Aside from my speculative interpretation of this text, as it relates to what people take for free expression, mostly what I was interested in talking about and the reason for me positing in the Philosophy of Art forum, a partial reason for my bringing it up is because of their opposition to whom they call the "pro-revolutionaries".

There are a lot of allusions to and even explicit mentions of Communization in that text. Communization is the theory that insurrectionaries should forgo every form of transitional program whatsoever and immediately establish communist society after waging a global revolution. Tiqqun, Endnotes, and Theorie Communiste are just simply delusional. They actually think a liberal global communist society will be established "at the level of a social totality". They've effectively applied Marxist determinism to a quasi-eschatological project that is supposed to manifest as the culmination of the historical process. A global spontaneous, referring to both the concept of revolutionary spontaneity and that it would just sort of be a serendipitous event, revolution would mean that most of the world would have to just up and decide to flood the streets at the same time. It is not within the realm of the possible. There are other people within both the far-Left and Anarchist movement who know this and are merely using such quote unquote praxis to rope people into doing all sorts of things like cultivating a certain social capital, aiding and abetting some of their lifestyle choices, or ultimately engaging in their plan of action in living out some sort of Godardian fantasy as an adventurist terrorist. Because so many young people became so taken by rioting, these people have an extraordinary influence over the Anarchist movement, enough so that I eventually had to leave in protest.

Cultivating a good social environment and focusing upon specific issues is what is both effective and best for any protest movement. When people become convinced that they will be let to play the stand-in for Napoleon in A Pigeon Sat on a Branch Reflecting on Existence, however, reason, wisdom, and common sense just fly out the window.

There were kind of a lot of things that you could critique of the alter-globalization movement, but it had kind of begun to get activists generally together well and could have developed a lot better until there became such an influx of fanatics from any number of cult pathologies concerning the so-called "Black Bloc". I get that rioting is kind of just like shoplifting or something, which is to say kind of a teenage kick that I'd almost be willing to celebrate, but, as I had to leave the Anarchist movement as an Anarcho-Pacifist in protest of its general proclivities towards crypto-Fascism and political violence, which I'm no longer quite so concerned with now that Joe Biden is in office, I think that I do have the case to make that the social ecology from the far-Left to the "radical Center" has disintegrated to some extent, when, kind of from the publication of Empire, it could have ameliorated.

This is probably only really relevant to me, though, and, so, here's to hoping that someone else out there finds these ramblings.

For all of the sympathy that I have for Anarchist Black Cross and the prison abolition movement, I think that they ultimately have somewhat naive, if not somehow fanatical, ideas as it concerns abolition. Something that ABC does that rather bothers me is to be kind of vehemently critical of Amnesty International. AI does what they can from the place in the world that they have. The intention of their criticism is only so much in the vein of making certain points about political prisoners and is moreso done to convince people that, as castigating human rights advocates will have the effect of marginalizing and isolating you from the rest of society, they can convince people who join their organization that they will have to remain dedicated to it forever. It's very cultish and self-defeating. Though I would doubt that AI would be terribly willing to work with Anarchists, as they do have their publicity to maintain, just not criticizing them to a point of excess would both make things go a lot better for ABC and produce a better socio-political environment for everyone. I also think that both ABC and the prison abolition movement fail to take into account that there are situations in which people have no option but to go to some form of law enforcement or another. In cases of domestic violence, terrorism, particularly that perpetuated by the far-Right, mafia coercion, and certain political or economic crimes, it is only law enforcement who can adequately deal with the situations. This idea that we can just instantly do away with prisons and the police is also just kind of absurd. Ideally, I do think that people should imagine a society that only has an extraordinarily limited form of restorative, which is to say, in no ways punitive, justice or even social configurations that are capable of dealing with situations by just simply coming together as a community to mediate them, but, when we still have more or less an exclusively punitive criminal justice system, I don't understand why anyone thinks that the police can be completely defunded and the security apparatus immediately dismantled.

I also think that there's a certain degree of pretense to abolitionism. Everyone makes like they just wouldn't ever collaborate with the police, but what happens when they show up? Anarchists also have a habit of accusing other activists of being police informants and fail to understand that, as such people are who attracts police attention, more often than not, actual police informants turn out to be more explicitly radical. Bommi Bauman, for instance, whose memoir, How It All Began is a rather moving read that I recommend, was an informant. If you've ever seen If A Tree Falls, you'll know that it was the most ardent supporter of direct action that gave the other members of the Earth Liberation Front up to the FBI.

The reason that people believe that total abolition is even possible is because of that they believe in a revolutionary catholicon. Given a an actual effective revolution, even if they only kill the limited number of political opponents that they have to in order to follow through with it, there will still be people who they just can't justify killing and, so, there will still be some form of criminal justice system, one that I don't necessarily trust to be arbitrated to be as minimal as possible. Regardless as to whether or not a revolution could be ethical, it just isn't happening. It doesn't matter what anyone does; it's not happening. Something like the Seattle General Strike is possible. A global spontaneous revolution just simply is not. They think that revolution can just solve every problem in the world, though. In a way, abolition is kind of like the IWW's demand for a four-hour workday. I would have no qualms whatsoever with a four-hour work day. I would even take it one step further and implement a four day work week. Implementing that, however, can just simply not be done without a revolution. The IWW is actually good about admitting that, but that they have remained a revolutionary organization is more or less the reason why I haven't started a branch in one of my many difficult work environments already. These people come up with this pie-in-the-sky idea of completely defunding the police and completely dismantling the security apparatus without telling anyone of that they will have to wage a revolution in order to do so so as to leave people within kind of a lot of self-defeating activist organizations until they, at least, come to their senses. The revolution is just a ruse to con people into remaining within what is ultimately a political racket.

That's kind of a lengthy exposition on such notions. Most people who profess these ideas are fairly well-meaning, but the radicals behind them are ultimately duplicitous and fairly nefarious.

Being said, there are serious problems with law enforcement agencies around the world, racism, perhaps, being the most widely discussed, and prison abolition is a somewhat lofty goal. I just kind of have a personal gripe against hipsters using who may or may not be a police informant to control who gets to feel welcome at shows.

I have put forth my theories and opinions to the best of my abilities already. I just think that assume for the Rockefellers to have had more of global influence than they actually did. Clearly, they had an extraordinary influence. I just think that you're kind of waxing conspiratorial so as to create an overarching narrative of the extraordinary influence of the Fabians, motivated by your opposition to them within the Labour Party. The Rockefellers were one of the most influential industrialists in all of human history. Industrialists don't control the intelligence trade, however.

"The Same Old Rock" by Roy Harper

I'm not saying that the Rockefellers didn't have an extraordinary amount of wealth and influence in the world; I'm saying that your notions of that they were somehow behind the Soviet Union, the Fabians, British intelligence, and American intelligence is conspiratorial. Apophenia refers to "the tendency to perceive meaningful connections between unrelated things." I think that you've just read too far into their political legacy.

The Secret Service Bureau and the military intelligence carried deployed during the Second World War, though I am sure such worlds are small enough for there to have been any number of familiar faces, were different intelligence organizations.

As it concerns intelligence reform, I think that people have to weigh their options. I have already highlighted how it is that there is little that the American populace can do to reform the CIA. The CIA is primarily responsible for any number of geo-political plights that have been created by the intelligence community internationally. They created the inherent flaw within German intelligence by setting up the Gehlen organization. Germany, perhaps the most powerful Europen nation-state, could have otherwise been the most natural ally in reforming the CIA. The CIA has arguably waged consistent acts of espionage in France. If French intelligence were capable of significantly reforming them, they probably would have done so already. Israeli intelligence has a longstanding history of collaboration with the CIA and, even though they necessarily have to be in opposition to their collaboration with Neo-Fascists and other terrorists, they don't seem to either care to or be capable of reforming the CIA in any significant manner. There are a lot of other intelligence agencies in the world, and, perhaps, a broad-based coalition could be put to the effect of reforming the CIA, but, when it comes to the world's major powers, who we are left with is the U.K.. It is not because I assume for British intelligence to be all that laudable that I am suggesting that we will have to rely on them in order to reform the CIA and the intelligence community globally; it is because I can not think of another party who is capable of doing so.

Though, in a way, I kind of am an actual Anarcho-Pacifist spy, I am not a member of the international intelligence community. What I am putting forth here is both ultimately and necessarily somewhat speculative.

By that the U.K. has chosen to leave the European Union, it seems like it will be somewhat difficult to convince them to facilitate that the CIA is reformed. Brexit, to me, is indicative of that the British government intends to follow through with their continuation of a foreign policy that is more or less in line with that of the United States.

I do, however, assume that British intelligence has finally given up on that an intelligence service ought to be an adventurist venture within clandestine diplomacy and Old World nation-building and has become somewhat committed to an intelligence community that does actually do what people entrust to it, namely the protection and promotion of freedom and democracy both domestically and abroad. I feel slightly more inclined to trust MI5 over MI6, but that is neither here nor there. Regardless as to what there is to say of British intelligence, and I am sure there is much, the only party who, to me, seems to be capable of facilitating that the CIA is reformed so that there can exist a veritable international intelligence community is them.

It's kind of like how, no matter how anyone feels about police collaboration within a labor organization, should their organization be threatened by racketeering, the only option that they have is to give the Federal Bureau of Investigation what information they will need to ensure that the organization doesn't go under. They wouldn't be able to back the other party down otherwise.

I have conceptualized Meta-Anarchism so as to be able to leave the Anarchist movement and paradoxically become relatively a-political, but that is neither here nor there.

The Secret Service Bureau was created in 1909. Military Intelligence, Section 6, which later became MI6 was created during the Second World War. There were over twenty different intelligence branches that the British military had employed during the war. It was after the war that MI6 came to specialize in foreign intelligence and MI5 came to specialize in domestic intelligence.

I'm not saying that contemporary British intelligence is all that great. There are probably all kinds of things that are off about it. I'm just saying that, in so far that the CIA can be reformed, it may requisite to rely upon that British intelligence facilitates that they are.

I don't quite have the qualms with "idealism" that you do, despite that it can occasionally be invoked in a fairly patronizing manner.

Gummo is paradoxically one of the better media representations of people form similar living situations to me. It's actually kind of an exploitation film, but it's rather funny and, I think, ultimately oddly humanizing. It's definitely a landmark work of experimental independent cinema, and, so, will only be appreciated by some by that account.

As much as I do feel so inclined to put better up with the Democratic Party, I will say that what is occasionally levelled against them as per their tacit disdain for the working poor is just simply to the point. From activist campaigns to dancehalls, upper-middle class left-wing Liberals do tend to treat the poor as if they were somehow beneath them.

I think that you're waxing fairly apophenic, here, so as to create a coherent depiction of what borderlines on conspiracy.

The Office of Strategic Services was modelled after whatever you want to call British intelligence before the Second World War, but was not somehow orchestrated by MI6. MI6 and MI5 were both created during the Second World War, along with a number of other intelligence branches, for the respective specializations in finance and counter-intelligence. A set of parties within British intelligence were involved with the Greek junta, the "Regime of Colonels", beginning in 1967, I believe, along with the CIA. Up until 1937, British intelligence has gone on the record to have described their relationship with the Gestapo as having been "cordial". There's a long and tenuous history of British intelligence, but as they are today, they don't pose nearly the predicament that the CIA does. It could even be argued that it may be somewhat requisite for them to facilitate the creation of a veritable intelligence community globally.

The CIA, itself, is just simply reactionary. They also happen to be extraordinarily corrupt. They can, perhaps, argue that their network of influence within any number of mafias or terrorist cells is somehow necessary to keep them in check, but, given their longstanding history of doing things like completely ignoring international law, I fail to see what trust can be put in them now. As it seems unlikely for the American populace to decide to dissolve the organization, it needs to be reformed. Despite that there are reactionaries within MI6, it also seems like it will be somewhat necessary for them to facilitate that that happens. The only CIA operation that I can even think of that reflects well upon them was what they had to do with Radio Free Europe. I have invoked that so as to suggest that, in so far that they are going to become a veritable intelligence organization, which is to say one that actually protects and promotes freedom and democracy, they should proceed from there.

The greatest irony of the CIA, I think, is its unofficial motto. John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.", is engraved at their headquarters. If we are not to consider whatever intelligence operations the Chinese government is involved with, the CIA has now become the world's most foremost black propagandists. They also happen to somewhat known for only releasing information about their operations, often those undertaken with little to no oversight or popular support, twenty to thirty years after the fact.

When Hilary Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump, she did bemoan that she had done so because of a "basket of deplorables", thereby creating a slur for the white working poor. The Democratic Party, because of that they tend to apathetic voters or, for whatever reason, enticed by the Populist rhetoric of the Right, does kind have a problem harboring classist attitudes towards so-called "white trash". Finding the film, Gummo, to be fairly relatable, myself, I have found for such attitudes to make a working relationship with them to be fairly untenable.

Being said Populist rhetoric is Populist rhetoric and the American Right also treats the working class in a fairly condescending manner. It is definitely preferable to me to listen to the patronizing emotional appeals on MSNBC than it is to be made subject to a pathology of fear via the feigned moral outrage of Fox News. Because both parties express a certain degree of implicit disdain towards people like me, I don't even watch the news at all.

Rather than gripe about the popularity of NASCAR, if the Democratic Party really wants to reach out to the working class, then they have to offer them meaningful participation within the democratic process and a set of political initiatives that don't merely appear to be to our benefit.

We are not disenfranchised because of that we are somehow "anti-social". We just simply aren't offered a place in politics where we are treated with respect and can put forth the kind of policies and programs that would actually improve our quality of life.

What I am saying, though, is that it was cooler when it was just a snide remark that you'd hear a character played by Janeane Garofalo say in a film about a set of people who spend all of their time in an offbeat coffee shop and are going through some sort of quarter-life crisis or another. Imagine what Philosophy would be like were we to seriously consider the implications that the video game, Space Channel 5, for the Sega Dreamcast had for Critical Theory. Some people just took the nostalgia for the 1990s too far.

Laika was the first dog in space and Yuri Gagarin was, in point of fact, the first person in space. The Soviet Union also achieved its goal of educating its entire populace. They had one of the highest literacy rates in the world, which has carried over into the Russian Federation today.

I think that the "command economy" that @counterpunch is referring to is the Collectivization that was put into place in opposition to Vladimir Lenin's New Economic Policy. I'm not sure what the history of the Soviet Union has to do with any of this, though.

What I don't get is the antinatalism threads... — ssu

Even if you believe in antinatalism, how can you expect to convince anyone not to have children? It seems like it's just a way to look down on breeders. It was better when that was just something that Lesbians said about straight people. There's no reason to make a dig from the 1990s into an actual political philosophy.

The existence of so-called "psychopaths" would seem to refute that a system of ethics can be created from empathy, but it has become such a highly charged diagnosis within the field of Psychology that there are those who question as to whether or not it can even be considered as a mental disorder.

I, for instance, suffer from psychosis. Psychosis is so loosely defined that it seems as if it could be ascribed to nearly any mental ailment whatsoever. It's kind of like neurosis. We use it to refer to all kinds of behavioral traits, but often don't really know what it means.

By definition, psychopaths are said to be lacking in empathy. It seems that this condition exists because of some sort of chemical imbalance, but I'm not entirely sure as how much research there has been in regards to the physical causes of the alleged disorder. Psychopathy, it seems, seems to be a way to describe a person who is thought to be conniving and cruel. To me, it seems kind of like a psychoanalytic rationalization for more broader sociological problems.

Though I would bet that there are people who do not have a natural aptitude for imagining what it would be like to be another, as so much of what we learn at a young age is through imitation, it would seem unlikely to me that a person could be incapable of doing so entirely. I haven't looked too far into any of this, though.

I don't think that you have understood me well which is probably because I have only hashed this so well out with myself.

I'm not saying that ethics are created by society. I'm saying that we are brought into relation with a world with others is what gives rise to ethics. It is through empathy that any person's subjective ethic is inspired. What gives rise to ethics is ekstasis, or ecstasy, which originates as empathy. I'm not saying that ethics are socially constructed.

I don't think that the Rockefeller's have too much to do with the Soviet Union or even the CIA. Nelson Rockefeller actually led The United States President's Commission on CIA Activities within the United States, which published Project MKUltra.

Ethics stem from the other. The situation for ethics to arise only exists because of that there are others. Empathy is what lets us experience the perspective of others. It is from empathy that we can develop an ethic. That is as clear and concise that I can make this for the time being. I don't know. I see empathy as the original ekstasis and ekstasis as the original social thought. It is proceeding from empathy that we develop a philosophy of Ethics. That's what I'm saying, I guess.

I can't now, apparently. All that I mean is that empathy offers you the process by which any veritable ethic is possible. That's all that I was trying to say.

Empathy is far too easy to exploit for it to be any kind of reliable means in human interactions. — baker

You don't see what it does for you. It's like the knowledge of good and evil for those not consigned to the Devil. You wouldn't see what it does for you, though. You just wouldn't have to.

...

...

...

Are you sure? Is this going to end up a discussion about feminist ethics if so? — Shawn

What I meant about this is that I understood what was told to me by that, "It's only personal. It's just not political." I don't think that we should get into a conversation about Feminist ethics.

That's ekstasis, though. You learn something new every day.

This is what I was looking for.

"The Ballad of Easy Rider" by Fairport Convention

Empathy is the epigenesis of ecstasy, the source of all wisdom. People identify too directly with others, via what may be called a "dissociative" experience, particularly within the realm of the political. Consider that "the personal is political", for instance. There's a certain clandestine logic to that things are only personal and that politics have nothing to do with them that I think there is a certain degree of veracity to. What is anyone trying to do other than to be let to cultivate their way of life?

Emmanuel Levinas, whom I, admittedly, haven't read believed that ethics stemmed from the other. I feel so inclined to agree with this. Because we are not alone in the world, ethics just simply arise.

We identify with others so as to come to the revelation of what ekstasis teaches us about an ethic that exists just simply because of that we are brought into relation with people who are other than ourselves.

The actualization of human freedom relies upon the ecstasy of communication. We can only know ourselves if we know what is like to stand outside of them. We, therefore, rely upon empathy to generate ekstasis so that we can come to greater and greater understandings of the world.

I have detailed that well enough, but believe that I could do so better. It's all kind of circumstantial, I guess.

...

...

...

...

...

...

There's a really great joke about how this young Communist in Here Is Your Life who becomes taken by Friedrich Nietzsche's theories about women, but you'll just have to watch it on the Criterion Channel to find it, as I don't think that it's online.

Bracha Ettinger argues for that femininity is a fluid concept, among other things, in The Matrixial Borderspace, but I am still waiting for a Feminist to apply her theories sans the Lacanian jargon because I assume that they are to the point, but can not fathom as to what they are.

I kind of doubt that Fabianism is terribly popular within the Central Intelligence Agency. I'd bet that there are a few closet proclivities towards theoretical forms of Fascism, such as Exo-Fascism or black monarchism, some reactionary elements, primarily a set of right-wing political currents, with Neoconservatism probably being the most popular, and a small minority of left-wing Liberals. I don't really know, though.

I don't see what those Neo-Fascists have to do with Liberalism or Social Democracy. This book is about their doing that. This article is a pretty good review, though I admittedly haven't read the original text.

We still occasionally wear cowboy boots to the dancehall, smoke Marlboro Reds, shoot pool, almost exclusively drink Miller High Life out of the glass bottle, and have a general tendency to be fairly standoffish, but have traded Conway Twitty and Ricky Nelson for Townes Van Zandt and Mazzy Star.

The situation in China is extraordinarily complex and rather troubling. Despite the economic reforms there, little has been done to alter overall power structure. I'm relatively unfamiliar with Chinese politics, and, so, couldn't give too good of an analysis of them.

During the Cold War, the CIA ostensibly justified the arming, training, and funding of Neo-Fascist terrorist cells as "stay-behind networks" to prevent a projected Soviet invasion of Europe. To me, it seems quite clear, that, had there been a genuine fear of such an invasion, they ought to just have trained and bolstered European regular standing armies. What are these Neo-Fascist guerillas in comparison to the militaries of the European nation-states? Had they really, for whatever reason, wanted for there to be such a "fifth column", why deploy the far-Right? Surely there are some other people with weapons in the world. Given this information, I assume that such operations were not carried out in good faith, ultimately duplicitous, and fairly nefarious. By that we only stopped funding the Azov Battalion in Ukraine in 2018 after libcom effectively leaked the Neo-Fascist involvement in the Euromaidan to the associated press, I assume that such operations, to some extent, have continued even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. As an aside, tt's a shame that Svoboda was involved with the protests, as they really ought to have been let to join the European Union.

Anyways, the CIA also armed, trained, and funded the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fairly limited success there, though oft-cited as the military victory that brought down the USSR, of which Osama Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda was born out of.

I could give you an entire history of what they have done in the name of anti-Communism, by which I doubt that you can convince me that almost any of it has been ethical, effective, or contributive to the development of democracy.

If there is a genuine concern with Chinese espionage in the United States, which I'd bet happens, but is rare enough not to pose any real threat to the democratic process, it seems like some other security agency here could deal with that, perhaps even more adequately.

In Speed and Politics, Paul Virilio argues that the rate at which information travels or military operations are undertaken is the primary determinant of the victor in both military and political battles. He posits that this is extraordinary destructive.

As it concerns information, I posit that information travels both better and faster without any form of implicit coercion. This is as a gift from God, but bears a certain paradox.

A person who attempts to establish a society predicated upon free association, the positive freedom to the negative freedom from coercion, though originally a Marxist concept, be it either as a genuine participatory or representative democracy, can become compulsively addicted to the accumulation and dissemination of information. You end up wanting to be free of what is your most effective praxis.

People also can only either process or disseminate information well when they do so rapidly. It is true what they say about patience, namely that it is a virtue.

When it comes to the battle for hearts and minds, however, in so far that a person's existential status is at stake, which is to say their existence as such, one can only choose to play the game and to play to win.

I don't yet have the elaborate philosophical justification for this claim, but I am of the opinion that, because we experience the world as if we have free will, we can assume that we do and that it is up to determinists to prove otherwise. The general course of the mind-body debate has taken has been entirely to the contrary, though.

I feel like it must've taken some sophistry to shrug the basic dig against industrialization, being that people were freer under feudalism.

You and @ssu could have the world's longest-standing political debate, but why should this entire forum be suited for only that purpose?

Personally, I think that this place could use some more young people.

I think that it's all about how you approach your goals. There are some that are better than others, as that a person should believe in something like eliminating poverty would be more noble than something like believing that they should become the king of Earth, but, outside of few outliers, I think that it's just generally in the approach. People often become lost in the pursuit of self-actualization to the point of irony.

To use myself as an example, as a Pacifist, I think that the purpose of international politics should be to facilitate conflict resolution. I consider for this to be a lofty ideal that I should hold dear. What I recognize is that, though this does happen to some extent, that just simply isn't what international politics is like. Failing to cope with this in the past is how I came to become as a stereotype of a Pacifist spy attempting to bring about global communism. What I was unwilling to accept was that there just simply wasn't too much that I could do to change the world for what I, at least, considered to be for the better. Having not accepted this, I then undertook what was kind of a political crusade. As much as anyone doesn't want to be told what place they have in the world, I have decided to share this anecdote so to suggest that, though people kind of ought to have lofty ideals, they really should remain within the realm of the possible. I'd have been much better off volunteering for the War Resisters' International, the local Pacifist non-profit, or a human rights organization or something. I could have made a substantial difference by focusing upon a particular conflict and engaging with the work that people are already doing. I, instead, created what I believed to be an intelligence operation so as to somehow generate peace on Earth. I think that just about everyone would agree with peace on Earth, but I must admit that that was kind of grandiose, to say the least.

Philosophers often, I think, develop these rather grand, but ultimately kind of vague concepts that they believe can effect a global paradigm shift akin the Copernican Revolution. I think that this is a symptom of that the intellectual class who, at least, attempts to orchestrate contemporary culture has yet to absolve itself of the celebration of what just simply is hubris. You had "great men" in past eras of history because of that, given that there was some form of aristocracy or another, there were only a few men who had been offered an extraordinary education. You could think that you could be published by this or that publisher someday and that, to get there, you could be published in this or that journal and that would be an entirely sensible thing to do, though you still may have to accept taking this or that research position or this or that adjunct professorship. They say that life is what you make of it. I don't know. I also made the inverse mistake. I thought that my goal in life should be to become a barista. I was of kind of slacker ethos before I fell into the politics of the ultra-Left. I probably would've been better off maintaining that ethos, but I will say that only aiming high enough to be making more than minimum wage with tips is also indicative of certain Postmodern pessimism. I only really thought that because I felt like it didn't matter what I did; I just wasn't going to have a future. You should just want to have a good life. All that really matters aside from the community that you participate within or help to create is that. Whatever goals get you there, I would say, are good.

It doesn't matter. The third time is a charm.

"God" by John Lennon

☮!