Well crafted post Jasun, very interesting about how non violent resistance is violent. Food for thought. Indeed the seesaw/pendulum swings. I’d be interested to know your thoughts about when the axis or fulcrum breaks, how many revolutions, how many cycles.
I have been reading Screwtape for the first time this month. So timely reference for me.
"Pritchett’s strategy might have been designed to beat King at his own game, or merely an attempt to maintain order in his town". Pritchett was doing his job.
It seems to be a human need to wake up in the morning and think what shall I do today? A paid job is the current way but that payment will change for most, judging by Agenda 2021.
Whether they really want a Gaia-type world for the sake of humanity, or because a cybernetic, self- regulating sysytem is so much easier to manage than one requring armies, is a question. I find it difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt judging by the harm done by trans national events in this and the last century.
They rely on us doing our jobs. If we were to give up on modern technology for a while it might allow us to break free from their grip. Ted Kaczynski had an IQ of 167. Nuff said. Being in control of your day is good for the body and mind. That will only happen if it is offered as a choice and many would choose it. We are not beyond hope as that wouldn't be natural or human.
Given a chance, it does appear that the oppressed will oppress but I kind of think some of this division (Trump/Biden etc) and suppression of white people, is being engineered by those in control of the game we are playing. Left to our own devices, maybe we could live peacefully in our own worlds. I have every faith in my fellow humans who are not influenced by propaganda.
Why do you think LSE helped create the Rolling Stones? Maybe in a general way in the sense that liberal environment fuelled fashionable rebellion- but if you listen to You Cant Always Get What You Want you'll see Jagger grappled with the cyclical nature of violence/ retribution -- "I went down to the demonstration// to get my fair sure of abuse." His gang chose fashion over divisive rhetoric - which can be seen as selling out. I think the Tavistock Institute had a real hand in designing rock music as a wedge to break down families -- using erotic hysteria versus parental authority, inducing a generation to believe in sexual freedom at the expense of stability,.loyalty. Notice all the praise for Marianne Faithfull and the path she chose which was a strange cocktail of feminism and self-annihilation. What comes after rock and roll?.Dissolution.
do you mean what's my reason for thinking so, or what do I think the LSE's reasons were for doing so? If the first, it's explained in the link. If the second, that's a much longer answer!
Okay, I've now read the link. Interesting - I guess i'll read Faithfull's Memories, Dreams, Reflections too. But for now, I don't think LSE funding Jagger's grant application is evidence of masterminding the creation of the Rolling Stones. I do think Tavistock was involved though -- and there was a McGill/Allan Memorial connection via RAF psychiatrist Dr Peter Roper who was also our "family psychiatrist" and depatterned my dad in 1963.
Regarding the desire of one group to oppress or dominate another, is this perhaps part of the group dynamic as opposed to a desire held by individuals who then act it out as a group? If that differentiation makes sense ...
Interesting ... and plausible! I'll have to read more about that as I find group behaviour fascinating. Do you have any suggestions for a more indepth look at mimetic rivalry?
Regarding the linked auticulture article, 'The Social Revenge Fantasist ...': whilst reading it, I found my mind automatically moving to think of two people I know pretty well who I think are, and maybe always would be, highly unlikely to join in with the described 'dominant group formation and scapegoating' behaviour.
I had a conversation with one of these two people just yesterday in which he bemoaned the tendency of those who seek and secure forms of power to inflict violence of various kinds on others; he sees such people as driven by something fundamentally different from what, by his account and in my experience of him - which is a desire simply to get along with others, get by, and be helpful where opportunity presents itself. He expressed that he simply does not understand the desire to dominate.
I wondered what it was about these two people that seemingly so alienates them from the 'social revenge' position. It struck me that the Social Revenge Fantasy depends on an idea of having, or needing, a place in history for oneself; but that the two individuals I describe have no sense of themselves being historical 'agents'. They are, in this sense (and others), unassuming in a way I find gently but considerably powerful.
It seems significant that both of those I refer to are people of genuine faith, who fundamentally understand and live out the awareness that their station is humble indeed relative to that of God, and their lot is to do their best whilst simultaneously, and prayerfully, doing the best they can in often unseen, but important, everyday ways. (The gentleman I spoke with yesterday might be fairly described as a devout Muslim who attends mosque and to the rituals of his faith, whilst his everyday existence sees him relating fully with the secular world: it seems to me that his loyalty remains consciously directed towards God, not the group. To put it another way, he does not 'identify' as Muslim or with Muslims; he just gets on with doing it).
In the phrase 'history of group identity', arguably the words 'group', 'identity', and 'history' all denote problematic positions.
Excellent essay Jasun! - and one that points to a train of thought of mine that was first conjured up subsequent to taking a course in conflict resolution (as a requisite for acquiring an AD in Education) in the mid-'90's: how far does one have to go in thought/behavior/action to be classified as non-violent, viz. does one have to follow the creed of Jainism to be considered non-violent; or is it just a matter of not partaking in non-aggressive/violent acts vs humans (never mind animals; insects; plants; etc.)?!? I guess what I'm looking for here is the etymology of term, 'non-violent'; as if not clearly and cogently defined one can be easily deceived by the likes of someone like Steven Pinker and his concomitant theory (in, 'Better Angels of our Nature') that the world has never been as peaceful as it is today. That is all! RGB-Y4 out!
Does the equation change if the Disciples understood nothing until after the Ascension? The "cross" is a focus of the Roman Church and has been used as a reactionary symbol. This is being trotted out in a Biigly way again in full occultic obsession with the Holy Land and with a long game that may be aided by AI in its steps. The "genocide" is now a "demolition site" and a "future riviera." Luciferian logic indeed.
Well crafted post Jasun, very interesting about how non violent resistance is violent. Food for thought. Indeed the seesaw/pendulum swings. I’d be interested to know your thoughts about when the axis or fulcrum breaks, how many revolutions, how many cycles.
I have been reading Screwtape for the first time this month. So timely reference for me.
"Pritchett’s strategy might have been designed to beat King at his own game, or merely an attempt to maintain order in his town". Pritchett was doing his job.
It seems to be a human need to wake up in the morning and think what shall I do today? A paid job is the current way but that payment will change for most, judging by Agenda 2021.
Whether they really want a Gaia-type world for the sake of humanity, or because a cybernetic, self- regulating sysytem is so much easier to manage than one requring armies, is a question. I find it difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt judging by the harm done by trans national events in this and the last century.
They rely on us doing our jobs. If we were to give up on modern technology for a while it might allow us to break free from their grip. Ted Kaczynski had an IQ of 167. Nuff said. Being in control of your day is good for the body and mind. That will only happen if it is offered as a choice and many would choose it. We are not beyond hope as that wouldn't be natural or human.
Given a chance, it does appear that the oppressed will oppress but I kind of think some of this division (Trump/Biden etc) and suppression of white people, is being engineered by those in control of the game we are playing. Left to our own devices, maybe we could live peacefully in our own worlds. I have every faith in my fellow humans who are not influenced by propaganda.
Why do you think LSE helped create the Rolling Stones? Maybe in a general way in the sense that liberal environment fuelled fashionable rebellion- but if you listen to You Cant Always Get What You Want you'll see Jagger grappled with the cyclical nature of violence/ retribution -- "I went down to the demonstration// to get my fair sure of abuse." His gang chose fashion over divisive rhetoric - which can be seen as selling out. I think the Tavistock Institute had a real hand in designing rock music as a wedge to break down families -- using erotic hysteria versus parental authority, inducing a generation to believe in sexual freedom at the expense of stability,.loyalty. Notice all the praise for Marianne Faithfull and the path she chose which was a strange cocktail of feminism and self-annihilation. What comes after rock and roll?.Dissolution.
do you mean what's my reason for thinking so, or what do I think the LSE's reasons were for doing so? If the first, it's explained in the link. If the second, that's a much longer answer!
Okay, I've now read the link. Interesting - I guess i'll read Faithfull's Memories, Dreams, Reflections too. But for now, I don't think LSE funding Jagger's grant application is evidence of masterminding the creation of the Rolling Stones. I do think Tavistock was involved though -- and there was a McGill/Allan Memorial connection via RAF psychiatrist Dr Peter Roper who was also our "family psychiatrist" and depatterned my dad in 1963.
https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/stunning-tale-of-brainwashing-the-cia-and-an-unsuspecting-scots-researcher-2509823
Regarding the desire of one group to oppress or dominate another, is this perhaps part of the group dynamic as opposed to a desire held by individuals who then act it out as a group? If that differentiation makes sense ...
That would be the scapegoat mechanism of mimetic rivalry
Interesting ... and plausible! I'll have to read more about that as I find group behaviour fascinating. Do you have any suggestions for a more indepth look at mimetic rivalry?
see the series at this substack, René Girard & the Jesus Principle in Theory & Practice, Parts 1- 5
Thanks!
Regarding the linked auticulture article, 'The Social Revenge Fantasist ...': whilst reading it, I found my mind automatically moving to think of two people I know pretty well who I think are, and maybe always would be, highly unlikely to join in with the described 'dominant group formation and scapegoating' behaviour.
I had a conversation with one of these two people just yesterday in which he bemoaned the tendency of those who seek and secure forms of power to inflict violence of various kinds on others; he sees such people as driven by something fundamentally different from what, by his account and in my experience of him - which is a desire simply to get along with others, get by, and be helpful where opportunity presents itself. He expressed that he simply does not understand the desire to dominate.
I wondered what it was about these two people that seemingly so alienates them from the 'social revenge' position. It struck me that the Social Revenge Fantasy depends on an idea of having, or needing, a place in history for oneself; but that the two individuals I describe have no sense of themselves being historical 'agents'. They are, in this sense (and others), unassuming in a way I find gently but considerably powerful.
It seems significant that both of those I refer to are people of genuine faith, who fundamentally understand and live out the awareness that their station is humble indeed relative to that of God, and their lot is to do their best whilst simultaneously, and prayerfully, doing the best they can in often unseen, but important, everyday ways. (The gentleman I spoke with yesterday might be fairly described as a devout Muslim who attends mosque and to the rituals of his faith, whilst his everyday existence sees him relating fully with the secular world: it seems to me that his loyalty remains consciously directed towards God, not the group. To put it another way, he does not 'identify' as Muslim or with Muslims; he just gets on with doing it).
In the phrase 'history of group identity', arguably the words 'group', 'identity', and 'history' all denote problematic positions.
Excellent essay Jasun! - and one that points to a train of thought of mine that was first conjured up subsequent to taking a course in conflict resolution (as a requisite for acquiring an AD in Education) in the mid-'90's: how far does one have to go in thought/behavior/action to be classified as non-violent, viz. does one have to follow the creed of Jainism to be considered non-violent; or is it just a matter of not partaking in non-aggressive/violent acts vs humans (never mind animals; insects; plants; etc.)?!? I guess what I'm looking for here is the etymology of term, 'non-violent'; as if not clearly and cogently defined one can be easily deceived by the likes of someone like Steven Pinker and his concomitant theory (in, 'Better Angels of our Nature') that the world has never been as peaceful as it is today. That is all! RGB-Y4 out!
Perhaps 'hunger' is a very apt word indeed.
Does the equation change if the Disciples understood nothing until after the Ascension? The "cross" is a focus of the Roman Church and has been used as a reactionary symbol. This is being trotted out in a Biigly way again in full occultic obsession with the Holy Land and with a long game that may be aided by AI in its steps. The "genocide" is now a "demolition site" and a "future riviera." Luciferian logic indeed.