The Brilliant - Episode 101: Season 5 with Bellamy

  • Posted on: 23 January 2020
  • By: aragorn

From The Brilliant

Since Bellamy was here at the start of The Brilliant project it is great to check in where he is at regarding the things we are talking and thinking about. Obviously Bellamy and I have been having similar experiences in the Anarchist Space over the past few years. This episode is about some dissimilar experiences and what is next with each of us and our respective media projects.

Comments

the comments go beyond 'bellamy uses too many big words!!1' this time...

At least he does use that word Weltanschauung, so cut the dude some slack and read a book occasionally.

After listening to this shit for a few episodes - there's just so much soap opera between all you people with Hobbyist level academics/polemics.

You people are never getting anything done (Except podcasts/zines). You have no idea how to function through alliances, cooperation, negotiation or aggregates.

There's just so much beautiful soul syndrome / Grey Goo Vampirism in this shit hole scene.

It's good you have a little rat hole to play around in but the overall project of this scene of "anarchy" just seems so rotted out and obsessed with policing perfect positions.

Aragorn just needs to cut his hair, change his semen-encrusted underpants, sweep up the stale Cheetos crumbs, mop up the spilled fart-bong water, stop worrying about what 'the scene' thinks about him and get back to work!

wow, you’ve really committed to this schtick

Schtick! I think that's the sound we'll hear when Aragorn and Bellamy finally tear off their semen-encrusted underpants!

You had a whole year's worth of weekly Anarchybang shows to call in and challenge these people with everything you have detailed in your whingefest of a post here. But you couldn't muster it. It must be miserable having all the answers but no capacity to convey them to anyone (other than through perennial ocd trolling on this site). Tell us about all the alliances and cooperation, negotiation, and these curious aggregates you are party to and/or are facilitating "DiaperEater".

> You people are never getting anything done (Except podcasts/zines). You have no idea how to function through alliances, cooperation, negotiation or aggregates.

shouldn't you be OUT IN THE STREETS GETTING SHIT DONE instead of commenting on here, comrade?

> It's good you have a little rat hole to play around in but the overall project of this scene of "anarchy" just seems so rotted out and obsessed with policing perfect positions.

I can only see one person here trying to police what other people do with their time...

that is Bellamy and Aragorn! as they dance around each other sussing out what could be in between the lines. Yes, the paragon of knowledge is back having, apparently, took aim at Layla AbdelRahim, previously his 'academic' cross-hairs were on John Zerzan and Kevin Tucker. I don't quite know what Bellamy is searching for other than seeking to destroy the perspectives of other people whilst also squeezing as many technical words as possible! Oh yes, he also had a go at CrimethInc. Please add to list. Oh yes, he had a go at vegans too. What's also really fascinating is Bellamy tries to cover up his disquiet and disbelief that Aragorn! dare to criticise him...He couldn't let Aragorn! get away it. Very fragile is Bellamy under all those BIG words (verbiage is Aragorn's description lol) Of course, the attention both get in this thread will feed them for a while.

Face it, bro: you’re jealous of their rarified dialogue, their being more well-read, and their ability to carry on a conversation that’s long on time but short on content. There’s nothing “pseudo” about their intellectualism!

talking to someone for <1 hour is 'long on time' now? i guess if you're used to having conversations on snapchat then it does seem kinda long...

If you think this one hour is the first and only time they’ve chatted in a recorded format, then you haven’t been paying attention

chatting to someone for one hour a month is excessive then you must have a very wide but very shallow circle of friends

> attention seeking commenter accuses someone else of seeking attention

The Brilliant really should interview Warzone Distro. That way Aragorn! and friends can correct them on their nihilizm. It would have a huge audience.

every time warrzone minions make a sad marketing comment, to try and become relevant within the milieu, an oogle quits the life and donates their trust fund to the democratic party

ribbit ribbit!

aw is *The Brilliant* really afraid to interview some harmless oogly minions? what's the worst that can happen? you know that warzone is just gonna make themselves sound dumb trying to define nihilism lol

i enjoyed hearing the discussion around free speech from a couple of anarchists, I’m glad to hear at least some anarchists are defending some form of free speech.

Ja mein fraü... always good to see that some anarchists stand up for the Constitution. We need some fresh blood now that the Alex Jones crowd is getting crippled.

Well, like they say in the episode, the legality issue is easily sidestepped and free speech could also be said like something along the lines of listening or tolerating to people who say things you don’t like. The alex jones comment doesn’t make sense to me.

"tolerating things you don't like" totally is within the liberal free-speech principle of US Constitution.

Allowing a platform to hate speech is not "free" of consequences. That's the thing liberal noodleheads just like ppl with Alt Right agendas won't admit. There's no free market of ideas, as far as ideas -at least some- have serious repercussions when publicized. Without the kind of platforming that 4chan, Facebook and co have done over the years, you wouldn't have had such a huge Alt Right, along with so many killings based on hate. Racists and their ilk are alive mostly because they're allowed to communicate/organize online and hold public events.

'Without the kind of platforming that 4chan, Facebook and co have done over the years, you wouldn't have had such a huge Alt Right, along with so many killings based on hate'

six million people would like a word with you

You sound straight up like a regurgitated IDG article. You can have your own understanding of free speech and not be a liberal. They literally address that in the podcast explicitly by defining their own terms. My experience with antifa shutdowns of alt right events generally involves a small number of white supremacist weenies cowering around in a room for a poorly attended talk or meeting. I understand the need for self defense and I believe some situations require violence. I don’t know if it feels anarchist to me to club people for spouting different beliefs. If they burst into your meetings which they do because it’s a two way street feel free to fight back. Largely I think the alt right has been emboldened by leftism and cancel culture. While their politics may inevitably aid real white supremacists most alt right people are just conservative trolls. It’s stupid to shade them all as nazis because it’s the same as when they call their opposition communists. It really is all team sports!

Not sure what this comment is supposed to mean. The alt-right, white nationalist, and anti-immigrant tendency is a growing world-wide phenomenon. It even has some currency in the White House, and far right movements are springing up all over Western countries.
It hasn't completely taken over any one country yet like it did in Germany or Italy in the 1930s, but it has seen a significant resurgence in the last 5 years or so. Yes, only hundreds of people have died so far, not 6 million. So I don't get your point.

'The alt-right, white nationalist, and anti-immigrant tendency is a growing world-wide phenomenon. It even has some currency in the White House, and far right movements are springing up all over Western countries.'

so nothing to do with 4chan and facebook then, as the other comment suggested? maybe it's something bigger than youtube algorithms? maybe something that can't be deplatformed by antifa stormtroopers?

It sounds like less of a free speech issue and more of a self defense issue then. You messing with some 4chan nerds isn’t going to dissolve the state or any institutional powers. As mentioned before I think defending yourself and others from violence is okay. I don’t really think deplatforming is really a worthwhile endeavor. Anarchists will equally cry fascist when their events are shut down or cancelled. It’s a totalitarian tendency to want to control speech.

I understand that you think there is a correlation between these groups being able to speak and their institutional power. I don’t doubt that on some level but that’s because of the systems that are in place. As anarchists we are against state power and other forms of oppression. Those are our targets and not so much the policing of others speech. When we become the culture police we are know better.

07:51 Anarchist events have been shut down for centuries. Emma Goldman was even deported. Anarchists are used to being deplatformed and have come to expect it, and don't cry about it (much).

The problem with the freeze peach argument (and this is the same mistake Bellamy makes) is that it assumes speech and action are separate and different. As if fascists just want a place to talk among themselves and be left alone, that they have no intention of carrying out what they are talking about, that it's all just theoretical abstract ideas.

We know this is not the case. There are many ideologies that are hostile to anarchy, such as capitalism, state communism, fascism, naziism, etc. and they have all been actively killing people and planning to exert greater influence in the world. Being able to shut down say, a white nationalist or proud boys meeting, helps slow down this recruitment and propaganda process Do you really need to wait until they actually break down your front door and kill you before you do anything? This isn't about 'discussing theories in the marketplace of ideas' this is about recruitment. There is no discussion needed, we know what white nationalists for instance want....they want to kill you (if you are non-white or oppose their plans). So yes, it is both a self defense AND a freeze peach issue. In real life, these things cannot be separated. All ideologies, whether it's capitalism, communism, fasicsm, naziism, maoism or whatever, including anarchism, want to protect themselves, and they view each other (rightfully) as hostile. That's just a fact of life, and part of living in a community with shared values surrounded by other communities with different values.

Bellamy thinks that if we could all just agree to radically decentralize all of these different ideological communities into separate areas, then they would all willingly peacefully co-exist with each other. But since when in human history has that ever happened? Even the most anarchic freedom loving hunter gatherer groups don't always peacefully co-exist. Maybe the different anarchist factions could co-exist with each other, along with some parts of the left, and perhaps form alliances with some ancap groups or something. But groups of people who have diametrically opposite values cannot, by definition, peacefully co-exist. That's not how the real world of culture and ideology works. Either Bellamy is hopelessly naive, or he doesn't know anything about human history. Which is it?

Every human society that has ever existed has an Overton window, beyond which speech is condemned or forbidden. Even in Dunbar number hunter gatherer societies you cannot get away with talking about killing, segregating, deporting, or exterminating a subsection of the members of your own band. Nor could you get away with talking about how you and your friends want to 'take over' the band and be its ruling leaders. No one would put up with this, for obvious reasons. It's only young white privileged naive anarchists living in the first world who believe in the abstraction of absolute freedom of speech without consequences. They don't seem to realize that absolute freedom of speech actually undermines the very foundation of any free society they would want to create and live in to begin with for the simple reason that authoritarians (of any stripe) are not interested in freedom of speech, they just use it to control others and gain power. Completely open societies without norms or checks are extremely vulnerable and easily destroyed. Think of it as being related to the infiltration problem and security culture within anarchist groups.

Absolute freedom of speech is a fantasy. You need freedom of speech, as much as possible, but not infinite. Large Overton windows are preferable. But even the largest windows have limits.

Goldman and company were trying to push the limits of US free expression laws to the point of allowing sedition. What do you think the classical ACLU was about?

There is no direct relationship between platformed speech and coming to power. For coming to power you need mass and multitudes of psychologies to sea change and a good argument or speech alone does not do this. Overton window change is a multi-factoral phenomena and speech and platform are but ONE factor in that change. The reason you want to keep platforms as open as possible is to not give a power apparatus tools to shut down speech because while the ideology may change the shut down and control apparatus does not.

It will not surprise me at all to see future later 21st century radicals be affected by what leftist platform controllers are currently setting into motion. If open societies really are destroyable as you say(I don't think they are) that can only be a good thing as anarchism and anarchy at it's core is asocietal. It is in anarchy's interest to have as open platforms as possible.

Also, between peace and war there is also strife. There is no reason there cannot be a strifeal co-existence between those for hierarchy and those against. It simply gets back to acute human association at the end of the day.

I never said they didn't have a problem with it, I said they don't cry about it too much, since they've come to expect it. The state reacted to Goldman by deporting her. The state wants to protect itself, just like any other polity does, including anarchist communities. It's important to keep this in mind since it helps in understanding how ideologies work in relation to each other.

"There is no direct relationship between platformed speech and coming to power."

Nonsense. To come to power, you need a platform, otherwise few people would be able to hear what you have to say. You are right in the sense that a platform is not a sufficient condition for power, but it is a necessary one. I also never suggested it was the only condition.

"The reason you want to keep platforms as open as possible is to not give a power apparatus tools to shut down speech because while the ideology may change the shut down and control apparatus does not."

Well, you about 200 years too late The power apparatus of the state already has those tools and has been using them for a long time, as Emma Goldman found out. I agree with the "as open as possible" part. This implies limits though. But what Bellamy is talking about seems to be absolute freedom of speech.....i.e. no limits.

Platform controllers are on the left and the right. In fact, most college deplatforming occurs from the right. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/16/the-campus...

And No, anarchy is not at its core 'asocietal'. That's ridiculous.

You should not be enabling any kind of institutional or extra-state forms of platform control. It's that simple. The principle of open platforms is part of a greater anti-state and monopoly strategy.

To come to power you need a belief base, a platform in itself will not do it. The scope of the platform is fueled by the belief base that shrinks or grows not the other way around. Belief is something that you undermine not control. Obviously a platform is a condition of coming to power but a tertiary one not a primary one.

"200 years late"- Not really, the internet and machinology has actually solved much of the classical free speech dilemmas, platform control is the new way that speech is controlled because so many people have their own digital printing press a video broadcast. Because of this anarchists should be steadfast against ANY kind of platform control. This means the principle of no limits.

Of course platform control is done by both ideologies, but anarchism and anarchy is everything from a non conventional anti-power and control ideology to a non ideology altogether. And YES anarchy IS very much asocietal. It kinda has to be. Even the normies who use the 'we live in a society' meme(a meme which may well have started here on anews) understand this. Society is mediation and anchored belief not individual thought patterns and associative affinity.

08:25 "The principle of open platforms is part of a greater anti-state and monopoly strategy."

Huh? Since when? Open platforms have been part of the state since ancient Athens. Platforms can be either open or closed under a state, depending on the degree of restrictions in a given regime. The present degree of free speech and openness in Western Civilization is relatively high compared to certain other periods in history. Wide open platforms are simply not necessary for an anti-state strategy. Anti-state strategies always emerge regardless of the degree of free speech. In fact, an argument can be made that wide open platforms merely act as a steam valve for anarchists grievances, which lose their critical bite precisely because open platforms make the system already seem 'free' and anarchic.

"To come to power you need a belief base, a platform in itself will not do it. The scope of the platform is fueled by the belief base that shrinks or grows not the other way around. Belief is something that you undermine not control. Obviously a platform is a condition of coming to power but a tertiary one not a primary one"

Oh God, this is just an assertion without an argument. Beliefs grow precisely because of platforms. That's how propaganda and advertising works...get your message out there on large platforms i.e. broadcast media, newspapers, podcasts, magazines, billboards, ad space, etc. and your influence will grow. It is THE primary way for anyone to get their message out. You can start a smear campaign, a meme, a lie, a conspiracy theory, a heroic story about a cat, anything...in can be true or false, it doesn't matter. If you frame it the right way and use psychological tricks of convincing people, it will gain traction. There doesn't have to be a pre-existing belief base to support it. We all know advertising and marketing creates demand, not the other way around.

The principle of 'no limits' is exactly how open communities, societies, groups, all get infiltrated, undermined, and ultimately destroyed. I've already mentioned security culture. There is a long history of this within anarchism. The recent rise of the far right is due in part to the relative openness of the internet compared to legacy media platforms. But go ahead, start your anarchist group or intentional community, with a 'no limits' policy, and see how long you last. You will be infiltrated in no time by all kinds of authoritarians, trolls, disruptors, etc. Hell, even @anews has moderators who prune comments. Every organization or group, no matter how open or how well intentioned soon realizes that at least some limits and some controls are needed, otherwise the very purpose of your group or organization gets undermined and destroyed by assholes who are oppose it.

You are living in a childish utopian fantasy dream world if you think 'no limits' and 'anything goes' actually works.

Are always more preferable than not so 09:47. The ancient world was a different context then ours though need I remind you about the death of Socrates. The simple fact is that in context like, say, North Korea there are extra challenges to the expression of vibrant anarchist and anarch ideas. Also no system or society will ever feel free and anarchic, that's why anarchy will always have an appeal. What keeps people either loyal or non confrontational is usually psychosomatic comfort and habituation to everyday life in a given society.

My assertion on belief is simply based on observation and correspondence. The reason you have the emergence of cults for example is because there are people looking for some kind of anchored meaning to structure their lives. Propaganda and advertising is simply branching on what has already taken psychological root. The demand for advertising and marketing clearly does precede the latter. It was proles who basically created modern transactionist society not created by it. The psychology and excess was there for it. To entertain otherwise is to entertain Bernnays and his behaviorist assumptions of human beings.

Who cares if societies get infiltrated and destroyed? That's not an anarchist or anarchs problem. The current liberal one that we exist in seems to be doing just fine in absorbing its contradictions. The rise of the far right is due to multiple factors that include failing institutions and everyday life discomfort over more then an generation. There is nothing about the open internet that is inherently right wing attracting. This was not the case at the tail end of gen x where you saw the rise of indymedia for instance. Right wing rise is clearly tied to other factors beyond just the internet. Anews was actually much better in the late 00s-14 when it was doing very little moderation.

Anything goes is basically what anarchy is my friend. It's not supposed to be a societal soluble.

08:47 This system feels 'free' to those who rule it or benefit from it, as well as to those people who don't believe in anarchy (i.e. most people). Anarchists represent a tiny minority. Even white nationalists outnumber anarchists.

Propaganda and advertising do not need what has already taken root in order to work. Otherwise new consumption habits would never emerge. Novelty would not be the dynamic force it is within capitalism. Your argument is so clearly refuted by observing how the actual economy works and by most of social psychology, it's just laughable. Bernays would not be remembered and studied today if he were wrong. Advertisers still use his basic principles, just as political strategists still use insights from Geobbels. New demands can be stimulated. We've known these things for a long time now.

If you wish to create anarchy in the real world with other people (not simply anarchy on the internet with your two Facebook friends) then you would care if your social milieu or society gets infiltrated. That's any group's problem, including a problem even for white nationalists. I never said an open internet was intrinsically advantageous to the far right. An open internet facilitates the far right, along with every other political ideology. It has simply allowed the far right to flourish in a way they (or other fringe groups) could not have before the internet. Since the far right has more money than the far left, they are able to leverage it more effectively. Anews still does very little moderating. But even anews recognizes the need for at least some limits.

'Anything goes' has never existed in any human or animal group ..ever. Norms and limits on behaviour are part of every living social group. Anarchy isn't the absence of norms and limits, it is the absence of rulers and authority.

"'Anything goes' has never existed in any human or animal group ..ever. Norms and limits on behaviour are part of every living social group. Anarchy isn't the absence of norms and limits, it is the absence of rulers and authority."

People have never been cool with getting raped or their loved ones getting murdered, however now adays i feel that people have really strange preferences for trying to limit each other's behavior, there's often this desires among people to limit what people say and think rather than only punish/limit certain types of transgressions or behaviors which in my opinion would be more practical. I'm not saying that all speech and speaking is harmless and should be protected, but i feel very uncomfortable when there are certain subject matters that a group of people limit talking about, especially when those subject matters are very broad and are related to things that are repeated issues...

I never said anything about this system or society being free beyond those who like it. Propaganda is more then state messaging, at base it's simply propagating your message or meme. I am a proponent of anarchists giving up activism and going back to good ol' fashion propaganda. The reason new consumption habits emerge is because of changing psychosomatic conditions. The fossil fuel structure of being for instance plays a big role in current human surrogate activities. Advertising was simply a branching development that reflected human visions of excess based on fossil fuels. One of things Thaddeus Russell points out is how humans would take an invention that was meant for productive purposes and re-purpose it towards more excessive activities. These things precede modern advertising.

If you have an infiltration probe milieu then it is a bad structure to begin with. The activist milieu which is what many mean by milieu has the same problems as militancy structures in that they are basically subsocietal gang structures with a formal ingroup and outgroup structure. If you have this then infiltration is inevitable. Sites like anews don't have that problematic structure as it's based on anon and pen named posters who don't know each other intimately. The internet did not facilitate white nationalism any more then it facilitated far left radicalism back in the dawn of indy media days. Right wing marginal ideology or left wing reflects the zeitgeist and the times. These times are very materially depressing with high levels of psychological terror management tendencies. It's not surprising at all that fascist and reactionary tendencies have seen a comeback. What source do you have to suggest that the far right has more money? I would say both have money and if anything prog ideology has higher margins of funding.

Of course their has always been push back against anything goes but that's what anarchy is about. Anarchy is simply not a societal form, it's psychosomatic freeones doing what they want and will. There will always be norms but their will always be anarchic margins to push against it.

here i am agreeing with ziggy
*takes a shot
this is a drinking game that makes you one step a way from being straight edge

We were talking about open platforms and I suggested they can induce a false sense of freedom. Mainstream society regards our society as 'free'. I don't know what you are talking about now.

Not sure what the difference you are implying is between activism and propaganda.

"The reason new consumption habits emerge is because of changing psychosomatic conditions. The fossil fuel structure of being for instance plays a big role in current human surrogate activities." I'm not sure what this means.

"The activist milieu which is what many mean by milieu has the same problems as militancy structures in that they are basically subsocietal gang structures with a formal ingroup and outgroup structure. If you have this then infiltration is inevitable."

Since when does the anarchist milieu have a 'militancy' structure? Most anarchists are not very militant at all, apart from antifa, and they don't have a 'militancy structure' at all either. Yet there is still an activist milieu that can be infiltrated. All that is needed is to identify as an anarchist and the police (or other groups) can target you as such.

"Sites like anews don't have that problematic structure as it's based on anon and pen named posters who don't know each other intimately"

Yes anews does have this problem because it is occasionally infiltrated by trolls, or spam, or just idiots. Hence my point, even anews has limits on what it allows to be posted and platformed on its site.

"The internet did not facilitate white nationalism any more then it facilitated far left radicalism back in the dawn of indy media days."

Yes it did. White nationalist or far right memes like 'white genocide' , or 'the great replacement' or Pizza Gate' or 'Helicopter Rides' or 'George Soros' or the Pepe character, etc all originated on the internet and signal boosted that way. All the far right leaders like Richard Spencer and Andrew Anglin have openly talked about using the internet as a recruitment strategy and to spread their messages and ideas. I can't believe you are actually denying this. Yes, these ideas are a reflection of the times to some extent, but they are amplified by the internet in a way they could not be before 1990. The far right has sympathy from right wing media, which comprises the majority of all mainstream media, which is owned by billionaires like Rupert Murdock. Richard Spencer himself comes from a wealthy family. There are more well funded think tanks on the far right. Wealth has always been a handmaiden of power. And powerful wealthy people are far less likely to fund left-wing causes (not that that aren't any left-wing billionaires, media outlets, or think tanks, just fewer).

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/03/the-billionaires-behind-the-far-...

https://qz.com/1085077/mercers-vs-kochs-vs-adelsons-the-three-ultra-rich...

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/07/10/the-american-dark-money-behind-...

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-wealthy-elite-billionaires-donald-tr...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/world/europe/sweden-immigration-natio...

Also consider the far right political parties in Central and South America. They are funded and/or led by wealthy business interests. There are almost no peasant revolts in third world countries led or funded by billionaires.

Open platforms are simply a preference for me in the context of society which is always controlling to some degree or another. I don't actually entertain such a thing as a free society(societies can never be free).

Activism and militancy both have in insular initiation based logic and an overall problematic ingroup outgroup based logic. Both are driven by a power-gang based logic. It's not that most anarchism is militancy as much as militancy is a highly valued trait in modern anarchism. Activism is an adjunct to that same logic. If you are infiltratable to begin with then your human affairs are already problem prone.

In regards to things like trolls and spam on anews, the latter basically calls for cleanup. Not all messages are content based. In regards to trolls, it depends on how pathological their message and postings are. If they mirror the problem of spam then not many here are against some type of cleanup. Most trolls don't actually bother me(Kevin Keating for instance). I don't like his repetitive postings and pet peeves but I can more then tolerate him. High tolerance in written world virtual space should be open ended unless you are talking about spam images and links that can get you in trouble with the law(ie kiddy porn).

You're really reaching with this internet nazi point here. These people were dormant for most of the modern internet's history until about after 2012 when these things began to take off. The internet is hardly the smoking gun for all this. Again, you have the internet to thank for indymedia back when it was relevant and it also played a role in the occupy movement which was arguably the last hurrah from the 1968 radical deep meme structure before the rise of left and right IDPol. You are neglecting the role that 3rd way capitalism and 3rd worldist IDPol ideology and the collapse of countercultural leftist ideology has played a role in the rise of the countercultural right. The internet is simply not the deciding factor.

Also, again, you can find wealth coming from and towards the left as well, obvious examples would be Soros money and the whole non-profit complex which backs a lot of progressive ideological goals. You think the Green Greta movement doesn't have money? If anything there is more money going towards the construction of a world societal structure which is more tilted towards towards the institutional technocratic left. Anarchy needs to cut ties with both wings at this point.

Agreed. I glimpse often at plees for " freedom " and see this as a regressive move towards an inaccesible and idealistic fantasy, which borrows heavily from the X-tian eschatological goal for eternal happiness and immortality, a freedom from stress? Did ancient peoples living unconstructed existences in the wild ever ponder the concept of "freedom and happiness"? NO ! Life is a cycle of pleasure and pain which can in years of plenty deliver the former and likewise, in years of want and hardship, cause the latter, but all these emotions are within the greater arena of fullfilled ego quest and spontaneous non-materialist relationship exchange. One grits one's teeth and laughs at fate, cos you may as well make the most of your unique excellent time on Earth amongst the moronic herds of unenlightened with a cheerful hello and a helping hand, OR BE GONE WITH THEM ALL !!!.,.

"You're really reaching with this internet nazi point here. These people were dormant for most of the modern internet's history until about after 2012 when these things began to take off. The internet is hardly the smoking gun for all this. Again, you have the internet to thank for indymedia back when it was relevant and it also played a role in the occupy movement which was arguably the last hurrah from the 1968 radical deep meme structure before the rise of left and right IDPol. You are neglecting the role that 3rd way capitalism and 3rd worldist IDPol ideology and the collapse of countercultural leftist ideology has played a role in the rise of the countercultural right. The internet is simply not the deciding factor."

I never said or implied the internet wasn't being used by the left. So stop fucking harping on that, or take your meds. I am saying the internet has also facilitated the right, and to a far greater degree, because the right has more money to leverage the internet with than the left. That's just a fact. It makes the far right able to have more influence on social media. Just take youtube as an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtHNmV-Wtbs

"You are neglecting the role that 3rd way capitalism and 3rd worldist IDPol ideology and the collapse of countercultural leftist ideology has played a role in the rise of the countercultural right. The internet is simply not the deciding factor."

The collapse of leftist counterculture happened in the 1980s under Reaganism. The spread of ultra conservatism eventually morphed into the alt-right as many in the far right became dissatisfied with normal mainstream conservatism which had basically won almost all of its economic goals during the 1970s to 1990s by dismantling the welfare state. In the 2000's, conservatism was attracting young fresh ideologues who wanted to push the movement even further to the right. They were looking for new territories to conquer, namely the cultural sphere (i.e. racism, immigration, etc). The Tea Party grew out of the response to Obama's election, however that was a boots-on-the-ground protest movement. The right hadn't yet embraced the internet. That's where Breitbart came in, and Breitbart was an online only right-wing news feed. Around the same time Richard Spencer started his Alternative Right website. 4Chan also became infiltrated with Nazis during this period. What all this synchronicity and confluence of emerging trends had in common was the internet.

To say the internet was somehow not the deciding factor is just nonsense.

I also never said the left has no money, I said they have less money than the right. But go on, keep ignoring what I actually say. And since when is Soros or Greta 'left'? They are liberals.

The internet is simply not a deciding factor as far as ideological adoption goes compared to other factors. I watched that youtube video and it is not indicative of general internet trends of which youtube is but one particular. The problems presented in the video simply comes down to strategy and optics as CC lets on at the very end and he probably disagrees with you underlying point as well.

"The collapse of leftist counterculture happened in the 1980s under Reaganism."

Yes and no. The revolutionary period of the cc came to an end by the end of the 70s(before that in the early 70s even) but there was still viable leftist non right cc for a generation or so afterwards before the whole language was institutionally and culturally recuperated during the neoliberal epoch. Right have been a part of the internet for a long time particularly if you look at ancaps who are not the same problem as the altright. The altright are predicted by worsening neolib times and leftist failures not the internet. 4Chan was not a nazi hotspot in the 00s and you're beginning to see it return to that form now with the rise of such things as anti-IDPol discourse. The altright simply took advantage of those tired of IDPol and tumblr. If you look at someone like Vaush for example he's a good example of successful optics in the age of high speed internet memes and video propaganda.

Again the internet is simply not the deciding factor. Both sides have money sources if you look at progressive ideological sugar daddies who have their own economic interests. Liberalism is part of the left.

And uuuuu are, like usual, neglecting history by dodging the fact that Third Positionists were against capitalism just like they were opposed to communism. It was boldly stated on their part. You're trying to shoehorn them as "liberal" and "leftists" political fanatics that were (often) monarchist retrogrades, you ignoramus.

From RationalWiki:

"The name refers to their claim that they have an ideology that is beyond both capitalism and socialism and represents a third pole in international politics distinct from, and in opposition to, the U.S. and Soviet blocs during the Cold War. This is dubious and gives far too much importance to this fringe movement, and far too little to the Non-Aligned Movement. Third Positionism is, essentially, nothing more than ethno-nationalism with an economically leftist and/or countercultural spin."

From Wikipedia:

"Between the 1920s and 1940s, various fascist groups presented themselves as part of a movement distinct from both capitalism and Marxist socialism. This idea was revived by various political groups following the Second World War. The rhetoric of the "Third Position" developed among Terza Posizione in Italy and Troisième Voie in France and in the 1980s was taken up by the National Front in the United Kingdom. These groups emphasize opposition to both communism and capitalism. Advocates of Third Position politics typically present themselves as "beyond left and right" while syncretizing ideas from each end of the political spectrum, usually reactionary right-wing cultural views and radical left-wing economic views."

But let's forget these LEFTARD wikis! Only SEpedia is reliable.

We're not talking about 3rd positionist ideology, we're talking about your silly claim that the internet drives fascism and hard right development. My point on liberalism and leftism is that it is part of the same political continuum. I have no idea where this tangent of yours comes from.

Yes, well said, agreed, less surrogate gang militancy to feed the binary societal relationship grid, less excessive re-purposing of materialist commodities!!

In response to this "Bellamy thinks that if we could all just agree to radically decentralize all of these different ideological communities into separate areas, then they would all willingly peacefully co-exist with each other. But since when in human history has that ever happened? Even the most anarchic freedom loving hunter gatherer groups don't always peacefully co-exist. Maybe the different anarchist factions could co-exist with each other, along with some parts of the left, and perhaps form alliances with some ancap groups or something. But groups of people who have diametrically opposite values cannot, by definition, peacefully co-exist. That's not how the real world of culture and ideology works. Either Bellamy is hopelessly naive, or he doesn't know anything about human history. Which is it?"

Are you implicitly trying to make the case for governance? Is your concern that if the radical decentralization idea were to go into effect then it would result into violence and warring? News flash, we already have violence and warring in virtually all 1st world countries with governments.

I don't speak for Bellamy or know the specifics of his ideas around this but I doubt he envisions anarchists peacefully co-existing alongside white nationalists living as literal neighbors or perhaps living a block or so away from each other. My suspicion as to what he could have been getting at is if for example, if the United states were to radically decentralize abolishing federal and as much of state gov as possible, then if people had some sort of collective discussion and decision making process about who lives where. People could voluntarily band together based on their chosen criteria, and for example if a large portion anarchists decided that they all wanted to live in Berkeley CA (or the entirety of CA) they would do that. If a large group of fascists decided that they want to live in Virginia and make that their "ethno state" they could do that as long as we all agree not to interfere/transgress with each other.

Given the fact that there are fascists/white supremacists/ authoritarians/ etc. living in the US amongst us now, I do see the voluntary separating as more practical, viable, and desirable if the state disappeared. Contrasted to the calls for genocide made by some on the left echoing their fascists counterparts. No I don't like fascists or agree with any of their garbage ass views but I don't think instantly going into a genocidal war with them is the best first option in the absence of government. Lets agree to disagree, get as far away from each other as we can and live our lives as best we can without coming into contact.

"different ideological communities into separate areas, then they would all willingly peacefully co-exist with each other. But since when in human history has that ever happened? "
Umm, you ever heard of gated communities dude?
That's where Bellamy will spend his latter days ;)

hold on Mao 17:59.

"Are you implicitly trying to make the case for governance? Is your concern that if the radical decentralization idea were to go into effect then it would result into violence and warring? News flash, we already have violence and warring in virtually all 1st world countries with governments".

No, I'm not making the case for governance, I am pointing out a sociological fact. And no, we don't "already have violence and warring in virtually all 1st world countries". Where in the actual fuck do you get that idea from? Canada is at war with nobody, same with Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland, etc. Which 1st world countries are at war?

"I don't speak for Bellamy or know the specifics of his ideas around this but I doubt he envisions anarchists peacefully co-existing alongside white nationalists living as literal neighbors or perhaps living a block or so away from each other."

But that is exactly what Bellamy is literally implying. Where are all these disparate ideologies going to live, if not near each other? Do you think they are just going to scatter to the four corners of the world? These opposing ideologies already live next door to each other within the same countries. You could be living next door to a white nationalist or a communist right now. The only thing keeping them from killing you is the state. This doesn't mean I support the state, I am merely pointing out the facts of the situation we are currently living in, and how absurd pan-sucessionism (based on some fantasy of discussion and agreements) actually is. You cannot reason with white nationalists. Racism is irrational, by definition. White nationalists are deranged, bloodthirsty psychopaths hell bent on domination and control.

"People could voluntarily band together based on their chosen criteria, and for example if a large portion anarchists decided that they all wanted to live in Berkeley CA (or the entirety of CA) they would do that. If a large group of fascists decided that they want to live in Virginia and make that their "ethno state" they could do that as long as we all agree not to interfere/transgress with each other."

LMAO! Listen to yourself. Do you not see the utter ahistorical nonsense of this claim? Do you think this has not already been tried? Look at Israel. Are they peacefully co-existing with Palestinians? Did the Hutus and Tutsi's peacefully co-exist in Rowanda? Did the European capitalists co-exist peacefully with the Native Americans? Did the Nazis peacefully co-exist with the Soviet Union? Do you honestly believe fascists are misunderstood pacifists and just want to be left alone and keep to themselves? Do you think communists with their world-wide revolution want to? C'mon man, this is too easy to refute. You can't be this naive, can you? What Bellamy is proposing is Walt Disney anarchy. It's pure fantasy based on a child-like Kumbaya vision of the world.

"Given the fact that there are fascists/white supremacists/ authoritarians/ etc. living in the US amongst us now, I do see the voluntary separating as more practical, viable, and desirable if the state disappeared."

If the state disappeared the white supremacists would simply resurrect it for their own purposes. They have already murdered more than 180 people over the last 20 years. You would see even more killings, more Mosque shootings, more Synagogue shootings, more shopping mall shootings, more stabbings, more people being run over by vehicles, etc. As bad as things are now, they would be exponentially worse without a state, unless anarchists decided to rise up and defend themselves and everyone else against the white nationalists by killing them. But then that would go against the whole idea of peaceful pan-successionism.

And revealed that some demented despot was enabled for a political platform by the German Chancellor back in '30. Also by democracy back in 1933.

...to the podcast beyond this episode you would've heard both the host and this episode's guest talk at length about how boring and irrelevant the US Constitution is.

So nobody is gonna talk about how Bellamy is now advocating 3rd position bullshit?

What’s an example of what he said that is third positionist?

there are dozens of made up quotes where B explicitly advocates for all kinds of fashy things! i don't have any at hand right now but there are dozens! dozens!

A perfect example of anarchists looking for the fascist boogeymen in their own scene lol

let's not play dumb here. this is what Bellamy is currently flirting with:
https://attackthesystem.com/2010/08/08/anarcho-pluralism-and-pan-secessi...

Nothing wrong with panseccessionism, nothing is universal, its the most liberating starting point, especially in the orientation of the infant, how can an anarchist NOT pursue this way of thinking, which is what it is in plain language. I'd even throw in a pantheistic cosmos for voluntary adult perspectives on reality.

PS, AND a zero punctuation policy ;)

no, you are obviously not playing at being dumb. binary thinking may not equal stupidity, but there is a shitload of overlap. and you, my ideological enemy, live smack dab in the intersection.

i actually find that article you posted to be way more insightful than the majority of the comments on here.

GASP! Bellamy, a pan-secessionist! Must be a fascist! Because of course, since American right wingers talk about succeeding from the US on several occasions, that means that any talk of secession is right wing, right?

It’s just decentralizing which is a major component to anarchism. Maybe unless you want to live an existence under a big anarcho federation or whatever.

I don't see anything fascist about pan-successionism. I just don't see it working out. The communists, fascists, nazis, maoists, capitalists, anarchists, statists, white nationalists, etc. all living beside each other and staying in their own territories? Seriously? Fucking hilarious! The very first thing the capitalists are going to do is expropriate other people's lands to get more resources--just like they've always done. I mean, we've been living in this movie for 250 years now.

It just doesn't get any more naive than this. It's like a star trek fantasy.

"I just don't see it working out. The communists, fascists, nazis, maoists, capitalists, anarchists, statists, white nationalists, etc. all living beside each other and staying in their own territories? Seriously? Fucking hilarious!"

I think that's the point critics are making... that IN THE CURRENT CONTEXT where you got plenty of fash militias and groups wanting to build their ethnostates, such a candid discourse of how neat pansecessionism could be is foolhardy. Bellamy's mistake is always to be addressing ideas in themselves, as if pure ethereal ghosts detached from any real-world context, when there is.

Then there was the bioregionalism thing, that was equally bordering on ethnonationalism, or at least being conductive to it. The claim that humans become like somehow genetically and spiritually connected to their natural environment, especially.

they're not blueprints for a state like more mainstream thinkers tend toy with, but they're just ideas for how a theoretical anarchism could be a reality, like "pan-secessionist" writing seems to just point out how anarchists of different types could abandon state practice. Now you point out this is fantasy thinking because it won't happen, but it really isn't the same thing as star-trek...you can say bellamy is prospective state/dystopia builder all you want but that's really besides the point.

14:01 No, it IS the point, the whole point is that pan-sucessionism doesn't work on the ground in the real world with real human beings who all have ideological situated histories. White nationalists are never going to live in territories alongside other territories with people of color in peaceful co-existence singing Kumbaya.

13:27 Let's stop flapping hands and break this down to its non-ideological forms and just see this in terms of decentraĺizing State power mmk?

"Then there was the bioregionalism thing, that was equally bordering on ethnonationalism, or at least being conductive to it. The claim that humans become like somehow genetically and spiritually connected to their natural environment, especially."

so based on your perspective, how do you factor indigenous peoples around the world into this framework? are their cosmologies and lifeways leading to an ethno-nation state?

How does bioregionalism=ethnonationalism? Please explain. Also I don’t think it is too alien of a concept that people develop a connection to their land base? Only a hypercivilized human with no connection to their environment would have a hard time understanding that.

It's not what the commenter said... you keep twisting other people's narratives in the service of your own bullshit. It said that it was "conductive", which means supporting these racist, nativist narratives, even if not directly ethno-nationalism *by itself*.

Bioregionalism is asserting that politics and culture are to be tied to a somewhat specific environmental area, therefore giving a bioregion a political, ethnic, cultural character in itself. It's a more naturalized (literally) version of the abstract politico-historical delineation of territories.

It can also serve as a Trojan Horse for ethno-nationalism, and I don't see anything in it that makes it *not* being useful in that way.

Have fun abandoning almost everything in radical politics because sometimes fascist do things. We should also abandon the workers movement and every other social movement because sometimes fascist use similar narratives. Have fun with your black and white world. People building relationships to their landbase doesn’t have to be the same as creating a white ethnostate commune.

Cue for Viking Troll to enter the thread with a determinist rant about genetics and alcohol being the foundation to aggressive Western imperialism.

OH BY ODIN ALL OF YOU LEFTISTS I HATE YOU ALL I WILL TAKE ALL ANARCHIST PACIFISTS AND STOMP ON YOUR GAY BOOKFAIRS!!

", we've been living in this movie for 250 years now."
Actually, ever since the ape-like creature fell oùt of a tree and picked up a stick and hitting other creatures with it.
There's a lot of mental orientation to reboot.

so if fascism is the third, is anarchism the fourth? fifth? eighth? there are so many teams to choose from. maybe Ill stick with the ideas instead of numbers or directions.

Look post left is so far to the left it’s right because politics is a circle.

ok so..its a circle, but it's not a banana, and some people are against it. i am really getting somewhere now, thanks anon

His OCD mind will sniff it out. Divide the milieu. Classic tactic. Then him and aragorn retire to the comfy armchairs by the fire and waffle on in true pseudo intellectual style concocting their divisive podcast. they may even make love, who knows? creating differences, snarking at other projects, because these two are the paragons of all knowledge don't you know! flaky chat at its best. remember it's the differences that matter, not our similarities...let's have no unifying. who needs enemies when you can have 'friends' like Aragorn and Bellamy? Anyone for big-word tennis?

Who knows what the milieu could have accomplished by now if two people hadn't made a podcast you don't like!

Clearly a globalist conspiracy to keep us down. I think some of my collective mates are in on it too. We can’t seem to get anywhere in our consensus meetings. I guess we need a purge for the rev these counter revolutionary reactionaries. If only we could have true unity on the left.

If it wasn't for this podcast, the milieu would have resolved all their differences and unified their forces and pushed for Chompsky to become president 2020. Whether on not he won, that's beside the point, its just that under Chompsky, podcastes would all be like politicized Dr Phil narratives going on and on about healthy political dialogue and representation by anarchist senators being honest and fullfilling experiences and wholesome political values and relationships on and on without any long intellectual words either, droning on and on,,,,,,,,

I've read in a while

people keep saying this about both a & b, but i'm yet to hear a single 'big word' in any of their podcasts... are we just talking about words with more than two syllables? does 'domination' (as in 'world domination anarchists') count as a big word to you?

If it’s not a catchy meme worthy slogan it’s undigestible

Aragorn and Bellamy? How would it be different to a non-anarchist project? As far as I know what they do is write, publish and podcast... what's so anarchist about that? Why not just call what they do projects? This could be a TOTW by exploring what defines a project as being anarchist or not?

i'd have thought writing about anarchy, publishing books about anarchy, and hosting a podcast about anarchy were all anarchist projects, wouldn't you? are we going down the 'a! is not anarchist because he doesn't struggle in the streets alongside the prolecariatat' road again?

'i'd have thought writing about anarchy, publishing books about anarchy, and hosting a podcast about anarchy were all anarchist projects, wouldn't you?' You haven't said why believe them to be particularly anarchist and not just projects per se?

There's nothing inherently anarchist with the projects of publishing (mostly) anarchist books and podcasts (with authors, theorists that aren't always anarchists). While it IS supportive of anarchist ideas and maybe even a level of practice, this can be just also a project for people with some intellectual interest in anarchism. The fully legal and above-ground (traceable by authorities) nature of these projects also make them to be not very anarchistic. Not saying they aren't good for anarchy... just that there's nothing that makes them "anarchist".

so you're saying exarcheia is not an anarchist space?
how illegal does something have to be before it counts as anarchist? how would you know that everthing about lbc is legal and above ground?

all the people so far engaged in this conversation are being spotty about definitions. just sayin' (as chisel would say)

Yes, Exarkhia is an official neighborhood of Athens and not a crime underworld that's actually found underneath Athens in some intricate vast network of caves and tunnels.. :-/

THO the anarchist activity/presence/culture there is mostly illegal and also not that above-ground.

Waiting for better arguments... Processing... Processing...

I don't think any anarcho defines themselves through illegal behavior. Illegalism is a bad term for what it just-not-giving-a-fuckism about the Law. This absence of legal-political nihilism is one of the main features and makes the normies around not anarchos, even if SOME of them have this thing I'd call "anarcho subconscious", i.e. an unaware drive for personal freedom that could be more asserted or politically defined. In other words, some common people I've known got some freedom-loving sensibilities yet they're afraid, due to what we call "popular wisdom", of doing illegal things.

Psychodynamics would explain it as their Superego being too heavy for them to just say "feck off, I'll do what I feel like". This tendency is easy to notice in random people's attitude towards shoplifting, or even systematically respecting traffic signs in general when you're pedestrian or cyclist.

I've known a few ppl (obviously in North American settings) who were presumably anarchos yet had an issue with shoplifting, which in itself is revealing of a rather non-anarchistic mindset, or at least a mind that's not freed enough from the obvious weight of the socially-inculcated Superego (a.k.a. "the cop in your head"). These few guys also felt to me as police undercovers or maybe cryptofash, but that's another story. Or maybe not?

Illegalism is not anarchism, while both are mutually inclusive... as well as conductive as. Let's say they're like anarchos and ravers. Or anarchos and punks. Not exactly the same, but.

Tho I can't think of anyone on the planet who's legalist AND anarchist while also keeping a straight face and also not having the intellect of a door knob... ;-)

So many assertions here. All of them smug and incorrect. Nobody cares what you think is or is not anarchist.

your comment lacks substance! Therefore it makes it "unsubstantial", which means a lack of substance. Just like shallow accusations of being "smug" and "incorrect" that are shallow because they ain't got substance. Please provide with more "substance" next time. Thanks!

cursed with an overbearing super-ego
but not dumb or liberal enough to denounce or reprimand extra-legal and amoral acts
killing the cop in your head, more like suicide by cop right, because the cop in your head is yourself
acab

Hey, I'm an anarch and DON'T shoplift because its petty and illegal where I live and I don't want to be slammed to the ground and hauled off to the slammer by the state over some trivial materialist desire, wow, I laugh at your philosophy hahahaaa!

y u brag about being lame?

this "anarchist" seems well trapped within commodity society's morals... so bad they're not seeing a contradiction between being anti-State and being respectful to authority and its laws.

The whole " anti- " binary stance requires an element of psychological ressentiment, which is not specifically a prerequisite to being "anarchist ", so therefore there is no contradiction. If one was a leftist-syndicalist-libertarian-communist-anarchist, well then yes, you are correct, a contradiction exists.
Glad to clear that up, I might go down and buy some food and pay my electricity bill, which you fortunately never have to worry about, bye.

If your superior "anarchism" (that ain't like petty thievery) involves working and paying for everything like a sheep, then good for you... but then I still wonder how that makes you any different to any other chump out there, and more importantly what this anarchism is really about, beyond a bunch of stuff going on in your head sometimes, and you and your gang of buddies dressing in black for some reason and using the @ word very often during your cool-ass conversations at the café.

I admit I am of the sheep variety, but the mountain ram warrior sheep who charges and headbutts mountain lions!
I will have the rock thrower activists scattering like mice as I charge them!!

The thing about both sides of a binary relationship is that they both actually work for the State. Activists recruit inverted State participants and feed the spectacle of riot and power.

The problem he seems to be missing is that 1968 ideology(which anarchism is still heavily connected to) has been institutionalized to the point that it has no more countercultural power. The right being the red pill zone simply makes historical sense for a lot of people. There is an alternative left of sorts if you look into the likes of Kyle Kulinsky, Mike Tracy, Chapo Traphouse ect but it's not as coherent as the institutional left which has a 50-75 year dialect going which includes what used to be a counterculture. WAY too many anarchist exist parallel to this institutional structural and are not working to undermine it's basic structure which at this point means questioning and jettisoning some old 68 sacred cows. Bellamy deserves some credit for starting to do this. His approach might be different from mine but at least he's doing it.

What is needed plain and simple is a new century of anarchist/anarch discourse and this cannot be done without severing ties to 20th century radicalism as it has become institutionalized and recuperated. This won't happen over night and it starts with frontier theorists who begin to ask new questions and come up with new answers. Before the altright you had the Dark Enlightenment for instance and I would argue a new age of anarchism/anarchy and greater new radicalism needs figures that are equivalent to the likes of Nick Land, Mencius Moldbug, Jonathan Bowden ect. I'm talking about intellectual equivalent of course not ideational. I also think you have to crib and reconceptualize ideas from that group that make sense. I for instance like Moldbug's concept of the Cathedral. It's hard to argue with it when actually look into it. They after all took ideas from the likes of Deleuze and Guatarri, I say return the favor in our favor. Hell I even think we need OUR kind of Alex Jones as much as I would distance myself from conspiratardation. People like him complete that countercultural biome.

There's also the fact that(as John Michael Greer as argued) the 2012 spiritual movement collapse also created a vacuum where many turned ideology as religion. Back in the 00s there was a lot of Terrance McKenna and Robert Anton Wilson videos going around, that's been replaced by IDPol imbecility. Anarchism and Anarchy needs that greater spiritual juice to discursively thrive. This is the hard thousand mile journey ahead for the next generation. A few of us are taking those small steps towards a new century of theory and practice. It may start with tweets and signaling the unconventional but it has to start somewhere because institutional power holding radicalism is simply not radical in any anarchic or novel sense. It's just a reworked Maoist cultural revolution, and I ain't down with that.

Professor SE, will you please teach us more? I think we are ready for the True Anarch-Egoist-Anarchy beyond the nectar-filled droplets of wisdom you ration out on Twitter dotcom to your OVER NINETY devout followers and on anews. We will happily Kickstart an ALL EINZIGE ALL THE TIME podcast if you would be up for it. May we have some more please?

Please respond.

I don't believe in truth. It's obvious that what I said just flew completely over your head.

The trouble my friend is that the methodology of 20th Century radicalism is dug in like a Texan tick. The equivalent societal tweezer required the extract the bastard does not exist at the present time. We're talking about either a breakthrough technique in mass hypnosis or a miracle drug which can return individual consciousness to the pristine state of the infant whilst still retaining acquired motor skills, knowledge, memories and independence. A big ask! I think we are fated to remain an elite minority amongst the hordes of libidinal driven devouring beasts.,.

your "societal tweezer" can only be the raw exposure to natural forces without the presence of civilization and machines. Some cleansing clinics would put people in a wilderness for 10 days without any contact with the outside world and only their own selves for company. These techniques are not complex to perform, but are unpopular because people are only interested in libidinal pleasure and spectacular events. One must have a visionary desire to seek escape from the merrygo-roùnd hell of modern urban existence. Some prisoners have attained contented mindset of awesome power, which if pursued by the people of the world, will result into the liberation of all Western institutions from their archaic value systems.HBce5Z

Or in its simplest expression "Know Thyself" . Without distraction, if everyone REALLY knew themselves, their inner drives, or what Freud referred to as the Ego, Alter-ego and Id, the psychology of Self, everyone wouldn't be philistine sheep or ignorant beasts charging blindly through life devouring and bypassing the really important and beautiful things.

"if everyone REALLY knew themselves, their inner drives, or what Freud referred to as the Ego, Alter-ego and Id, the psychology of Self"

Again, LeFool, your pseudo-intellectual drivel reveals your stupid failure, as you go it all wrong about Freudian psychodynamics.

So is there really any reason to want to get Freudian psychodynamics correct? He was completely wrong in all his theories, this being the software. But as a pioneer he made significant contributions. His student Jung diverted the analysis away fromFs sexual obsessive conclusions.
The human mind is still a mystery, and I have never presumed to know its workings, only in the field of existential instinctual consciousness and its engagement with ideological models of belief would I dare to propose alternatives.

Add new comment