And who is responsible for the type of evil perpetrated in Finsbury Park?
Comments
Roger Lewis Yes I have seen this Joseph On Adrian’s Feed but also elsewhere.
I have been posting this to try to assist the less experienced people who are less than street smart regarding agent provocateurs etc.
I am as concerned about both Left wing and Right wing young people and all points in between.
There is a lot of baiting going on Share this it nails how peaceful protest and non-violent civil disobedience is the most effective driver for change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w&t=355s
Also beware
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
Share this widely it contains info on being safe online and being safe during public unrest
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_sThwX_Vd3pbzN3SlNha3ZXdllkeXFEalgwUVFyUWpyaXg0
Conditioning (a poem)
Pleasantries exchanged with the peasantry, what is intact of the real me?all is not as it seems in the wide world, not all sincerity is sincere you see.of caves and reflections, insults and deflections no application no rejection, in actions and deeds examples and needs those conditioned minds Baron of seeds.
LikeShow more reactions
Roger Lewis https://off-guardian.org/…/the-revolution-is-being…/
Addicted to Distracted By Bruce Charlton Makes for compelling if Uncomfortable reading.
http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.se/
It will offend most readers but he has a very good point, I do not share his pessimism but the rest is hard to argue with.
“People and events presented by the media as Good are always in reality bad; and people or events presented by the media as bad are usually (but not always) Good – and when bad people or events are not presented as Good, then they are condemned as bad for the wrong reasons.
Also, if genuinely Good things happen to be presented as Good by the Mass Media; then it will invariably be the case that they also are said to be Good for the wrong reasons.
Thus, the major output of the modern international Mass Media consists of only four categories:
1. Good presented as bad
2. Bad presented as Good
(That is to say simple inversion)
3. Good presented as Good for a bad reason
4. Bad presented as bad for a bad reason
(That is to say explanatory inversion)
These four categories, which can be summarized as either simple or explanatory inversion, account for all sustained and high impact modern major Mass Media stories without any exceptions.
Therefore those who want to free their minds from the Mass Media must first avoid as much Mass Media output as possible, and secondly develop automatic negativistic behaviour towards the Mass Media output which they cannot avoid”.
There is something strange about the media…
OFF-GUARDIAN.ORG
Adrian Bailey Lots to respond to. In a few words, violent and peacful interact. Good to challenge taken for granted learning modes. Charlton infuriates me! So much of what he writes is good, then he goes and spoils it all by saying something stupid…https://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/
LikeShow more reactions
Roger Lewis Adrian Bailey Hi Adrian, Charlton is very challenging I disagree with most of his politics but his psychological analysis and political analysis is very good. I often find that many ultra Conservative analysts do great analysis and let themselves down with policy prescriptions.
On Political Correctness and the Thought Prison theme Charlton is frankly Brilliant, again though I find he falls short in prescribing religious belief as the missing ingredient of meaning in people’s lives. I am religious myself but could not disagree with him more on that point. I think that Charlton is well worth reading and it’s not really very hard work, it’s quite entertaining knockabout stuff, I came across him through Dennis Rappaport a Canadian Physicist who I have found very interesting and informative on The Science of CO2 and Climate Dynamics, I think Charlton is also to be congratulated for his publishing of the Research paper challenging the Link of HIV and Aids, I can not argue with this logical defence of publishing which is completely in line with Popperian falsification , such people would be a great help in the questions of Big Pharma, The Gates Foundation and other Global Corporate swindles, Like fluoridation of water.
I really like people Like Peter Hitchens and Jacob Rees-Mogg as well,
whilst I disagree with their politics I admire their intellectual honesty, same goes for Charlton, for me at least.
On Political Correctness and the Thought Prison theme Charlton is frankly Brilliant, again though I find he falls short in prescribing religious belief as the missing ingredient of meaning in people’s lives. I am religious myself but could not disagree with him more on that point. I think that Charlton is well worth reading and it’s not really very hard work, it’s quite entertaining knockabout stuff, I came across him through Dennis Rappaport a Canadian Physicist who I have found very interesting and informative on The Science of CO2 and Climate Dynamics, I think Charlton is also to be congratulated for his publishing of the Research paper challenging the Link of HIV and Aids, I can not argue with this logical defence of publishing which is completely in line with Popperian falsification , such people would be a great help in the questions of Big Pharma, The Gates Foundation and other Global Corporate swindles, Like fluoridation of water.
I really like people Like Peter Hitchens and Jacob Rees-Mogg as well,
whilst I disagree with their politics I admire their intellectual honesty, same goes for Charlton, for me at least.
LikeShow more reactions
Write a reply…
Adrian Bailey More or less what I find with Charlton, Roger. Easy and thought provoking, occasionally tipping my ideas upside down. Truly, there is no reason why a conservative can’t be a great thinker. Hitchens, though, for me at least, and many like him are at best quick witted journos (Spiked comes to mind) stating the obvious – such as when, so often, rhetoric and emotionalism once stripped away reveal an empty space. As – to me – many of these libertarians are feeding into political debate at some level (beyond their specifically political articles) I’ll happily employ a bit of emotive rhetoric in the name of ‘strategic essentialism’. Rees-Mogg, I didn’t realise had an intellectual output to be honest about, but I haven’t looked. I just like making mischief by using pictures of him looking daft 
🙂
🙂LikeShow more reactions
Roger Lewis Rees-Mogg is I think Brilliant, the tories Claim a great Intellect for BoJo and For me, I do not see it, Rees-Mogg another matter altogether.
As a left Anarchist myself I do have time for conservative libertarians. I have read a fair Bit of Edmund Burke recently and Quote extensively from his, On these Present Discontents Speech.
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/…/on…
One has to consider the question at what point would a Radical become Conservative, accepting that life is a journey and Everything Flows, believing in Free Will as I do, there is though an imagined point at which a holding pattern in the Flow might appear attractive, would that be conservative?
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/…/uk…
mais par impatience de souffrir On the present…
LETTHEMCONFECTSWEETERLIES.BLOGSPOT.COM
LikeShow more reactions
Adrian Bailey I like Burke too. Hume my favourite philosopher, a Tory. Eric Hobsbawm maintained a ‘fondness’ for soviet style marxism, yet he remained culturally conservative. I’m pretty conservative myself when it comes to conserving basic core values or ‘holding patterns’ of ‘socialism’ , and conservative too in having a pretty pessimistic view of potentials for significant changes in power structures. Political philosophy is its own place for some, but I include it in a broader philosophical tradition that includes skepticism that’s not light years away from anarchism. Epistemologically, I am wary of anyone who clings on to the belief that they know – a tendency from which I try hard to guard myself. 🙂
🙂rogerglewis
- June 18, 2017
Addicted to Distracted By Bruce Charlton Makes for compelling if Uncomfortable reading.
http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.se/
http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.se/
It will offend most readers but he has a very good point, I do not share his pessimism but the rest is hard to argue with.
“People and events presented by the media as Good are always in reality bad; and people or events presented by the media as bad are usually (but not always) Good – and when bad people or events are not presented as Good, then they are condemned as bad for the wrong reasons.
Also, if genuinely Good things happen to be presented as Good by the Mass Media; then it will invariably be the case that they also are said to be Good for the wrong reasons.
Thus, the major output of the modern international Mass Media consists of only four categories:
1. Good presented as bad
2. Bad presented as Good
(That is to say simple inversion)
3. Good presented as Good for a bad reason
4. Bad presented as bad for a bad reason
(That is to say explanatory inversion)
These four categories, which can be summarized as either simple or explanatory inversion, account for all sustained and high impact modern major Mass Media stories without any exceptions.
Therefore those who want to free their minds from the Mass Media must first avoid as much Mass Media output as possible, and secondly develop automatic negativistic behaviour towards the Mass Media output which they cannot avoid”.
Also, if genuinely Good things happen to be presented as Good by the Mass Media; then it will invariably be the case that they also are said to be Good for the wrong reasons.
Thus, the major output of the modern international Mass Media consists of only four categories:
1. Good presented as bad
2. Bad presented as Good
(That is to say simple inversion)
3. Good presented as Good for a bad reason
4. Bad presented as bad for a bad reason
(That is to say explanatory inversion)
These four categories, which can be summarized as either simple or explanatory inversion, account for all sustained and high impact modern major Mass Media stories without any exceptions.
Therefore those who want to free their minds from the Mass Media must first avoid as much Mass Media output as possible, and secondly develop automatic negativistic behaviour towards the Mass Media output which they cannot avoid”.
Like
8
0
Rate This
-
Seamus PadraigMy sentiments exactly! Thanks for the link.Liked by you10Rate This
-
Perfectly put!Like00Rate This
-
Hmmmm… while that excerpt (cited up-thread) is rather good, I’m not sure how well the larger argument works after visiting his blog and reading through excerpts from the book. I’ve become suspicious of the Author’s ideological POV, because he also writes:“The standard model by which people try to understand media bias is a government which tells the media what to say and vets what it says in all minute particulars: something like Stalin and The Party dictating what got written, and what was not written, in Pravda.
That obviously isn’t what happens in the modern world – it would of course be impossible, such is the utterly vast volume of material being generated; and stupid people suppose this means that the media and government are independent the one of the other.
Ha!
The Mass Media is not biased to Leftism, it is Leftism; so of course, Leftism must come from within the media: the bias is generated by the Mass Media.”Well, no, I think not; I reject the apparent Structuralist argument and the characterization of Mass Media as inherently Leftist, for starters. Still, in quick bursts, some bits of his presentation are good.Like00Rate This
-
-
Unfortunately, I had to un-like this passage, which is spot-on, after reading the Author’s blog of the book the passage comes from, because the book also features utter bilge like…“(Instead, and for the past several decades, probably the single most valorized group among the revolutionary Leftist parties of the UK have been… religious terrorists based in the Middle East whose primary motivation is the extermination of Israel! A more extreme inversion of Old Left priorities could scarcely be imagined!)”Ugh, no. Stupidly mendacious, in fact. I will not be purchasing this book.Like10Rate This
-
From reading his blog, I now know that Bruce Charlton is a Zionist. Just want anyone, who (like me) was initially seduced by this neat little excerpt, to be warned about Charlton’s greater project.Like10Rate This
-
Hi, St Aug, Charlton’s stuff is free to download, It is not perfect nothing ever is. Looking at the separate arguments that people make rather than the ideology of the writer is a good practice I think, and one that is increaSINGLY Rare.
An example of Writers such as Charlton in the Past would be, say, Ezra Pound and his ABC of economics. Now Pound was a Fascist, that does not though diminish the criticism of debt based money and the Gold Standard, set out in his ABC of economics. I would argue the Same applies to Charlton, but also to Adolph Hitler and Mein Kamph. I have read all three, they provide insights to particular and peculiar world views but provide a perspective on events which the Orthodox Historical narrative obscure. Frank Harris is another writer worth reading, he was a friend and biographer of Oscar Wilde, yet his book, England or Germany a critique of social relations in the the UK , USA and Germany in the run-up to the First world war is a perspective you will not find in any standard History Text,Kant contrasts “apodictic” with “problematic” and “assertoric” in the Critique of Pure Reason, on page A70/B95. . These matters are to do with what we know as truth in the world which is sometimes called reality. Some commentators have been arguing a ´Post-Truth´ turn in the news this is a logical error in reasoning for as Frank Harris says in England or Germany, p.144 ( https://archive.org/stream/englandorgerman01harrgoog/englandorgerman01harrgoog_djvu.txt)´´Genius welcomes criticism; the more the
merrier, the higher the better. “Come look
what I’m doing´´, it cries fearlessly, knowing
that truth must help it and that in an open
struggle between truth and falsehood, truth has
nothing to fear. ´´The same goes for Tragedy and Hope by Caroll Quigley, he was writing from the perspective of an elitist and yet manages to provide the core of most of the John Bircher type narratives in Skousen and Alex Jones´s world views,
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/05/authentic-discourses-on-decisions-to-act.html”The reader of Pope, as of every author, is advised to begin by letting him say what he has to say, in his own manner to an open mind that seeks only to receive the impressions which the writer wishes to convey. First let the mind and spirit of the writer come into free, full contact with the mind and spirit of the reader, whose attitude at the first reading should be simply receptive. Such reading is the condition precedent to all true judgment of a writer’s work. All criticism that is not so grounded spreads as fog over a poet’s page. Read, reader, for yourself, without once pausing to remember what you have been told to think´´.
Henry Morley.http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/03/globalisation-un-entangled-found-poem.html
the idea before it was clothed in words
heard in minds, as uttered thought
the communication of arranged ideas
Thoughts lifting mist from the poet´s page.To set the stage, not in the round
but, to see the scene in the sphere
Which actors will the playwright lay
on the page´s narrative to steer.
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/06/admit-facts-of-life-in-international.htmlQuiggleys words.p.232 tragedy and Hope.
´´but criticism should have been directed rather at the hypocrisy and lack
of realism in the ideals of the wartime propaganda and at the lack of honesty of the chief negotiators in carrying on the pretense that these ideals were still in effect while they violated them daily, and necessarily violated them. The settlements were clearly made by secret negotiations, by the Great Powers exclusively, and by power politics. They had to be. No settlements could ever have been made on any other bases. The failure of the chief negotiators (at least the Anglo-Americans) to admit this is regrettable, but behind their
reluctance to admit it is the even more regrettable fact that the lack of political experience and political education of the American and English electorates made it dangerous for the negotiators to admit the facts of life in international political relationships.”http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/01/red-lines-settled-science-end-of.html
Foucault. the episteme.´´would define the episteme retrospectively as the strategic apparatus which permits of separating out from among all the statements which are possible those that will be
acceptable within, I won’t say a scientific theory, but a field of scientificity, and which it is possible to say are true or false. The episteme is the ‘apparatus’ which makes possible the separation, not of the true from the false, but of what may from what may not be characterised as
scientific.”[1] Michel Foucault.the Pragmatist in me inspired by C S Pierce my favourite modern philosopher and one of the finest logicians that have come down to us says this.
CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE: In order to
reason well …. it is absolutely necessary to possess … such virtues
as intellectual honesty and sincerity a
nd a real love of truth (2.82). The cause [of the success of scientific
inquirers] has been that the motive which has carried them
to the laboratory and the field has been a craving to
know how things really were … (1-34).
[Genuine inquiry consists I in diligent inquiry into truth for truth’s sake
(1.44), … in actually drawing the bow upon truth with in
tentness in the eye, with energy in the arm (1.235).
[When] it is no longer the reasoning which determines wh
at the conclusion shall be, but … the conclusion which
determines what the reasoning shall be … this is sham
reasoning…. The effect of this shamming is that men
come to look upon reasoning as mainly decorative….
http://web.ncf.ca/ag659/308/Peirce-Rorty-Haack.pdfJust my 5 penneth worth. But read widely and drink deeply of the pool of all knowledge. Judging a book by its cover was always an overrated past time in my opinion.Like00Rate ThisYour comment is awaiting moderation.
-
12345
-
” Looking at the separate arguments that people make rather than the ideology of the writer is a good practice I think…”That’s certainly an absurd position to make. I’m not going to “follow” a Right wing Zionist’s work just because bits and pieces of what she or he writes make sense when isolated from the whole. Eg, plenty of White Supremacist theorists wrote things against BHO which were, in bits, similar to my critiques of BHO, but what counted was the profound ways in which they differed from my POV and their greater agenda, which is Evil.“Judging a book by its cover was always an overrated past time in my opinion.”That’s the opposite of what I’m doing: I’m judging a Right wing Zionist Trojan Horse by its texts.Like10Rate This
-
erratum: That’s certainly an absurd position to TAKELike00Rate This
-
I do not doubt that it seems absurd to you. It is not that way for me.
To Argue that the Context of any argument advanced by any person at any part of their body of work must necessarily be given a context as the whole Body of their work is I think the absurd position.
I do not know and neither do I care if Bruce Charlton is a Zionist. I am confident in my own Opposition to Zionism, and accept that others have a different opinion and probably a quite different Context.
In short, there are many sides to all questions. And I find that the Jain conception of Syādvāda has much to recommend it. It“is a theory of qualified predication, states Koller. It states that all knowledge claims must be qualified in many ways, because reality is manysided.[30] It is done so systematically in later Jain texts through saptibhaṅgīnāya or “the theory of sevenfold scheme”.[30] These saptibhaṅgī seem to be have been first formulated in Jainism by the 5th or 6th century CE Svetambara scholar Mallavadin,[31] and they are:[29][32][33]
Affirmation: syād-asti—in some ways, it is,
Denial: syān-nāsti—in some ways, it is not,
Joint but successive affirmation and denial: syād-asti-nāsti—in some ways, it is, and it is not,
Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable,
Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syān-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable,
Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable,
Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is indescribable”.
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/06/brexit-eu-foriegn-policy-uk-foriegn.htmlLike00Rate This-
“I do not know and neither do I care if Bruce Charlton is a Zionist. I am confident in my own Opposition to Zionism, ”That the self-undermining contradiction, implicit in these two statements, is not obvious to you… is the reason I can’t take your argument seriously. Imagine writing the following in support of, say, David Duke:“I do not know and neither do I care if David Duke is a Racist. I am confident in my own Opposition to Racism… ”One couldn’t help questioning the cogency, validity or sincerity of the commenter’s “Anti-Racism” after reading such a remark, no?Like00Rate This
-
-
-
-
PS Being in possession of, or citing, numerous texts is of no value if one doesn’t know how to read or decode the texts; people of the Radical Skepticism community (that’s the loose term I use for “us”) too often cite Quigley as some kind of whistle-blower when he was, in fact, an apologist… at best he was playing a double game. The mere fact that the flagship crypto-Right winger of the NeoLiberal movement (Bill Clinton) cited Quigley as a mentor is all you need to know.Regarding Charlton’s assault on “Left Wing Media”: who does Charlton think the average owner of a Global Media Empire resembles, Billy Bragg? The Media Owners are Right wing and they serve the Corporate War Machine, which is Right wing. But contrary to popular (Leftist) belief, the Right wing are neither incompetent nor dumb, and they’ve been using Left/Liberal Cover to get way with war-making, genocide, asset-stripping Serfs and every other Evil for at least a century. Before that they hid behind the faux-Morality of the Church.Writers like Charlton attempt to gain traction among gullible types on the other side of the ideological fence, but his technique is too crude to work (he could learn a thing or two from Lyndon Larouche, who tucks his poison much deeper within the folds of the otherwise-interesting info he sometimes offered); in the posted (up thread) excerpt I initially liked, Charlton does a pretty good job of describing/ decrying Right wing, Zionist propaganda techniques… which only makes Charlton interesting until one discovers, a few paragraphs later, that Charlton is a Right wing Zionist.Sorry. He needs to polish his Bullshit a little harder.Like00Rate This
-
ST Aug, you are welcome to your own self-congratulatory Dogma.
I if you wish to discuss the Semiotics, Semantics and Logic of media, Media Discourse and Social Relations I am more than happy to do that.
First of all though If you wish to discuss things with another person it is as well to ask them if they believe something when they are available to answer the question, Ascribing beliefs employing your own EGO projection does not free yourself from the thought prison of EGO and Political Correctness.
Where is your evidence that Charlton is a Zionist, I have not come across any in what I have read of his work.
On David Duke, he is a self-declared White Supremacist, I have seen evidence of this, even so, if Duke, for instance, advance arguments regarding say AGW CO2 induced Climate Change I would look at his arguments and not dismiss his Belief or otherwise based upon his objectionable views to me on Racial Equality and Eugenics.
This is an interesting comment along this theme from a friend , funnily enough on Charlton as well.Adrian Bailey
Adrian Bailey More or less what I find with Charlton, Roger. Easy and thought provoking, occasionally tipping my ideas upside down. Truly, there is no reason why a conservative can’t be a great thinker. Hitchens, though, for me at least, and many like him are at best quick witted journos (Spiked comes to mind) stating the obvious – such as when, so often, rhetoric and emotionalism once stripped away reveal an empty space. As – to me – many of these libertarians are feeding into political debate at some level (beyond their specifically political articles) I’ll happily employ a bit of emotive rhetoric in the name of ‘strategic essentialism’. Rees-Mogg, I didn’t realise had an intellectual output to be honest about, but I haven’t looked. I just like making mischief by using pictures of him looking daft
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/06/professor-bruce-charlton-pc-playing-man.htmlI will update out own discussion on My Blog as it develops St Aug.Like00Rate This-
“ST Aug, you are welcome to your own self-congratulatory Dogma.”Thanks for that! LaughIf Charlton were writing original thoughts or introducing new research, perhaps there’d be an argument to rescue the useful bits from the poison. But the brief excerpt, from Charlton’s texts, that I initially liked, I liked because I agree with it, not because I’d never thought it, or seen it in other forms, before. In lieu of manifest Genius popping up, here and there, in the texts from a Right wing Zionist, I prefer reading writers (some brilliant) who are neither Right wing nor Zionist. You are obviously free to read Charlton and sing his praises, but your argument in support of his texts (and their usefulness to non-Right wingers) remains, in my opinion, weak.Why not cite a passage from Charlton you consider brilliant and original?Like00Rate This
-
St Aug, My own tastes and recommendations regarding literature, Art or Political economy can be found in the link to my Good Reads Page on My Blog.
I do not pretend to know or seek to persuade I am only learning ever, and not qualified to Judge or indeed prepared to be judged by you or anyone.
Asked for evidence regarding Charlton I note you have offered none.
It is not my place or indeed a role I volunteer for myself to cheerleader anyone Left or Right. My method is merely to speak as I find.
““Son,” my father continued, “European nations refused to consider the Gypsies equal to themselves for similar reasons the Negroes are considered inferior to the Caucasian race. I want you to remember that the sin of discrimination pales in comparison to extermination. My dear son, I hate to think of what the future of Shívó’s community would have been if Hitler’s Aryan view and dictatorship had prevailed. We are still living in a world of nations who think of themselves more than of others and, most of the time, behave like the green wheat.” Then, quoting an ancient Arab proverb, he said,Up and above keeps its head while green is the wheat;It is capable of bowing only after ripe and ready to reap.“People, like wheat,” my father told me, “must reach maturity in order to understand, appreciate, and accept. They must learn to see, to hear, and to behave. Behave not like the green wheat, a poorly educated man or an impolite person, but like the ripe wheat.”“My dear son,” he continued, “I want you to remember that only an ignorant man is rude, and only a crude person is capable of bragging about his racial superiority. Looking down upon and insulting another man is not in the character of polite men. Some men are ignorant. Others are arrogant. Sometimes people are arrogant because they know no humility. At times, some people are insecure, cowardly, and afraid, and they have to learn to be brave. You have to learn about these qualities of men. It is a hard way of learning, but you have to learn it on your own.”
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewshortstory.asp?AuthorID=65223
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/05/on-language-oppression-and-political.htmlLike00Rate This
-
-
“On David Duke, he is a self-declared White Supremacist, I have seen evidence of this, even so, if Duke, for instance, advance arguments regarding say AGW CO2 induced Climate Change I would look at his arguments and not dismiss his Belief or otherwise based upon his objectionable views to me on Racial Equality and Eugenics.”Well, only if David Duke were also a Climate Scientist or a Scientist at all. In other words: if he were presenting a special argument, that I couldn’t find anywhere else, which somehow advanced or clarified the debate, and his position could not in any way be detected to support his Sinister Agenda: sure. But that’s never the case.Charlton is a mediocre opinionator I would welcome as a Fellow Radical (because we need the sheer numbers)… if he weren’t the opposite of a Radical. But he is: he aligns himself (as a Right wing Zionist) with Hegemony. The details of his presentation are irrelevant and they certainly don’t mitigate the sins of his greater project.We of the “Left”/ Left need to be more discerning and, also, a little less self-underminingly “open minded” when it comes to the Kool Aid. What we need to understand is that the Right/Left divide is not symmetrical… the two sides are not equal in force. The Left was raised and educated (aka Propagandized) by Right wing institutions… we are, unfortunately, an anomalous appurtenance on a vast, Right wing entity that is much older than living memory. It’s the context for everything we know and we are susceptible to its many tricks and its seductive pseudo-paradoxes. The Academy is a Right wing institution… the philosophers that are popularized are popularized because they serve/served an Imperial agenda (what is, eg, “Dasein” but the secret rallying cry of Europe’s carving up of “sub human” Africa in the 19th century? Interesting side note: the film “Being There” contains winks at this critique).I’d argued that we start off, as Radicals, being divided, at best. Fanon’s work regarding the double-consciousness of “Negritude” applies to the Radical as well. Your advocacy of Charlton’s tainted material is a symptom of this, in my opinion. But my opinion is of no importance and I fear this “debate” is doing nothing more, for either of us, than eating up part of a perfectly good Sunday.Not that I write all that without expecting a rebuttal! Laugh. But I probably will let you have the last word, at this point, unless you come up with something genuinely interesting…Liked by you00Rate This
-
St Aug, I have no wish to have the last word even if I thought there was such a thing as the last word.
It is interesting you should mention Being there, I used a Clip in this Video I made.Enjoy your Sunday.
-
-
-
—
0046702273052
skype: rogerglewis
Skype telephone number +46406931188
Portfolio of on line Profiles( Go on be Nosy ) CLICK HERE PLEASE
#ConquestofDough
0046702273052
skype: rogerglewis
Skype telephone number +46406931188
Portfolio of on line Profiles( Go on be Nosy ) CLICK HERE PLEASE
#ConquestofDough
Not The Grub Street Journal 