Farcevalue wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:48 pm His view is patently anti-state and anyone here who has an issue with being anti-state will have to provide their most compelling arguments in favor of statism. I look forward hearing them.
It's very likely, since all modern propaganda seems to work like that, that both sides are lying. They both may have 'good points', so debates can go on as long as it seems useful. (Lying is not something that can be done with full awareness, it has to be believed in some way. What does psychology say about such things? ) Maybe it is worth a definition or two: what the hell is 'statism'? And its counterpart, 'anti-statism'? I have no idea what's nowadays going on in the US media, but: has there been happening some fundamental change in government strategy in general that required the creation of these new terms?
Well, state and government are not the same. There could be a state without a government. For a state, it is not a requirement to have a government. The state, as its name implies, is a state that persists, and the government, modern government, is the one that interferes incessantly. 'Change' (or 'progress' as they prefer to call their underground activity) is the watchword of all modern governments. Which means that, in this matter, this distinction is the most cardinal!
By comparison, this man, through an entire book as it seems, is trying to confuse these two things most effectively.
There is no way, I said, to change the obedience of the masses or peoples to power. Such a demand is a nonsense – or daydreaming. It is a matter of conscience for each individual, however, to decide to what ends he or she will apply his or her obedience. Conscience is a personal matter par excellence, which cannot be organized in any way. (This is the meaning of freedom, by the way. If you 'choose' freedom you are already in their trap. Freedom is something you have, not something you are given.) And: is it not a kind of religiosity to stand up and tell the congregation the story of your conversion ('awakening')? Let alone to give sermons of conversion with almost the same attitude? Instead, the question should here be directed towards: whom or what does power itself obey. Since power is not a 'self-existent', is it? And without a legitimate question there is no legitimate answer.
As far as religion is concerned: today's 'religious communities' are completely beyond the pale of being rightly called religious; I think everyone knows this by now, and it is this 'common knowledge' that Rose is building on in the quote. To try to manufacture concepts (and definitions) from current practice would be sheer arbitrariness and most often the product of some animosity. I would like to remind, however, of the simple fact that, first and foremost, all the great figures of history have been strongly religious beings, and that this is not one of the qualities of their being whose value can be questioned, but the very soul of their being, - and, secondly, that a whole millennium has been spent in the spirit of this something, a period which cannot and must not be in any way paralleled with the repressive regimes of today. – So you may be absolutely right with your definitions, and obviously any modern definition would confirm you, but it's a bit more complex than people would like today.
____
It's inconceivable that someone who has been in the 'conspiracy-oppositional' market or field for years or even decades and don't hear things about 9/11, the 'terrorism' stuff in general, - as well as the 'nuclear weapons' and 'space exploration' stuff etc. A public figure has the right not to talk about these things (maybe not having time researching them or for any reason), then, however, he should avoid the whole subject entirely - if he has a grain of honesty in him.
It should also be noted that Rose's mentality, his manners, is strikingly vulgar and debased, and if one accepts this as a legitimate form of 'communication', one exposes oneself to any of the insidious influences ever devised in the holy name of 'reason'. And this may have something to do with his Jewish origin... Because the real influences of 'Talmudism' today is not manifested in the field of religion so-called and related issues (which cover after all a miniscule only of the public life today) but everywhere where Jewish dominance is usually spoken of.
Lastly, although the interpretation of 'body language' may not be one of the 'exact sciences,' for those who are not necessarily a fan of the guy or the issues he represents nor that of his dialectical counterpart, the YT video above could provide a veritable introduction to this science.
_____________________________________
It may have some apropos here to paste here this short passage from one of the early books of Powys:
…It will be remarked that in my list of the primordial energies of the complex vision I do not mention religion. This is not because I do not recognize the passionate and formidable role played by religion in the history of the human race, nor because I regard the "religious instinct" as a thing outgrown and done with. I have not included it because I cannot regard it as a distinct and separate attribute, in the sense in which reason, conscience, intuition and so forth, are distinct and separate attributes, of the complex vision.
I regard it as a name given in common usage to certain premature and disproportioned efforts at co-ordination among these attributes, and I am well content to apply the word "religion" to that sacred ecstasy, at once passionate and calm, at once personal and impersonal, which suffuses our being with an unutterable happiness when the energies of the complex vision are brought into focus. I regard the word religion as a word that has drawn and attracted to itself, in its descent down the stream of time, so rich and so intricate a cargo of human feelings that it has come to mean too many things to be any longer of specific value in a philosophical analysis.
Any sort of reaction against the primeval fear with which man contemplates the unknown, is religion. The passionate craving of human beings for a love which changes not nor passes away, is religion.
The desperate longing to find an idea, a principle, a truth, a "cause," for the sake of which we can sacrifice our personal pleasure and our personal selfishness, is religion.
The craving for some unity, some synthesis, some universal meaning in the system of things, is religion. The desire for an "over-life" or an "over-world," in which the distress, disorder, misunderstandings and cruelties of our present existence are redeemed, is religion.
The desire to find something real and eternal behind the transient flow of appearance, is religion. The desire to force upon others by violence, by trickery, by fire, by sword, by persecution, by magic, by persuasion, by eloquence, by martyrdom, an idea which is more important to us than life itself, is religion.
It will be seen from this brief survey of the immense field which the word "religion" has come to cover, that I am justified in regarding it rather as a name given to the emotional thrill and ecstatic abandonment which accompanies any sort of co-ordination of the attributes of the complex vision, proportioned or disproportioned, than as a distinct and separate attribute in itself…
__________________
As to the new title of the thread: I think and have always thought that there is no and cannot be any regular presence on any media platform whatsoever of legitimate 'oppositional' view. Maybe not only the power/propaganda would close meticulously any single door to it - and this time not only for the show but I mean completely so you will never hear anymore anything about it or him - but also their public, or simply: the public, would do the same.
The small item linked by Simon assumes that there are, or have been - let's say for the last hundred years - genuine, self-organising 'opposing' groups, 'activist movements' as the blogger says, into which the agents of power could then infiltrate etc. That is what naivety is. Naivety - - or lying.
As our Uncle Lenin said: the best way to control the opposition is to LEAD it. 'Which part is not clear'? to ask the fashionable question. In modern propaganda techniques, even Lenin et al. could look back about a hundred years of development. Now, another century has passed since then.
Power/propaganda has organised all of today's modern 'opposition groups' from day one. I think this is what should be meant by 'controlled opposition'; but the term is a bit misleading, there should be better ones...