing conspiratorial". I'm not saying that they weren't powerful industrialists. I suspect that you have drawn connections between them, the Fabians, and the intelligence trade so as to present an overarching narrative that suits your opposition to the Fabians within the Labour Party. That's how people come to craft conspiracy theories. In the past, I have done so, myself.

I was referring to the roots of the more radical strains of how it is to abolish institutional and systemic racism. You'll find people within the Black Lives Matter movement who advocate such things without any idea as to what they really are or where they stem from.

I think so, yeah. I'll have to find where Schopenhauer talks about that.

It's difficult to say as to whether you even can feel genuine empathy. I assume to be able to, but there could be some sort of biological survival mechanism or something that just produces the semblance of doing so. When all that we have of experience is of things like semblances, though, it'd still seem that empathy can be meaningfully invoked.

I didn't know that about Kentaro Miura. That's so sad.

I'm not sure that you see what I mean by the metaphor. I would like to be an artist, poet, and philosopher. I already don't where to go from the Anarchist movement because of that left-wing Liberals are in too close of proximity to a certain set of parties that I would just as soon avoid. There have been kind of a lot of problems created in my life because of the way that people are about their political position or their drug habits. Why should I expect for a set of parties, particularly in the arts, in both closer proximity to the arts and the drug trade to treat me any better?

I'd just be jumping out of the flash pan and into the fryer.

There's also that I originally came to be on the periphery of society because of sets of attitudes towards class, and not just class in terms of monetary wealth, but all kinds of different forms of classes. It seems like I'll have an easier go with things with a set of peripheral idealists that kind of more or less anyone else.

I will also say that, though occasionally inclined to use jargon, I do try to be fairly clear.

It's all whatever, though. I'm sure that you came to your conclusions through some experience of your own as well.

Consider the hypothetical situation to where a certain massively multiplayer role-playing game has both become a cult phenomenon and resulted in any number of social plights. When the creators of such a game have done so in such a manner that does seem as if it would result in such plights, why should I expect for them to be preferable company to its users?

If you apply this hypothetical as a metaphor for certain sets of society, I think that you can figure out what I am attempting to explain.

Though I, personally, am liberal-minded and of an optimistic interpretation of egalitarianism, it is not exclusively out of partisanship that I have an aversion to the American Right. They're just simply more dangerous to me. I would like to stay out of danger and of politics in general. That is all that I wanted to clarify.

I'd take whatever I have to say however, but none of it to too much of heart. My life situation merely demands that I be let to drop out, which I do plan on doing, hopefully the sooner of sometime tomorrow rather than the later of sometime later.

Anyways, carry on or whatever. I wasn't levelling a dig at you or anything. I'll talk to you or anyone else whenever, I guess.

Eh, you don't see what I mean, I think, though, perhaps, I am too concerned with remaining where I can drop out.

Personally, I have kind of social problem that has been created out of some of the habits of certain people's lifestyles. There are all kinds of other critiques to make against the Left, but, in this regard, what I know of this is that it is the Right who is behind that they exist in the first place. I've been to enough bars to be fairly keen on these things.

When my problem is with a certain degree of what you might call "chauvinism", it seems doubtful to me that anything will be better at its source.

This sort of thing only sort of seems to be quite so much of the case in the U.K., and, so, I'm not quite sure that you would understand.

Being said, there's no reason for me to posture when I have become a-political, and, so, I apologize for some of my previous statement.

I really just kind of want to be let to live my life outside of politics. If you read some of my other posts, you'll figure out why this is an entirely sensible thing for me to do.

What I mean about the American Right is that I already dislike the Left, the Anarchist movement, left-Wing Liberals, and the Democratic Party to the point of abject indifference. I am glad not to be capable of fathoming what kind of scum most of those people are.

Being said, the Right in the U.K. is probably not quite like the Right here. Personally, in so far I'm not about to Ghandi the Central Intelligence Agency, a role that I would happily take, but am willing to admit that I am neither fit for nor will fall into place, I'd just as soon be done with politics altogether.

I am in favor of the singular they, even to the point of saying that its being taken up so as to garnish votes was built that way by design. We wanted for the social liberal establishment to use our cause so as to put it to its full effect.

There is a kind of poverty to such praxis, though, in that the form of solidarity established with the miners during the strikes in the 1980s seems to have been much more effective. It's very easy for any politician to now pass for progressive by merely invoking any socially liberal policy whatsoever.

I couldn't say either way of your projected political camps as I am relatively unsure as to what they are.

What I mean about the American Right is that it just offends me more. The Dems just want to milk the waterworks whereas the Right wants for me to get pissed. I already can't stand being an Anarchist because I am pissed. I have no faith nor trust whatsoever in any person who wants to exploit the very rage that their general conduct has instilled within me. People think that there's some sort of revelry in revolution when there's just anger. It's just kind of a suicidal impulse. I'm just an angry young man with an impatient life. The Left, and, here, referring to the far-Left, just kind of exploits that too, though.

For me, I'd like to see a coalition of a set of parties to have fallen out of revolution in the libertarian Left and Anarchist movement, the peace movement, the left-wing Liberals who are with it enough to get what qualms we have with the Democratic Party, whatever Libertarians are up to the cause, and who among the so-called "radical Center" is willing to co-operate so that we can meaningfully substantiate human rights come together as a kind of anti-authoritarian coalition. Saying it and doing it are two different things, though. I kind of doubt that I could get any political movement off of the ground.

I have so much of a vested interest in critiquing black intellectual currents as a Pacifist that it's difficult for me to come to an understanding of what is informed by my perspective of the world and what is veritable critique. As much as I can say that I don't want to secure agency over their movement and merely offer advice, what is advice other than that? It's a very strange thing, I think.

I found myself, though no longer am, in a number of fairly either real or perceived precarious situations that involved kind of a lot of dangerous people and what I learned from this is that what matters is who is good to you and that you are good to them in return. What people think about politics or the various social groups that they identify with is really kind of bosh. I've had people from all walks of life treat me well and only really care to do the same in return.

Being said, I do understand why social groups form as they do. It's just too easy to take solidarity for a similar set of interests or social designations. It's really something else entirely, however. My dad likes to tell this story about a German pilot during the Second World War who flew side by side of an Allied pilot who had nearly been shot down so as to ensure his safe travel home. It's his way of affirming his faith in humanity, and rightly so. We don't agree upon any political issue to the point of politics just being a conversation that I generally avoid, but that is what faith there is to have. For me, it's the ecstatic disclosure of such acts that has brought humanity to nearly every pertinent revelation from which substantial change has been meaningfully effected. People say that things or people just don't change, but that's not true. It's things like that that make what seem like small differences in the world become monumental enough to make the kind of differences that we should celebrate. `It's not the sort of thing that everyone understands, though.

Again, being said, of the black liberation movement in general, I do think that we should be understanding. I come from a different perspective that hasn't led me to a similar set of conclusions and have no real desire to be terribly critical by that account.

This will be my last attempt at explaining this, but there's a certain poignancy to something that the character, Seymour, says to Les in J.D. Salinger's Seymour an Introduction. I fear that talking about this will vitiate the relationship that anyone has to the text, but will do so nonetheless. Seymour talks about being let to ride a nickel-plated bicycle on stage. You'll just have to read it to get an understanding of his sentiment, but upon being asked if he remembers doing so, he says to Les, "he wasn't sure he had ever got off Joe Jackson's beautiful bicycle." What I think is tragic of the Postmodern condition is that people take living as a form of protest and experimental theatre for the revolution of everyday life. I, myself, don't know what lies outside of existence as such. I have merely shared this section of this text and written these posts so as to declare that I should like to find out.

I kind of doubt that anyone else is interested in talking about this, but what I take away from this text is that avant-garde chic is often mistaken for genuine free expression because of a diffuse malaise generated by that there exist various sets of classes. The tendency that people in the arts have to form cliques is a symptom of their socio-political and economic situation. This situation creates a paradox for anyone concerned with the abolition of class as the most effective thing that you can do is to deconstruct it through détournement, an aesthetic praxis that relies upon that you become adept at transmuting its regime of signs. Such praxis relies upon that you not only cultivate an extraordinary knowledge of them, but also an in-depth understanding of how their order is maintained. High culture can only exist if people are subject to the pathology that there exists art which is of an objective aesthetic quality that is of more value than other works of art. To use an example from my own life, if you were to attempt to decide what filmed production of Hamlet were objectively the best, you would realize that this is entirely absurd. The appreciation of art is an entirely subjective experience. Aesthetic valuation, particularly that which maintains certain classes, however, relies upon common misconceptions regarding things like aesthetic paragons or quintessential art. To effectively deconstruct such valuation, one must engage within high culture so as to show others how to disengage from it. Luchino Visconti's Ludwig is a decadent film. Were I so inclined to deconstruct aristocratic decadence, I would have to create another decadent film about the aristocracy. Visconti's life and work already has subverted aristocratic decadence. It took an actual aristocrat to make a set of points about the decadence of the aristocracy. It, then, seems as if we are consigned to become so much at the level of a social totality that which revolt against so as to destroy everything that is like it, but thought to be "imperfect". What people mistakenly call this is "authenticity". I rebel against this state of affairs. I feel the urge to take my rebellion outside and picket nature. Any personal riot against the Absurd is better than a culminate form of social violation in the form of an excess of so-called "character". I do not wonder why Varg Vikernes set fire to Fantoft Stave Church. It holds not fascination for me any longer. I would prefer, now, to discover what freedom is and what is all the more further "out there".

I have said my peace already, but am glad not to have been a bother. Everything and nothing is banal, anyways.

I just can't imagine that psychopathy can arise from anything other than any number of other social plights. Perhaps, I just want to think that, though.

Let's put this here.

"If We Come As Soft Rain" by Sarah Webster Fabio.

What's in in black liberation circles now is Afro-pessimism. It's effectively the black equivalent of Nihilism. Orlando Patterson's Slavery and Social Death seems like a landmark work of Critical Theory and of the history of slavery. I can't, however, imagine that, though they have yet to, these Afro-Pessimists will put anything forth as a way to cope with either the real or perceived situation that they call to light other than the Nihilist imperative to, despite their belief, like mine, that any revolution is just simply an impossibility, effectively wage acts of terror à la l'art pour l'art. Like any Nihilist, they're just kind of angst ridden and pretentious, and, so, unlikely to ever engage in such "propaganda of the deed", but these kind of demoralizations and vengeful imperatives do kind of have a detrimental impact.

As before, I neither can nor really want to tell them what to do, but considering what of the Black Power Movement was actually effective and did actually create a good social environment an proceeding from there is the best advice that I have to give.

Apologies for venting. As Pacifism has become wildly unpopular in the wake of 1968, I just a lot of grievances to address.

For all of the critiques of the Civil Rights Movement that there are to make, it did bring a formal end to segregation and ought to be celebrated by that account. People seem to think that succession will somehow prevent the contemporary onslaught of gentrification for some reason, however.

Chomsky is talking about contemporary Libertarianism and the origins of Libertarianism as an Anarchist school of thought.

Read the article.

I watched that documentary in a Cultural Anthropology class ages ago. It's a very good deconstruction of the biological concept of race. You'd be surprised as to how common such a myth is even today.

There are all kinds of grossly misguided initiatives to have proceeded from the movement for black liberation that, as, as someone who is not black, I don't feel like it is my place to attempt to secure any agency over their movement, I have found to be fairly difficult to address. Black supremacism, black separatism, the biological belief in race, and attitudes towards political violence to have proceeded from Frantz Fannon, nevermind, of course, that the United States is not a country in Africa, have found their way into the general movement for black liberation and created considerable problems for them. Despite the certain degree of veracity there is to Fannon's arguments, those which are effectively summarized as that the language of violence is the only language that the colonizer understands, there is a certain degree of what you might call "revolutionary machismo" that you really kind of can cite as having created the gang violence to follow the race riots in the late 1960s. There are a lot of great things that the Black Power Movement did to better both black communities and to elevate the status of black people within the United States and even the rest of the world. That there is still kind of a strain of revolutionary fanaticism within anti-racist activism, however, can be extraordinarily difficult to get across, particularly to either radicals or anyone who does happen to be black, as neither parties are all that willing to listen to the kind of nonviolent left-wing activists whom they felt were doing all too little all too later before Students for a Democratic Society was effectively destroyed by The Weather Underground.

"Altruistuc egoism" sounds like an oxymoron à la "bitter sweet" but hey, there are times, many in my own life, when the latter is precisely what the doctor ordered (apt) and so the former too must be meaningful in its own way, — TheMadFool

Ayn Rand created Objectivism in response to the Soviet habit of entertaining two entirely contradictory ideas simultaneously, which is something that I wonder about from time to time, as my reasoning is particularly designed to find my way out of any number of double-binds which Joseph Heller referred to as "catch-22s" in Catch-22. It effectively relies upon being open-minded enough to discover what of any apparent contradictions can't be simultaneously maintained, but can often result in both dramatic irony and logical absurdity.

It's just this thing that I think about from time to time, though. A is A, but "bittersweet" is a word that does make a certain degree of sense to me.

I could say that it's a rational form of alturism that follows from Egoism. That'd, perhaps, be more correct. Being all too specific can result in kind of a lot of absurdities as well, however. I had once conceptualize the theoretical political philosophy of "socialist pacifist pacifist socialist socialist pacifism" believing that the qualifier determined the praxis and that the ethos was the second-term so as to lay out a specific set of praxes and ethoses. Even though Pacifist Anarchism makes more technical sense than Anarchist Pacifism, there is no reason to call Anarcho-Pacifism anything other than Anarcho-Pacifism.

That's kind of an exposition on reasoning and not really to the point, though.

There's a way of interpreting the Golden Rule on relying upon empathy and a way of interpreting it as a kind of alturistic Egoism. It just depends upon who is invoking it and within what context. You can either think that you should treat others well because of that, were you to be in their shoes, you would want for them to do the same, or out of that you assume that social relations should be predicated upon generalized reciprocity.

Personally, as per my reading of Jean-Paul Sartre, I think that negation delimits Ontology. How we define what it means for us to exist is through our encounter with others. For me, empathy, particularly the experience which it can occasionally generate, ekstasis, plays part and parcel to the human capacity for abstract thought.

Regardless as to what anyone does however, the snail's pace of progress will just soldier on. I'd give it some hundred years before we all become citizens of Earth.

Am I the only one who thinks that the concept of God could use its own pronoun? ye/yem/yeirs, perhaps?

This is a pretty good dig, but I kind of harbor a theory about online discourse that the general lack of improvement in the social ecology of internet forums is resultant of that almost no one ever just uses music threads such as this to just simply share good tunes that they like.

I tend to use them to a point of excess in order to convince everyone else to by that account. There's nothing that you can really do about it, though.

...Car Seat Headrest.

There's a way of interpreting the Golden Rule as a kind of alturistic Egoism if you think about it. It's within your interests to be treated well and, therefore, within your interests to treat others well through a kind of a generalized reciprocity. It could be interpreted as being empathetic, but also from a standpoint of some form of Egoism.

Race: the Power of an Illusion puts forth a good defense of multicultural "color blindness". I think that the general trend against such an ethos has been created in response to a lack of meaningful, effective, or lasting change in the favor of people of color.

Libertarianism did actually originate from individualist Anarchism, and, so, was originally kind of a left-wing political philosophy before it came to be associated with laissez-faire economics. If you read the Wikipedia article on it, it'll tell you the same thing.