Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY [LINK | Article]
Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
The Guardian caught with its Fake News pants down > engaged in contemptible attempt to DISCREDITbrave truth-teller, award-winning Aussie journalist and publisher, JULIAN ASSANGE
teaches students to think critically about the media
The Guardian
flagship outlet of 'liberal' media, Britain & USA
ran piece highlighting two bald-faced lies:
That Julian Assange:
1. praised Trump, expressed optimism re Trump presidency
2. described Russia as marketplace of ideas with tremendous amount of free expression
THE GUARDIAN CLAIMS BORE NO RELATION to interview that THE GUARDIAN was purporting to paraphrase
interview - Assange with Italian journalist, STEFANIA MAURIZI
STEFANIA MAURIZI tweeted / outraged
> message was almost completely ignored
meanwhile, THE GUARDIAN article, has been tweeted & reprinted
& basically heralded the world over
*hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting members of the public THE WORLD OVER now have picked up the PROPAGANDA from THE GUARDIAN
& are convinced that Assange said these things, which were calculated to defame Assange, according to Prof. Mark Crispin Miller
> so as to discredit truth-telling Aussie journalist, JULIAN ASSANGE
LATEST PROPAGANDA salvo to demonise Assange & to punish him for his truth-telling
RT reporter: We are hearing term 'fake news' is this to help us distinguish or other reasons?
Mark Crispin Miller prof. Media Studies - NYU
'Fake News' is a serious problem
> not b/c there is fringe outlets that post falsehoods
Fake News is a problem b/c the CORPORATE PRESS itself pumps out so much of it [ie. WESTERN CORPORATE PRESS/MEDIA FAKE NEWS]
these claims in THE GUARDIAN are just one example of FAKE NEWS that has been propagated as truth
Mark Crispin Miller
prof. Media Studies - NYU
> cannot begin to even catalogue all the nuggets of FAKE NEWS that have been used to keep the war in Syria going
RT reporter:
STEFANIA MAURIZI, who did interview with Assange, has protested that THE GUARDIAN deliberately distorted her interview with Assange
> like you said, it was a bald-faced LIE
BUT why has the press chosen to IGNORE this Italian journalist's protest, even as they re-tweet the false claims in THE GUARDIAN?
Mark Crispin Miller prof. Media Studies - NYU
Why would they pay attention to her attempt to set the record straight, since what we're talking about here is clearly a DELIBERATE PROPAGANDA EFFORT to DEFAME JULIAN ASSANGE and with no concern for accuracy, truth or any of that old fashioned stuff.
Why would they mention the actual objections of the journalist that did the interview with him: it would defeat the whole purpose of this FAKE NEWS EFFORT TO ATTACK ASSANGE and to add to the long list of attacks on him, over the last few years.
Took forever to edit this. Think I'm off my face tired. I've had a horror of a time trying to find the exact Hillary Clinton 'obliterate Iran' video that I saw the other day. Think this is it. Found myself doubling up and taking forever to edit the confusing layout. Think I'd better get some sleep soon.
The Red Ice Creations audio (above) very good. Did not finish listening to all of it. Will go back when I'm not so tired.
Don't know what happened. I just couldn't contain the anger and frustration, I guess.
While I was preparing something to eat, I was being harangued about my faults or whatever. I can't even remember what it was exactly that was the issue with me.
But it's the same old scene being played out. I expect it began with my complaint about the drinking or something similar - or I just asked to be left in peace.
Yes, I asked that he just watch some TV. Kept having something of a go at me in that sort of semi-drunk way: not completely off his face, but drunk enough to be frustrating and annoying.
As usual, unresponsive to whatever need I express.
Good example is if I were to plainly state that I am distressed and cannot take more of whatever, it's like a signal to amp up whatever it is that I've specifically asked that he desist.
In this case, I think I'd just had all I could take of him sort of arguing with me (where there was no argument from me), instead of heeding my need to be left in peace.
On and on and on it went, with him justifying himself, insisting on how martyred he is and how he was trying to 'help' and whatever else, talking over the top of me and persisting in doing my head in, where I've signalled: enough.
I haven't had that kind of angry outburst in years. I am no longer able to feel that degree of anger. Even now, I feel numb. I can't cry although I kind of wish I could.
'Domestic' in the making really began in the early hours of the afternoon. I figured he was outside drinking, but I was immersed in reading and I wasn't up for arguing about drinking. Also, when I did go out, he seemed reasonably sober. I guess I hoped he'd keep sober. But after several hours of drinking he's not exactly sober. While he's not rolling drunk, he's drunk enough to piss me off and drunk enough not to be receptive to what I'm saying and drunk enough to argue back at me over the top of what I've conveyed to him.
It finally did my head in and I had a complete meltdown.
It's impossible to have a proper conversation with someone who is intoxicated and unreceptive: he just argues back at me and whether I want to argue or not, it turns to argument.
It turns to his drinking, which he then insists 'isn't' a problem. But it's a f*cking problem if I'm telling him it's a problem from my perspective and if this has been at the root of every single f*cking argument he and I have had in what is now nearing 10 years.
It does my head in that he is ranting at me about how he's 'helping' me, when he's spent the afternoon destroying my plants. I had a huge rubber plant that he destroyed and put in the recycling bin and he's destroyed whatever water plants I had.
Yes, I've had a major depressive thing where I've not bothered with gardening, plants or anything else, to a ridiculous point where all that interests me is politics news, virtually all day ever day, like an addictive escapist thing.
For whatever reason, I find it rewarding and interesting, even though it's entirely pointless. Although I'm good for nothing, it feeds my mind at least. Hopefully, I'm learning something. However useless my learning.
As usual, whenever there is anything that's remotely critical on my part in relation to his drinking, his defensive method is to then have a go at me: about everything under the sun; and where I will insist that the drinking needs to stop, that I cannot deal with it and whatever else I convey at this point, he'll insist drinking is not the problem, that I am the problem, and he goes into all the things that are wrong with me.
It's the same f*cking argument being repeated almost 10 years down the track.
It then turns to an attack on the things that interest me and then an attack on my mental health: "You're mad," he'll insist.
Well, after the meltdown I had, that turned to "You're a nasty old bitch." WTF? It's not like he's twelve.
During some point he became physically intimidating and was saying how he's not going to "explode" or some shit, where he was heading towards me in the kitchen and I was bracing myself to either be whacked or grabbed by him, but he backed off.
At some point I got my phone and rang a third party to ask that they intervene and ask him not to drink, because I don't know from one day to the next what I'm doing here.
We'll be good for a day or two or whatever and I'll have the anxiety and the tensions or a full-blown argument (although not necessarily always a big one). Whatever it is, it's a constant disruption and I find myself constantly having to rethink WTF I'm doing. Where I settle on trying to co-exist, all that is overturned by the feeling that I simply cannot co-exist with someone who intends to continue to drink.
As in, he's semi-pissed and ranting about plans he has etc. All well and good having plans, but if I'm unable to cope with any more drinking after almost 10 years of this issue being a point of contention and of argument between us, then what good are any plans he has?
Even more concerning and pressure-inducing for me is having to make up my mind whether to move from the place that has been my home for much longer than he's been here: as in, having to suddenly just vacate my home to be finally done with this. It's not what I want to do, but if I can't negotiate to live sensibly in some way, what other option is open to me? I'm under pressure now, because I have to make legal decisions. Which probably explains the seismic meltdown that today's boozy session led to for me.
Through our argument - or during some point - he insists "I'm going to get tipsy every day" and "I'm allowed to drink ..." or some such crap, like I'm dealing with a f*cking child and like he hasn't heard a f*cking word of what I've said.
I've said enough. I've said no more. I've said no more drinking at home. I've said I can take no more of this. I've explained to him my anxiety.
We've had the same f*cking dramas since he's resumed drinking as we've had in the years before he had to have a break from drinking. So why does he not connect the dots and just stop with the f*cking drinking, when he's able to? It's not like he needs professional help. He's gone cold turkey before and he's managed, so why not just do it and be done with it, so we can at least co-exist without drama ... and if I'm really that sh*t, he needs to figure if he wants to remain here or if he wants to move.
I don't understand what it is about this that he can't understand. It's pretty basic. It's either drink and therefore leave or stop drinking, remain and try to co-exist.
Does he seriously think that we have this drama every few days because I'm a 'nasty c*nt'? Why does he not consider the possibility that I've had enough and cannot cope with any more of this?
What to him is probably just an argument while he's sort of buffered by intoxication is something different to me. I see the condition that he is in and I am not only disgusted, I'm freaked out about locking myself into more of the same. It is impossible to imagine just living like this for another ten years. I can't do it and I don't understand why he can't understand that I cannot do it. Does he really imagine I want to be homeless and aimlessly moving to some other place after all the time I've been here, and that this is just on whim on my part or because I'm a "nasty old bitch", or is there a possibility that I am completely depleted and sh*t scared of living out any more of this, because I'm at a point where I'm finished?
The numbness I feel is frightening. It has been a long time since I have felt this numb. Nothing enlivens me. Everything is dead to me. All that's left of a drive in me is my ability to read and take an interest in things far removed from me.
When he has a go at the things that interest me and starts behaving like a freak, pointing to my PC telling me "all of this will be gone" (presumably meaning he's disconnecting the internet when he leaves), I just feel disgusted because I'm looking at someone semi off his face, 'threatening' me with cutting off the internet, as if that is some kind of inducement for living with someone who is going to get sh*t-faced and argue with me every few days or whatever, where he's ignoring my voice and my simple request that he just stop the f*cking drinking because I can take no more of it.
While it's not an ideal solution, I'd even consider an arrangement where he spends every Friday night or something somewhere else getting drunk, but never drinks again here around me. But I can't even negotiate that. Nothing I say to him enters his skull. But, in hindsight, I don't think that's an ideal arrangement because it is simply feeding the habit and the habit is the problem. How can you commit to something when the other person cannot even commit to not drinking alcohol, where alcohol has been a point of contention and problem for years? It's impossible.
A lot of today's anger comes from having wasted maybe another 18 months of my life on this and on now facing being homeless, where we could have formally parted company 18 months ago and I may have been on back on my feet and somewhat functional by now - or at least stuck with nothing but my own dysfunction.
It wouldn't be easy for me, but I don't know what alternative there is when there is no stability in this situation. I tell him I'm going to have a breakdown and he just laughs at me and keeps repeating what I've told him I can no longer handle. I seriously cannot handle living with someone who is going to continue to drink when I've stated a clear limit in that regard and have been for the last 10 f*cking years. That is so degrading. No life is worth that kind of degradation.
Then I think about all the arguments we've had and I wonder why he's even here with me. Going by all the attacks on me, I'm the sh*ttiest person there is. So what else is there? I can't cope with living with someone who has shoved me in some 'sh*t-box', where we have a permanently contentious 'relationship' and I'm just sh*t in his eyes - which is obvious from how he perceives and 'relates' to me. Only there's not much relating going on here. We're really separate units. I've ground down to a complete, numb halt. He's happy when he's drinking. But I'm distressed. It just doesn't work.
I hate the arguments we have. They're so diminishing. The things he says to me diminish him in my eyes. What I hate most is that it's like dealing with a child. I don't have children. I have him. LOL
What I also find revolting is the way he sells me out. We'll be having an argument and he'll tell me how so-and-so sides with him and how he's told everyone I'm 'mad' and whatever else, like he's some f*cking martyr suffering here with me and he and his posse know where it's at. F*ck that. I'm not involved with whoever he's slagging me off to and I don't give a shit what they think about any of this. But the problem here is that I'm involved with someone who cannot have anything but an adversarial and arms-length weird and destructive 'relationship' with me, where I cannot even trust him in any way whatsoever, because he's a never-ending packet of f*cking psychological assault and betrayal of some kind or other.
I'm angry that he couldn't even have a proper break-up with me. Why the f*ck couldn't he just man up and have a proper discussion and proper break-up with me? We don't talk about anything. Lately, when he's sober, I've tried to talk to him to convey to him that I just cannot cope any longer, but he shuts me down. I'm shut down. I can't discuss anything. And the same thing gets replayed over and over again.
It's really weird living with someone who is sort of not there. It took me years to figure out that he's kind of not there, in the sense that he's not himself etc and that everything is mediated through an alcohol haze, when intoxicated. So I'm sort of dealing with two persons: the nice person and the intoxicated person. Dealing with the intoxicated person feels like having a wrestling match with the insane ... while he's insisting I'm the problem and I'm 'mad'.
It's probably just as strange to live with someone who either does not notice or does not care that I'm no longer there. As in, I may as well be inanimate: I'm always tuned into something online. How can he not notice or care that I'm not there?
We're both in our own worlds. His world is just fine, if I don't say anything about the drinking. But my world is not. I find it strange to be with someone for so long but to feel sometimes like this person is a complete stranger to me. It's shocking when it happens. It's shocking that after all this time I can feel so completely disconnected, but if you sort of live in separate worlds, where there is nothing shared or discussed, it's very hard to feel connected.
All the times he's had a go at me about what is essentially me, leaves me feeling I cannot even trust this person. To his mind, I'm the 'enemy' or something. It's always some adversarial thing and I'm the 'bad guy' and everything that I am and that interests me or that I express (or whatever else) is sh*t, according to him. So how the f*ck can we co-exist, if in this dynamic I am with someone who thinks I'm sh*t and someone I can't trust because he falls to bits any time he's criticised in any way and has some massive attack on me - as in, an attack on the fundamentals of me and what I am? LOL
Mostly I feel anxiety. I feel fear. I feel frustration. I feel anger. I feel guilt. Sometimes I feel really dreadful about myself. But mostly everything is kind of numbed down. Something inside of me is shut off. The anxiety feelings are the strongest when I try to sleep or when I know he's begun drinking. It takes a lot to stir anger in me because of the numbness I feel. Maybe that's depression. The meltdown I had today is an exception. I don't know where that anger came from.
I'm not sure that airing my dirty laundry has helped me. I feel a combination of distressed, numb and like crying, but I can't cry. Sometimes I think about ending it all when I feel especially overwhelmed, but that's more an impulse thing rather than a plan.
Doubt I'll be good for blogging about anything I've looked at.
Just trying to unwind as I wait for the rice and chicken dish I'm preparing finish cooking. I don't even know how I managed to cook something through that. As in, how I managed to resume cooking after the outburst I had. I can feel a headache coming on. Extremely tense.
Began experiencing anxiety about the duration of time I thought Mr Semi-Off-His-Face was outside drinking after our argument.
Went out to look for him but couldn't find him.
Checked refrigerator. He's taken a six-pack of beer.
Tried calling. Phone either diverting to message bank, or he's on a call.
Sent a text to his brother to check on his safety because the behaviour is unusual (and because he's said crap when he's drunk that has me worried about his disappearing).
Who leaves home with a six-pack?
What an asshole he is.
Didn't even bother telling me ... or leaving me with any cigarettes.
I'm now twice as strung out as I was.
I can't take any more of his sh*t.
With any luck he'll clear off of his own volition so I can salvage what is left of my life.
Sh*t. He's returned. This is no good.
Fumbled with the keys but managed to get inside. Smashed. Swaying.
Says I'm a "c*nt".
Sitting on the couch holding his head.
Tried to get him to go to bed. Says that's what he's doing. But he's still sitting there on the couch.
I might have to grab my phone, keys and cigarettes quietly and if need be, f*ck off from here.
There goes my listening to Red Ice Radio about Hillary. LOL
I feel sort of sick in the stomach.
Might go outside and smoke (bought cigarettes earlier).
This is seriously f*cked.
This is precisely why I insist that he does not drink around me.
Drink in the park or wherever he was and return home isn't what I had in mind.
This is also why I have insisted on telling him that he cannot 'control' drink.
Called out "fucking shut up" as he can he my keystrokes.
One of the great animal figures hewn out of a single block of marble - the guide standing beside it is almost six feet tall.
Each emperor of the Ming dynasty, which ruled China from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century, was given an elaborate shrine, approached through an avenue of these marble animals. [here]
The Jicarilla Apache
formerly of New Mexico
1906
2004
Laura Gilchrist
A Perfect Storm of Turbulent Gases
1995
First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton
It looks like Hillary Clinton has had a nose job since 1995.
the original broad base, fleshy nose, wide nostrils
right nasal bone looks more refined, as do nostrils | nose on the left bumpy, fleshier
Apart from the enormous lips (on the right) these two could be sisters ... LOL
Britain's William Hague & Hollywood-Military-Industrial-UN-Complex Propaganda Figure: Angelina Jolie
MI5 - 1944
'Pam'
Description: MI5 staff member pictured on beach. This ordinary looking snapshot was taken and planted as part of a complex WWII intelligence plan known as Operation Mincemeat.
The intention was that this photograph would make other documents secreted with it seem more authentic. These documents, passed on to German agents after they were found on a body washed up on the coast of Spain (planted by British intelligence) suggested that the Allies were not planning an invasion of southern Europe via Sicily. This led to a weakening of German defence of Sicily which assisted the eventual Allied attack. [source]
the Agency's drugs got to stay on these streets Wars must continue War on Women Clinton Crime Cartel CCC is the mark of the Beast Fake-ass 'feminist'
... LOL
MOVING LIKE HILLARY | Hillary Clinton Song Parody
Rusty Cage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4Q3brIJIfQ
LOL ...
DNC is leakin' I'm lying' when I'm speakin' the election I'll be cheatin' When I'm trippin' I'm movin' like Hillary
Roger Stone: Establishment is Circling the Wagons, Ready To Do Anything To Prevent Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WODYOuAVMDQ
WITCH OF WALL STREET 2016
Above: info-taining political MUSIC VIDEOS and political commentary of 20th Sept. 2016, from Trump insider, on presidential candidate and unindicted criminal, Hillary Clinton, that caught my attention.
Having California rolls for 'breakfast'.
Not as nice as they were. Had to spit out a hard bit of seaweed.
Still trying to wake up. Can't decide what I like most.
Might go with #3 for a while. ... No. I can't get into it. It's frustrating me.
Can't find anything I want to listen to for ages. Everything's annoying me.
I'll probably just listen to this on repeat. I like the feeling of the same thing over and over again. LOL This is nice, too. Electro Balkan by DJ Wex could be today's winner.
LOL ... I can hear Gilad on saxophone at about 1:55. Assume it was Gilad, as he would have been in the band at this time.
GILAD ATZMON
Gilad Atzmon
born Tel Aviv
secular, right-wing conservative family
1994 - migrates to UK
University of Essex
master's degree in Philosophy
British citizen in 2002
renounced his Israeli citizenship
defines himself as "a British, Hebrew Speaking Palestinian"
philosopher / Jazz musician / member Ian Dury and the Blockheads (joined 1998)
critical of Zionism and various other Jewish related issues/subjects
Video: January 2016
Gilad Atzmon in NYC 'Jewish Controlled Opposition'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbx23Ygj3YM
COMMENT
I was interested in the 'controlled opposition' in terms of media, public discourse, intelligentsia talking heads etc. in general, before I stumbled on this video.
Not sure I've really understood what this is about. Perhaps there is a video that precedes this? *Edit: it looks like Gilad Atazmon wants people to have the courage to speak up regarding the Israel-Palestine issue? It also looks like a prediction of dire consequences of some kind. It sounds like he's predicting war.
Ian Dury's in here because Gilad Atazmon was/is in the group and I like 'Hit Me'. LOL
Now I'm distracted checking out oldies I like ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ4QoCskBN4
This is a bit earlier. I love the SUDDEN STOP, pause ...
and the B I G R U S H.
The climbing guitar thing is very nice, too.
What I got out of Gilad Atzmon is the following, if I've understood correctly.
History is the opposite of telling what has happened: it is, according to Atzmon, an institutional attempt to conceal shame by building a zig-zag narrative around shame.
I'm not entire sure what he's referring to.
I see history and the official narrative as a matter of power and control, rather than shame.
I'm not sure if my perspective is skewed, because I tend to see power (or lack of power) in just about everything.
Atzmon says that there is a holocaust every 70 to 100 years.
Said it was important to look at historical events in perspective. By that I think he means looking at a wide picture; like a panoramic view of history. But I'm not entire sure, as he didn't elaborate in this clip.
Conveyed that there's not much difference between the left and the right, between the Cultural Marxists and the 'enlightened individualism' brigade. Mentioned Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum (Ayn Rand) who was the icon of 'enlightened individualism'.
Talked about a 'brotherhood' of the 'most horrible Zionists' and what sounded like the 'JDP'. But I can't find 'JDP', so I'll have to listen again to see what he's talking about, if I can make it out. *Edit: I'm not certain what he is saying, but going by the Greta Berlin entry in Wikipedia, it could possibly be JDL that he is referring to - although it still sounds like he's saying 'JDP' or something.
Discusses the silencing of his voice, that of Greta Berlin, Ken O'Keefe (I think it was).
Refers to Greta Berlin, pro-Palestinian activist motivated by 1967 Six-Day War. Began non-profit charitable organisation to send medicine and aid to Palestinians. Internal Revenue & FBI then began getting involved. Jewish Defence League caller allegedly told her her children would be killed if any passengers were murdered in airline hijackings that were going on at the time. Greta Berlin withdrew from activism for 15 years, for the sake of her children.
Asks: don't we believe in free discourse?
Refers to the neocons: refers to Jewish sounding names and says "It's a Zionist synagogue; it's not a secret."
Refers to a 'chain of disaster' and mentions factors in history, going from Cold War, Frankfurt School, bankers, capitalists, the 'Palestinian story', 2008 Crisis, Lehman Bros, Larry Summers, Deregulation, Alan Greenspan.
Then asks what they have in common. Assume he's referring to the Jewish role in these various factors.
Says if we don't talk about it, there will be a disaster. Says when the chain is seen and understood as being "Jewish related", you become more clever than the system. This is when the real global disaster will happen.
Gilad Atzmon says that the 'cognitive elite' are very quick to escape and says that they get bailed out.
However, what he refers to as the 'cognitive elite' might, in fact, be the economic and political elite, to my way of thinking.
Predicated disaster, I think. Friends in Turkey feel it is coming, says Atzmon. Said that there will be a lot of innocent people dying - not only Jews. So he is predicting a war?
Atzmon asked if Palestine is the problem, how is it possible that all the doctors are Jewish and will 'we' reveal the problem if 'we' are connected to the problem? Whether it is Finkelstein, Chomsky, Gidon Levy, Gilad Atzmon (himself) ... and others mentioned. Asks how it is possible that they are the prime doctors?
I'm not sure why he thinks Palestine is such a problem that it will lead to world disaster. Or, perhaps, this is just one of the problems. Not clear to me.
That lecture was in January of 2016, so it's current.
I think what he's trying to say is that public discourse on the subject (or subjects?) is dominated by Jewish representatives.
At some stage of the lecture, Atzmon referred to:
George Orwell - saw it coming (Spanish Revolution?)
Wrote '1984'
controlled opposition = Emmanuel Goldstein character
- Emmanuel (Heb. 'god with us')
- righteousness - Atzmon says: righteousness totally fictional
George Orwell understood there was something there; a controlled opposition.
Why did Orwell pick a Jewish name, Atzmon asks.
Orwell fought in Spain.
referring to: 1936 Spanish Revolution (?)
(I think ... will have to double-check that)
Atzmon says: 25% of International Brigade were Jews
/ lingua franca was Yiddish
We are not allowed to talk about it.
His friend doesn't talk to him because he wants to talk about the Spanish war.
We are not allowed to talk about Emmanuel Goldstein being a Jew. And why?
Atzmon says:
the element that sustains this regime is called: post-political correctness
What is 'political correctness':
political correctness is politics that does not allow political opposition
Politics that does not allow political opposition is called: tyranny or dictatorship.
But in the case of political correctness, it is far worse - far more dangerous.
And why, he asks.
Because it is self-imposed.
Atzmon says: it is small evil planted in each of us that starts to censor us, as soon as we think freely.
First time, it hurts; second time, we just avoid thinking; and the third time, we just get used to the idea that we better not think. AND THIS IS WHY in America you have 'activism'. ACTIVISM IS THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF THINKING / Thinking is being creative; thinking is understanding all of that on your own (ie points to board / material discussed) / INSTEAD we subscribe to cultural slogans - eg. BDS - are academics not free type point, I think it was.
/ to be a thinker is to lift every stone and to be courageous to look under
/ we owe it to ourselves and owe it to the Jews, because they don't do it for themselves
/ recommends speaking openly against all odds as remedy to doomed situation we have brought ourselves into.
End.
Aside from Orwell, Atzmon mentions 'mentors', as follows (look-ups from Wikipedia):
Martin Heidegger
German philosopher
a most original & important philosopher of 20th C.
Continental tradition
philosophical hermeneutics
hermeneutics (theory and methodology of interpretation - biblical, philosophical)
René Descartes: located essence of man thinking abilities
Martin Heidegger: thinking is thinking *about* things
/ originally discovered in our everyday practical engagements
Heidegger, contends:
capacity to think cannot be most central quality of our being
b/c thinking is a reflection upon discovering the world
Heidegger argues human more fundamentally structured by Temporality
/ concern with & relationship to time
existing as structurally open 'possibility for being'
/ importance of authenticity in human existence
/ finitude of time / being towards death
argued truth: original meaning was UNCONCEALMENT
language = house of being
criticism of technology's instrumentalist understanding
in Western tradition as 'enframing'
/ treating all of nature as standing reserve on call for human purposes
Heidegger affiliation with German National Socialism
Rector University of Freiberg
/ did not publicly apologise nor express regret
/ Wikipedia states he privately regretted his decision
No time to look any more at this guy / interesting stuff ... like 'being' etc.
But not very practical. To my way of thinking, this is interesting and all well and good as mental gymnastics. But the rest of us don't want to live according to the conclusions of these thinkers and their theories and ideals, no matter how impressive their mental gymnastics may appear to academics and intelligentsia devotees.
I don't accept the universal and I think what's important must be defended, regardless of any appeals (be it emotional appeals or what presents as 'logical' argument).
So my guiding 'principle' (or whatever driver) would be instinct? Not sure. It could be: lunacy? LOL
[RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE, 'NEW TAB']
Martin Heidegger- philosopher stone-and-tile chalet at Todtnauberg, Germany [wikipedia]
I can almost feel Martin Heidegger looking at this image. Enlarge it and feel him on the slopes.
todt = dead
nau = ???
berg = mountain
Jean-François Lyotard
French philosopher, sociologist, and literary theorist
modernist and postmodern art, literature CRITICAL THEORY
music, film, time and memory,
space, the city and landscape, the sublime
elation between aesthetics and politics
/ articulation of postmodernism after the late 1970s
analysis of the impact of postmodernity on the human condition
co-founder: International College of Philosophy (Paris)
under the trusteeship of the French government department of research
/ financing is mainly through public funds
'College recognizes that philosophy is better served by being located at "intersections"':
Philosophy/Science
Philosophy/Law
Jacques Derrida is the driver behind the 'intersection' re philosophy approach
non-governmental origin *** international span *** not destined to oppose itself
supposedly: designed to to balance
and to: question, open, occupy margins - new this and that
WHERE WE WOULD TREAT MORE OF INTERSECTIONS THAN OF ACADEMIC DISCIPLINES
{comment: I don't like the sound of that / stand-alone disciplines sound preferable to me}
Lyotard
member of Socialisme ou Barbarie, 1954
socialist org / offshoot of Trotskyist mob (I think)
deviated b/c Trotsky analysis could not explain: new forms of domination in the Soviet Union
Socialisme ou Barbarie:
objective to conduct a critique of Marxism from within
/ during the Algerian war of liberation
writings focus on Algerian situation & ultra-left of politics
Lyotard: hoped to encourage an Algerian fight for independence from France
played an active part in the May 1968 uprisings
1974: distanced himself from revolutionary Marxism
- book: Libidinal Economy
felt that Marxism had a rigid structuralist approach
/ imposing 'systematization of desires'
/ via emphasis on industrial production as the ground culture
[comment: what about the capitalist 'systematization of desires' and emphasis on consumption/production?]
- early 1950s: taught at the Lycée of Constantine, Algeria
- early 70s taught University of Paris VIII (to 1987)
*next two decades*
lectured outside France
Professor of Critical Theory at the University of California, Irvine
+ visiting professor at universities around the world
incl:
Université de Montréal in Quebec (Canada)
University of São Paulo in Brazil
founding director and council member
Collège International de Philosophie, Paris
split his time between Paris and Atlanta (taught philosophy & French, Emory Uni)
CHARACTERISED BY:
persistent opposition to universals, meta-narratives, and generality
fiercely critical of many of the 'universalist' claims of the Enlightenment
several of his works serve to undermine the fundamental principles that generate these broad claims
Rejected theological underpinnings of:
1. Karl Marx
2. Sigmund Freud
{comment: I had to check that again. Thought 'theological' was a typo. It's not. That's what it says in Wikipedia (unless they made a mistake). What theology? I would have thought all Marxists are atheists and that even a psychiatrist would have to separate himself from the superstition of 'god'. What if they're right and I'm wrong and there is this god thing? LOL}
Rejected Theodor W. Adorno's negative dialectics
Lyotard is a skeptic for modern cultural thought
/ impact of the postmodern condition was to provoke skepticism about universalizing theories
/ due to post WWII advancement of techniques & tech:
/ we have outgrown our needs for grand narratives
grand narratives
grand, large-scale theories and philosophies of the world, eg.
progress of history, knowability of everything by science, and possibility of absolute freedom
Jean-François Lyotard
argues against the possibility of justifying the narratives
that bring together disciplines and social practices, such as science and culture
"the narratives we tell to justify a single set of laws and stakes are inherently unjust."
/ loss of faith in meta-narratives = effect on perception of science, art, and literature.
"Little narratives have now become the appropriate way for explaining social transformations and political problems."[wikipedia]
{ie. versus 'meta narratives' }
"As metanarratives fade, science suffers a loss of faith in its search for truth, and therefore must find other ways of legitimating its efforts"
/ + world where technology has taken over
grand narratives
grand, large-scale theories and philosophies of the world, eg.
progress of history, knowability of everything by science, and possibility of absolute freedom
ceased to believe that narratives of this kind are adequate to represent and contain us all
points out:
no one seemed to agree:
- on what was real
- + everyone had their own perspective and story
we: alert to difference, diversity, the incompatibility of our aspirations, beliefs and desires
thus: postmodernity
characterised by an abundance of micronarratives
{comment: I disagree with relevance of these 'micronarratives'}
from concept of 'abundance of micronarratives':
Lyotard draws from the notion of 'language-games' found in the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein
/ is based on mapping of society according to the concept of the language games
Language-game (philosophy)
German: Sprachspiel
philosophical concept
- Ludwig Wittgenstein
- Friedrich Waismann
= examples of language use and the actions (into which the language is woven)
forms of language simpler than the entirety of a language itself (Wittgenstein)
rejected the idea that language is somehow separate and corresponding to reality
speaking of language is part of an activity / or a form of life
= gives language its meaning
Lyotard's discussion re language-game
= primarily applied re contexts of authority, power and legitimation
> concerned to mark distinctions between a wide range of activities in which language users engage
"The development of history is seen as a steady progress towards civilization or moral well-being"
"... thought that universality is a condition for something to be a properly ethical statement: 'thou shalt not steal' is an ethical statement in a way that 'thou shalt not steal from Margaret' is not. The latter is too particular to be an ethical statement (what's so special about Margaret?); it is only ethical if it rests on a universal statement ('thou shalt not steal from anyone'). But universals are impermissible in a world that has lost faith in metanarratives, and so it would seem that ethics is impossible. Justice and injustice can only be terms within language games, and the universality of ethics is out of the window. Lyotard argues that notions of justice and injustice do in fact remain in postmodernism. The new definition of injustice is indeed to use the language rules from one 'phrase regimen' and apply them to another. Ethical behaviour is about remaining alert precisely to the threat of this injustice, about paying attention to things in their particularity and not enclosing them within abstract conceptuality. One must bear witness to the 'differend.' In a differend, there is a conflict between two parties that cannot be solved in a just manner. However, the act of being able to bridge the two and understand the claims of both parties, is the first step towards finding a solution." source
The part about the development of history as steady progress towards 'moral well-being' sounds like crap to me.
'Civilisation' is not a universal benchmark, even from within 'civilised' societies ... let alone the not so civilised.
Man is uncivilised.
'Civilisation' is a veneer.
Even where civilisation exists to some level, civilisation is fragile. Chaos is never far away. And the fall of civilisation is maybe even inevitable.
Morality is what? It is structured by man and it is PARTICULAR to the social order of particular people etc.
There can be no 'progress' or progression to what is a particular developmental and historic accident of a particular people, when this is not a universal path or truth.
They're my initial thoughts.
So how can you have 'progress' to something that does not exist outside of Frame A Civilisation or Frame B Civilisation, which are not one and the same?
Screw 'morality': I'm thinking it's really is over-rated.
What is the point of morality, if the world is full of sociopaths who will screw you at any opportunity, and if the system itself is sociopathic? LOL
I'm starting to think what they call 'morality' is just a secular means of controlling the sheep.
It's a huge disadvantage being saddled with 'morality'. But I think it might be very difficult to cast off whatever sense of 'right' or 'wrong' people are raised with.
As for these philosophers: they lecture in French, American and Canadian universities of capitalists. So how independent can they possibly be? LOL
Getting back to the Gilad Atzmon video: I was surprised there was criticism of Naom Chomsky. I think he's wonderful. And he's sort of cute, like a puppet.
Got me wondering whether Gilad Atzmon is some form of 'controlled opposition' ... LOL
Not sure what point he's making.
I would argue that non-Jews are not out of the 'debate' loop because they stand back from public debate they consider to be taken care of by the Jewish opposing sides of the debate: few are (a) game or (b) independent or (c) professionally immune from consequences of speaking out and (d) few would be afforded a platform to express contrary viewpoints.
If anyone of note is even mildly critical of, say, Israel or Zionism, there is strong opposition, condemnation and international media/public drama coming their way from pro Israel/Zionist organisations, Western media, Jewish journalists and talking heads (as well as the whole of mainstream media ... LOL), various 'progressive' keepers of Western morality etc, along with non-Jewish political allies (which would be probably be just about all the Western mainstream politicians and talking heads).
For an example of the drama politicians can expect for, say, supporting the Palestinians: look at the drama in the UK, where Jeremy Corbyn was targeted for a political take-down as Labour leader, while Ken Livingstone was crucified by all and sundry. LOL
So (in my opinion) it's not exactly the way Atzmon depicts it, where there's two opposing Jewish sides to a debate, and because they're engaged in this debate, non-Jews willingly step back from a debate, on the basis that the Jewish opposing sides are 'taking care of it' or whatever.
There is nobody to engage in such a debate, because there's probably few non-Jewish talking heads that are independent in terms of politics, or 'professional immunity', or independent in terms of ideology, and there's maybe few that can afford the flack.
Also, there appears to be concentration of mainstream American media (and entertainment) that is under Jewish control. Jewish journalists have (proudly) conceded the media and entertainment control in articles, for anyone that wants to look this up. So that doesn't exactly support the likelihood of presentation of alternative viewpoints or opinions in mainstream media.
On top of this, Western journalists, politicians and officials from various countries make official visits to Israel, which is bound to lead to a projection of Israeli influence.
If any Western politician is considered to have spoken 'out of turn' (ie be critical in some way of Israel's actions or policies, however mildly), there's a guaranteed hue and cry in the media.
I don't think Noam Chomsky is deserving of the criticisms in this video. Whatever he has said in the videos I've viewed has been sound. And I don't see him as part of the 'controlled opposition'. Nor do I see Chomsky as a 'Zionist' (unless Atzmon was kidding, or something?). Chomsky sounds like a left-leaning academic to me. But I'm not sure if he is; I've not really taken an interest in his political leanings.
As much as I admire Chomsky, Chomsky and I diverge sharply when we enter into refugee territory: I see absolutely no responsibility on the part of Europeans for taking 'remedial' actions that (a) disadvantage Europeans or (b) divest Europeans or (c) destroy European nations, regardless of what European capitalists and their US-Anglo capitalist partners have done, and however 'responsible' these capitalists and their politicians are for any consequences of foreign policy or intervention abroad.
For me, that 'responsibility' does not translate to some follow-up action and the 'responsibility' does not transfer to the European people. For me the 'responsibility' is simply theoretical: it's not practical and is not an obligation. It ends there. It does not translate to destruction of European society to make 'amends'.
I don't know how much of this I'll remember. Pathetic, considering this isn't even really scratching even the surface. But I'm just an average person with limited intelligence.
Some of this might eventually sink in with repeat exposure on my travels.
I'm finishing up with Marc Bolan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYUkAXrqWvY
P.S. ... I'm not really big on reading about the finitude of time. It's so depressing being aware that your being - your very existence and your every action - is so pointless and that you are so close to being extinguished eternally.
I've added in a couple of key points I missed out on, while I got side-tracked with the philosopher look-ups.
EU-NATO IMPERIALISM ❌ 
