Soros Open Society + "Anti-fascists" = Globalist propaganda

[Rory]

Some might say that that is a conspiracy in itself - diluting genuine inquiry and investigation with vast volumes of ludicrous pish.

Like Icke. Obscure the truth in hyperbole and pantomime fantasy.


But you know this already

[slimmouse]

Putting aside any Jewish angle. this sort of response is not unlike when you talk to 'regular' people and they dismiss it as a 'conspiracy theory'.
Icke et al are used to perform the same function for conspiracy theorists, it's the next circle out.

What I don't understand is that RI types are supposed to have a larger capacity for the suspension of disbelief, ie to expand the circle rather than simply shift the same levels around a bit.

[/quote]

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Or at least it should be.

Snowden keeps ringing in my ears....

[82_28]

I am prepared to freak out if those "among us" are lizards. Another thing I don't give a fuck about when it comes to describing the world. Where did the great fictional annals of dragons come from? It has been with "us" a long time -- the mythology and connections to observed behavior by both humans and reptiles and birds and whatever you can imagine. What it comes down to is how you as an individual feel about and treat entities apart from you. Personally, I am fine with people who believe whatever they believe.

I knew a guy we all called "Big Foot Steve". He would go on excursions with his "kind" and totally believed they found evidence there was a tribe (maybe?) or something somewhere in Olympic National Park. I argued with him about a number of his "findings", calling them bullshit -- but listening to his story. But in the end, I enjoyed the conversation and he was a nice guy. Life really is about stories and mutual kindness.

I once had a Mexican co-worker who gave me shit for wearing glasses. He told me the way to fix it was to drink the blood of an Iguana. He was serious.

[Searcher08]

Mods?

Yes, I can confirm this entire thread makes me want to kill myself.

WR, I started this thread in good faith. It's purpose was to explore stuff around Anton S., whom AD had suddenly started posting loads of what he said as apparent Gospel Truth. I am neither particularly anti-Soros, nor anti academic anti-fascism departments. However but there sure as heck are deep connections to intel and to Israel government.
I have been very surprised by the vitriol as I would have rated Soros a '4' on a R.I. meter of contention.
I have been looking for a mapping or diagramming package, as just giving a linear textual description is crap and boring for showing multiple relationships. It is in Marc Lombardi territory rather than mindmapping.

[Sounder]

It should be said, Jack Riddler has produced some of the best and most detailed analysis on several subjects for RI. Back in the day Jack, C2W?, cuda would make stunningly strong arguments, with the occasional bloopers. I owe many thanks to the folk that push back at what I say as it helps me improve my own skills.

I ain’t no pommy bastid or shrinking violet and would love to meet Jack or any and every other RI member. Although I dare say, I doubt very much that Jack would speak the way he does here, if we were to meet in person. (I do construction, and am healthy)

Jack was smart enough to realize the basic thrust on my stance early on, and to his discredit put me on ignore from the start.

While he is great at analysis, he is a bit sensitive to the notion that the validity of ones analysis extends only as far as existing conceptual structures allow.

There are plenty of things to be said about the role of the intellect in the maintenance of illusion, some other time perhaps.

Thanks Elfi that was good to read.

Gotta think on it Searcher08

I do regret that Jack got the time out, although what is, is fine with me. Hell, an intelligent, even if irate response, is better than silly reptile baiting.

Thanks 82- 28

Slim, -shut up

Also, Jack has been busy lately and maybe has not experienced the new toned down version of RI, so he might just be a bit out of step.

[82_28]

A friend and co-writer of mine once made a documentary based around going up to random people and asking the simple question of "How do you feel about being on planet Earth"? I wish I could find it. It "was" on youtube for a time, but I can't find it. We also had a super rad conversation of a dude setting up a Lincoln Log house beside a mail box that we filmed. Very deep are the people that get asked simple questions when they probably feel scared on a daily basis (or have gotten over being scared in interest of life).

I got in "trouble" at my old job for giving this homeless guy free coffee and soup all the time. But moreso what got me in trouble was the fact that I would chat with him. Here's a clip. It's long and probably boring. But I do think interesting, as it is totally noticable that this guy has something "spinning up there". There's a longer one that you can find if you just check my pathetic "youtube channel". As in, it's pathetic I even have one.

[Project Willow]

WR, I started this thread in good faith.

No you didn't. Good faith would have been to neither give nor take any bait. Good faith would be approaching every poster as if to initiate respectful dialogue. Good faith would be recognizing that there is a community here, a community that is still important and central to many people outside of yourself. Good faith would be recognizing that no matter what your personal feelings about any one poster or another, it is no excuse, warning after warning after warning, to degrade what little is left of this community with your incessant infighting.

Shame on every poster who perpetuates this personal feud. It's all short sighted, selfish, navel gazing bullshit, behavior fitting of the ruling elite, not those who profess to oppose them. That goes for everybody involved.

[conniption]

WR, I started this thread in good faith.

No you didn't. Good faith would have been to neither give nor take any bait. Good faith would be approaching every poster as if to initiate respectful dialogue. Good faith would be recognizing that there is a community here, a community that is still important and central to many people outside of yourself. Good faith would be recognizing that no matter what your personal feelings about any one poster or another, it is no excuse, warning after warning after warning, to degrade what little is left of this community with your incessant infighting.

Shame on every poster who perpetuates this personal feud. It's all short sighted, selfish, navel gazing bullshit, behavior fitting of the ruling elite, not those who profess to oppose them. That goes for everybody involved.

~

Before you lock this thread, PW, let me state briefly, I respectfully disagree with your perception of Searcher's motives.

It turned into a fire-pit candidate due to contributions from RI's home team of antagonists.

"Soros Open Society + "Anti-fascists" = Globalist propaganda" is an interesting and important topic, and I appreciate S8's attempt to shine a little light.

Thanks

[Elvis]

Has anyone read Soros on Soros? I have it, but haven't felt compelled to check it out. Any RI capsule reviews?

(I have another unread book on Soros, by someone else, but can't seem to find it at the moment.)

[Sounder]

I picked up a copy from the used book store several years ago. George Soros is a very intelligent man that presents himself quite well, but I still found the book to be boring and lacking any useful purpose.

Maybe I'll crack it a bit today, although come to think about it, I have never cared much to hear folk talk about themselves, so I'm no kind of objective critic anyway.


edit; the preceding is not true, because I do like to hear folk talk about themselves, -as long as they know when to stop.

[Elvis]

Thanks, Sounder. I'll probably skip it for now, though if I get curious enough to read it, I'll make some notes here.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Read Soros on Soros back when I thought "investment advice" was an actual thing that existed.

I found none in his book and found it a very bloodless affair, although certainly a more artfully stated, less relentlessly self-aggrandizing bloodless affair than I expected based on interviews I'd read with the man.

I suspect that Willis Harman's short tome "Global Mind Change" is probably useful, as roadmap & as cipher.

Also, Gene Sharp's "Waging Nonviolent Struggle" -- Sharp is probably more worthy of study than Soros anyway.

[Elvis]

Read Soros on Soros back when I thought "investment advice" was an actual thing that existed.

I found none in his book and found it a very bloodless affair, although certainly a more artfully stated, less relentlessly self-aggrandizing bloodless affair than I expected based on interviews I'd read with the man.

I suspect that Willis Harman's short tome "Global Mind Change" is probably useful, as roadmap & as cipher.

Also, Gene Sharp's "Waging Nonviolent Struggle" -- Sharp is probably more worthy of study than Soros anyway.

Thanks Wombat. Maybe I'll just check the index for dots to connect in my existing little tidepool of knowledge.

[Sounder]

Scearcher08 wrote...

Before going back to mapping out the ecosystem around Anton, a question.
What role (if any) do you think the Law of Unintended Consequences has in the scenarios you mapped out?

Oh big time, but these folk spend much effort at addressing this ‘Law’.

Still these designs will not work because as the PTMB try to impose the ‘proper’ expressions for being in a progressively more strident manner, general consciousness will be awakened by the obsessive and counter productive impositions placed upon it.

I have wondered if one of the advantages that people behind some of these operations may have is that in some ways they do not CARE about consequences as such.

No, no, they ‘care’ about consequences, but the implications of dire consequences can be shifted to others if ‘our’ side has the better PR dept.

Consequences are in the boring far distant future and these people are much more in the present frame (for example the astonishing degree that Rumsfeld micromanaged airstrikes in Iraq during 2003, IIRC his references to just 'sweeping everything up now, known and unknown')

I’m trying to appreciate where you are coming from Searcher08, and while I can see that ‘minions’ at least must ignore and repress their sense of consequences, the big boys are long gamers and therefore consequence obsessed.

I think most people here at RI care a lot about the importance of consequences - and considering decisions in the light of longer term effects (like the story of Hopi elders thinking of the effects on seven generations of their descendents before taking major decisions)

The simplicity of a sociopathic neo-lib / neo-con / intel apparatchik's world view is actually incredibly alien. We might describe it as 'reactive', 'short-term ist' , 'destructive', 'myopic' - but I think those terms are not accurate. FWIW I get it as an extremely strong 'felt-sense'.

‘reactive’, ‘destructive and ‘myopic’ OK, but ‘short-termist’, not so much.

What happens when there are organisations of normal decent-hearted people but run by those whose philosophy is perhaps 'immediate life-force extraction over all'?

Hopefully, those folk will find a trigger that better connects themselves to Source, so they may through off the delusions and illusions of their ‘organizations’.

How will *that* dynamic play out in an ecosystem of organisations?

Messily.

[conniption]

towardfreedom

The NGO-ization of Resistance

Written by Arundhati Roy
Published: 08 September 2014
Source: Massalijn



A hazard facing mass movements is the NGO-ization of resistance. It will be easy to twist what I’m about to say into an indictment of all NGOs. That would be a falsehood. In the murky waters of fake NGOs set up or to siphon off grant money or as tax dodges (in states like Bihar, they are given as dowry), of course, there are NGOs doing valuable work. But it’s important to consider the NGO phenomenon in a broader political context.

In India, for instance, the funded NGO boom began in the late 1980s and 1990s. It coincided with the opening of India’s markets to neoliberalism. At the time, the Indian state, in keeping with the requirements of structural adjustment, was withdrawing funding from rural development, agriculture, energy, transport and public health. As the state abdicated its traditional role, NGOs moved in to work in these very areas. The difference, of course, is that the funds available to them are a minuscule fraction of the actual cut in public spending.

Most large-funded NGOs are financed and patronized by aid and development agencies, which are, in turn, funded by Western governments, the World Bank, the UN and some multinational corporations. Though they may not be the very same agencies, they are certainly part of the same loose, political formation that oversees the neoliberal project and demands the slash in government spending in the first place.

Why should these agencies fund NGOs? Could it be just old-fashioned missionary zeal? Guilt? It’s a little more than that. NGOs give the impression that they are filling the vacuum created by a retreating state. And they are, but in a materially inconsequential way. Their real contribution is that they defuse political anger and dole out as aid or benevolence what people ought to have by right. They alter the public psyche. They turn people into dependent victims and blunt the edges of political resistance. NGOs form a sort of buffer between the sarkar and public. Between Empire and its subjects. They have become the arbitrators, the interpreters, the facilitators.

In the long run, NGOs are accountable to their funders, not to the people they work among. They’re what botanists would call an indicator species. It’s almost as though the greater the devastation caused by neoliberalism, the greater the outbreak of NGOs. Nothing illustrates this more poignantly than the phenomenon of the U.S. preparing to invade a country and simultaneously readying NGOs to go in and clean up the devastation. In order make sure their funding is not jeopardized and that the governments of the countries they work in will allow them to function, NGOs have to present their work in a shallow framework, more or less shorn of a political or historical context. At any rate, an inconvenient historical or political context.

Apolitical (and therefore, actually, extremely political) distress reports from poor countries and war zones eventually make the (dark) people of those (dark) countries seem like pathological victims. Another malnourished Indian, another starving Ethiopian, another Afghan refugee camp, another maimed Sudanese…in need of the white man’s help. They unwittingly reinforce racist stereotypes and reaffirm the achievements, the comforts and the compassion (the tough love) of Western civilization. They’re the secular missionaries of the modern world.

Eventually–on a smaller scale, but more insidiously–the capital available to NGOs plays the same role in alternative politics as the speculative capital that flows in and out of the economies of poor countries. It begins to dictate the agenda. It turns confrontation into negotiation. It depoliticizes resistance. It interferes with local peoples’ movements that have traditionally been self-reliant. NGOs have funds that can employ local people who might otherwise be activists in resistance movements, but now can feel they are doing some immediate, creative good (and earning a living while they’re at it).

Real political resistance offers no such short cuts. The NGO-ization of politics threatens to turn resistance into a well-mannered, reasonable, salaried, 9-to-5 job. With a few perks thrown in. Real resistance has real consequences. And no salary.