The purpose of this thread is primarily symbolic. The words you see before you on the screen represent the patterns of coalescing and dissipating swirls, within the mind's eye of my vision; a vision of one possible future which lies ahead for us, if we have the courage to reach out to each other in our mutual, co-operative grasping for it. This vision is one of World Wide Positive Political Action.
I must first acknowledge that I am not an expert in any given field, so I do not consider my vision to be infallible. It is like a rough-hewn stone which requires further perfecting by those with the both the knowledge and the skill to do so. But most importantly, this vision requires the moral will-power of said aforementioned experts, and it also must find a consensual acquiescence on the part of those who would find themselves organised by such a system. I will say again--the purpose of this post is primarily symbolic. None of this is intended to be prescriptive; it is not a blueprint for enforcing a new way of life on other people, against their respective wills.
Having spent many, many years in isolation with my books and with my internet reading lists, I have learned a great deal about the world that has shocked me out of my complacency. I now feel a responsibility to pass on what I have learned, with the intention of offering some potential solutions to the problems we can perceive all around us--rather than simply dumping distressing information onto other people, without any care or plan (which seems to me to be more like an act of cruelty, rather than kindness, although it is often well-meaning; it is rather like saying "Here you all go! Share in my pain with me!".)
It is obvious to me, now, that we are all responsible for the world which we are creating all around us, all the time--at the very least with respect to our human civilisation, culture, and the effect that these things have on the natural world--whether we be materialist realists (who tend to atheism), spiritual idealists (who tend to theism), or some alchemical combination of the two most popular philosophies. It has also become obvious to me that failure to act, or at the very least, a failure to speak out against that which we claim to disapprove of, is tantamount to a passive acceptance of the status quo. We must attempt to communicate the mental concept that we do not consent to an action made in our names, in at least some small fashion--even if it is just thinking about it, and being cognisant of it, and also feeling it; really feeling something about what is to be done, and being fully aware of that--for those who act to have reason to understand that our consent has, in fact, been breached. I believe that this statement will still hold true, regardless of where you might place yourselves, with respect to the materialist/spiritualist divide. Please consider these most recent ideas now, if you don't mind, and try to decide for yourselves whether the philosophical construct that I have just placed before you actually represents the truth.
Now please turn your attention to this scene-setting video from the Terminator series of movies, which is often referred to in common parlance as the "future war" scene. I hope that you will choose to reject it.
But can you conceive of a future like this? Is it possible? Is it likely, even, given all that you may know about the machinations of our patrician classes and their ever-encroaching Skynet of intrusive surveillance? How likely do you consider this future to be?
And if you consider this unhappy future to be quite likely, then what can you do--what will you do--in order to prevent it from occurring? How do we go about rejecting this type of future? Granted it is an extreme example of a worst-case-scenario--and I am imagining the killer robots to be directed by human overlords, by the way, unlike in the movie--but it is still on the cards, perhaps, depending upon the sum of our individual choices.
Am I fearmongering? Well yes, I am, clearly! Is this fearmongering reasonable, given the circumstances that we find ourselves in? Again, yes, I think that it is reasonable. Fear is a natural motivator and it is there for a good reason, even though we, the anxiety-riddled, often suffer a kind of misfiring of the age-old fear centre, which resides deep within our brains (but can be held in check, with practice.) Also, "mongering" of a certain type can sometimes produce the most wondrous results--even if the din of the mental iron-monger is unsettling, while the process of shaping a new ideal is in progress--and before the caryatid emerges triumphantly from within the fissure.
Some will no doubt wonder--why attempt to evangelise the socially-anxious people of world, with the aim of fostering a thoughtful, but firmly-held feeling that we must resist the so-called "New World Order"--to borrow a term which is popular amongst internet conspiracist circles (and it is a term which is easily understood by most, I think, which is why it is a useful descriptor here.) Well, to be concise, why not? If these horrors are real, then they are real, and they are not going to stop being real just because we are fearful by nature. Being concerned and afraid about the New World Order is a rational condition, unlike social anxiety, which is not a reasonable condition at all--by definition--and if we are going to be afraid of something, we may as well be afraid of something that we can actually change. We cannot change human society, in the sense that we cannot make society itself go away (unless we fail to stop a nuclear exchange, or something like that--or until we all evolve to a totally new mode of behaviours), but we *can* alter the culture of our civilisation. And perhaps the visibly poorly culture that surrounds us is contributing to some of our anxiety problems? Who knows! But at any rate, it seems to me that we must galvanise as many people as possible into voicing their opposition to the unpleasant possible future that I am worried about, if we are to stop something like it from becoming a reality. And I am someone who is unfortunately saddled with a chronically-anxious disposition, so if I am to be self-appointed with the task of rallying the proverbial troops to the cause--the cause of peaceably yet strenuously refuting the need for the war economy, decrying aggressive war in general, and denouncing the patricians for their anti-democratic, manipulative behaviour--then you sensitive people are my natural audience.
You need not be quite so afraid though. The patricians of our patriarchy are few in number, while we are many. Yet we should not look on them too angrily, or with hate stirring in our hearts. This destructive political system propagates itself. People born into the highest status are sent to expensive academies, which--along with providing a better standard of all-around education--also indoctrinates them into their role as the patrician class; these educational institutes also instill in them a sense of inborn superiority. They are just like we would be, if we had also been brought up with that lifestyle. They deserve our basic respect--which we should afford to all human beings--and also our understanding, if not our acquiescence to their supposed right to rule. And the psychopaths and sociopaths among them cannot be held quite so morally accountable for their immoral actions as a normal person who performs the same acts, as much as it may pain us to admit this fact. Still, we must resist! Peacefully, I would hope--and that is how I intend to resist, myself. Firmly, carefully and mindfully.
If the patricians really believe in their much-vaunted democratic values, then surely they can stand to be robustly scrutinised by a ragtag band of socially-anxious misfits like us! And if they cannot, and we must live in fear of being labelled as political dissidents, then surely this puts the lie of a truly free society to bed, doesn't it? In which case, the only reasonable course of action is for us to resist.
Again, please consider the above words slowly and carefully, please. Do you feel comfortable agitating for radical, if peaceful, political change? Do you worry that the government might put you on some kind of watch list simply for making peacefully dissenting posts on a web forum, blog or news stream comments section? And if the answer is yes, then there is something wrong, isn't there? Try to imagine yourself being free of the scourge that is social and generalised anxiety, then ask yourself the same question again, and I am guessing that many of you will still imagine the SA/GAD-free version of yourselves to be justified in being afraid of your governments.
An oppressive, expansionist power structure will not go away on its own, even if we all retreat to our little Hobbit holes in the Shire. And I say that somewhat ironicly, considering I am an anchoress Hobbit! Even the little hairs on my toes quiver in fear sometimes, at the prospect of stepping outside the hovel--at least on my lonesome. It is really bad--I am telling you! Haha!
"This is just the beginning.", as Christopher Lee said in his role as Count Dooku, in the closing sequences of Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones--but I am inverting the meaning of this phrase. For I insist that this moment in time can be the beginning of something truly wondrous, not our descent into an anti-democratic tyranny! I intend to create a post very shortly, which will contain some of my ideas for the kind of meaningful change we might agitate for. This has been more of a preamble. But for now, I will re-post some thoughts that I wrote elsewhere, in a recent thread on this forum.
I will make another post to say this, because it is so important that it probably deserves to be in a post all of its own--if you want to become an activist to help us solve the problems we face in this corrupt world, but you don't have a lot of time to give, and you only feel able to concentrate on a single issue--then make that issue be protecting the neutrality of the internet!
Make your one issue be standing tall in protecting our freedom of speech on the world wide web!
(The above broken link originally directed one towards the scene of Vision's birth, from the movie "Avengers: Age of Ultron"--starting with Thor's striking of Ultron's "coffin" with Mjölnir, and ending with the shocking revelation of the Vision's ability to wield the aforementioned hammer.)
We can declare that the internet exists outside the realm of private property laws, with our democratically-elected, representative governments simply conferring a licence to connect individual human beings to this internet realm. We can also demand that private business entities are stripped of their licence to act as a bridge to cyberspace, if they will not respect basic first principles of free speech for all who utilise their services, within reasonable bounds (which we can define between ourselves, voluntarily and consensually.)
We can choose to believe that our world wide web is the property of no one individual--and that all of humankind is contained within it, has a right to access it and to use it, and that we all rightfully own our equal shares in it: the corporation of human thought.
Trump picks ‘Jew counter’ at center of Nixon-era anti-Semitic campaign to lead powerful think tank
On the heels of Charlottesville, it doesn't look great.
On Wednesday, President Trump announced his intention to appoint longtime Republican operative Fred Malek as chair of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a highly recognized think tank that is part of the Smithsonian Institution.
While the position may be a relatively obscure one, Trump’s selection of Malek — coming as it does on the heels of the president defending neo-Nazis who were involved in a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia — is significant, as Malek was involved in one of the
most notorious anti-Semitic episodes in modern American history.
Malek, now 80, served as a special assistant to President Richard Nixon. In that role, in 1971, he put together a list of “important Jewish officials” who were working in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Four of those officials were later demoted.
As The Atlantic has detailed, Nixon had come to believe that Democratic Jews in the BLS were conspiring against him after the bureau released a report playing down a drop in the unemployment rate, and ordered Malek to work on purging them from leadership positions.
“We’ve got to get a man in charge who is not Jewish to control the Jewish … do you understand?” Nixon told chief of staff H.R. Halderman.
In 2010, Slate characterized the episode as “the last recorded act of official anti-Semitism by the United States government.” And while Malek later said he was simply following Nixon’s orders and played no role in the demotions — “If I had even been peripherally involved or asked to alter someone’s employment status I would have found it offensive and morally unacceptable, and I would have refused,” he told the Washington Post in 1988 — Nixon-era memos released in 2007 revealed he was lying.
According to one of those memos, on September 8, 1971, Malek — following up on the earlier memo listing “important Jewish officials” — wrote Haldeman and said, “I had several meetings with [Labor] Secretary [James D.] Hodgson to convince him of the need for fairly drastic moves.” Regarding the transfers of three BLS employees with Jewish-sounding names, Malek added, “These moves do not go as far as I would have preferred but represent a reasonable compromise [with the president’s demand for a Jew purge] that I feel will make the BLS a more responsive and effective unit,” Slate reported. <img alt="">
The Jew-counting episode has dogged Malek throughout the latter part of his career, which included a stint as co-chair of John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, another as head of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s (R) Commission, and fundraising for Mitt Romney’s presidential bid.
Trump’s appointment of Malek comes weeks after an alleged Nazi sympathizer killed a counter-protester and injured 19 others in Charlottesville by driving his vehicle through a crowd. Days after the incident, Trump defended the group of white supremacists of which the alleged murderer was a part, suggesting during a news conference that they have legitimate reasons to protest the removal of a Confederate monument from a public park. <img alt="CREDIT: AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais">
“They didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you have some very bad people in that group,” Trump said. “But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides … You had people in that group that were in to protest, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park.”
In a recent interview with the Financial Times, Cohn said Trump “can and must do better in consistently and unequivocally condemning these groups and do everything we can to heal the deep divisions that exist in our communities.”
“As a Jewish American, I will not allow neo-Nazis ranting ‘Jews will not replace us’ to cause this Jew to leave his job,” Cohn added, referring to a chant white supremacists used in Charlottesville. “I feel deep empathy for all who have been targeted by these hate groups. We must all unite together against them.”
Malek’s appointment comes on the heels of the departure of Sebastian Gorka from the White House. Gorka’s tenure in the Trump administration was dogged by allegations of anti-Semitism — he wore a medal issued by a group that the State Department identified as Nazi collaborators to the inauguration, and reportedly has links to a number of anti-Semitic groups in Hungary.
And I always thought this would be
the land of milk and honey
Oh but I came to find out that it's
all hate and money
And there's a canopy of greed holding me down.
****ty article from an obscure news source vs. Jewish people marrying into the trump family. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm..................................... .................................................. .................. Yes most definitely a nazi.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
We can declare that we will oppose aggressive war whenever, and wherever we perceive it--no matter which side may be speaking for it--and in the full and complete knowledge that we could benefit personally from further wars, waged for the purpose of pillaging weaker peoples of their bounties (in the short term--and to some extent, no matter what social class we may belong to--this is certainly true.)
Aggressive war is the kind that is not justifiably waged in self-defence, in order to preserve the coherence of both the microcosm and the macrocosm.
We can declare that we will oppose these wars because we have the foresight--the wisdom--to understand that continued aggression will only bring ruin for us all, in the longer term. We can declare that we are happy to face the consequences of our well-intentioned action, because we will also be glad to be forced into finding innovative solutions to the age-old problems faced by ambitious, growing populations, that are limited by the finite shape and size of their environs.
It could be that we are destined only to come together at the last minute, to fashion guiding reins--or restraints--for the twin nightmares of human overpopulation and the unbridled consumption of the Gaian fruit (our planet Earth's natural resources), after we have finally ended the scourge of war, via the sum of our collective wills.
To put it another way--if the global system can no longer be balanced through the transfer of energy when human lives are extinguished, then it will be forced to shift into a new mode of geometry. That geometry could be simpler--which would be bad for our advanced civilisation as we know it--or it could be more complicated. And if it is to be more complicated, then it makes sense to split the system into two or more parts, with energy flowing in between, to keep the vector advancing.
Perhaps we will embrace the promise of the planet Mars for ensuring the peaceful furtherance of human life in the universe, rather than surrendering to the Roman god of war? Now isn't that a poetic thought!
We will require the competitive, active, masculine impulse in order to make a vision of a spacefaring humanity possible--but it must be competition tempered with co-operation; it must be the active principle tempered with that of the receptive; and ultimately, we will require masculinity tempered with femininity. Or vice-versa!
V for Vrijheid! V for Victory! V for Virtue!
A for Agape! A for Athena! A for Agreement!
She who wisely reaches out to others--passively receiving advice with the one hand, with the Victory at her fingertips--but always ready with the other hand to forcefully cast her spear of sage counsel, far and wide.
*Agape is translated from the Ancient Greek to mean Charitable Love (To will the good of another person, or other people.) Agreement refers to the idea that a commitment to a common good can be fixed upon between a group of people, absolutely voluntarily and willingly.
**Please do not be troubled by the use of the feminine third-person pronoun. I am not a female-supremacist. I believe that there is too much homage paid to the masculine aspect in this present epoch, and that we have lost touch with the virtue of maintaining a balance between the masculine and the feminine--whether we be men, women, or anything in between--or beyond! I am attempting to redress the balance--that is all--but I recognise the need for a healthy masculine drive to make alterations to our world, and to our mindsets, as long as it is channelled towards a more self-sustaining, other-sustaining and whole-sustaining outcome.