In the esoteric ectoplasm the ghost wades. That lonely spirit. Waiting for god. Time to meet yr maker sinner. The truth cannot be known. That is, there is no truth. It’s a subjective thing, a vibrant thing and above all an esoteric thing. The ghost waits at the door wanting love objects. The object of affection. The ghost is patient, and good things come to those who wait. The zephyr blows in from the west. With the tempests the ghost does play. With the playthings of time. Under the weeping willow tree I shot him. I shot him down and the ghost still haunts me. I wish I was someone. I wish I was famous. I wish I wasn’t a ghost.Or else I wish I wasn’t the last man alive. In my private struggle I quietly sit. This is the war inside my brain. I cannot achieve in death what I want to in life. Therefore I must live as though I am alive. As though I am being born for the first time. That way I will remember the things I forgot. I can advance to the next phase.
In Greek mythology, Lethe (λήθη; Classical Greek [ˈlεːt̪ʰεː], modern Greek: [ˈliθi]) was one of the five rivers of Hades. Also known as the Ameles potamos (river of unmindfulness), the Lethe flowed around the cave of Hypnos and through the Underworld, where all those who drank from it experienced complete forgetfulness. Lethe was also the name of the Greek spirit of forgetfulness and oblivion, with whom the river was often identified.
In Classical Greek, the word Lethe literally means "oblivion," "forgetfulness," or "concealment". It is related to the Greek word for "truth", aletheia (αλήθεια), meaning "un-forgetfulness" or "un-concealment".
Was I bound in chains by a demiurge? Did I walk too close to the ebb and flow of Lethe? Did I deface the bust of Goethe? Did I turn lead to gold? Did I find the philosopher’s stone? Did I fart too loud? Was my fart too pungent? Oh my god why did you break the mold? Was my face torn by the steel tongs? Were my knees weak and did I need them for long?
One of them songs. One of them songs is a gonna be sung.
Georges Sorel was once an anarchist who turned to the darkside, supporting monarchist and right-wing fascist politics later in his life. However, his contributions on the virtue of revolutionary violence and his remarks on the power of the “energizing myth” remain important concepts in anarchist thought. Contrast this to the anarcho-Christian pacifism of Leo Tolstoy who felt that violence was an inevitable result of the dialectical relationship between the state and the oppressed. So what is the anarchist discourse on violence all about? Well, it’s a slippery slope. The man who shot McKinley claimed he was inspired by Emma Goldman, a onetime Rochester resident. What were Goldman’s reactions to this action? Well, she didn’t want to advocate such outright acts of violence, but she also didn’t want to condemn them. The classic slogan “Propaganda by the deed” had become synonymous with anarchism at the time, giving anarchism a bad name. This lead to the scapegoating of many anarchists during the first red scare. Sacco and Vanzetti are examples of this. Goldman herself was deported to the icy tundra of what then became known as the USSR. Individualist anarchists deplored violence by their anarcho-communist cousins and used the bad name that anarcho-terrorists had given anarcho-communism to denounce it. 27 February 1933, the Reichstag building in the German capital was set on fire. Hitler blamed this on communists and used it to further persecuted communists and anarchists. Later anarchists would make an assassination attempt on Hitler. Many pacifists are foiled when the subject of WWII comes up. Militant self-defense, of course, is very different from “propaganda by the deed.” The Black Panther Party in the United States advocated violent self-defense in the spirit of Rob Williams, author of “Negros with Guns.” Martin Luther King denounced these tactics, taking the more masochistic stance of Ghandian non-violence. Today the debate over violence is odd. There are those who advocate violent revolution, however assassination and terrorism are no longer part of the discourse, especially post-9/11. “Diversity of tactics” and “Direct Action” are the slogans of anarchists today. Direct action can include breaking store windows, as they did in Seattle in 1999, or it can include confrontations with the police. The purpose of these actions is never to hurt anybody, just to express the anger that the system has created. Despite the fact that many pacifists see these tactics as violence, they appear to me to be no less masochistic than Ghandian tactics. Playing cat and mouse with the police may be a good way to get out some anger, but it results in injury to activists, and almost never to cops. Self-defense appears to be the only legitimate use of violence. However, the definition of self defense is also a slippery slope. Is the violence inherent in the system enough to warrant acts of terrorism? The Weather Underground had the slogan “Bring the war home,” referring to the Vietnam war. They engaged in property destruction, but were very careful to make sure no individuals got hurt. In the late 1990s and early 2000s the ELF and ALF used similar tactics. These are symbolic acts, “propaganda by the deed” and many dedicated activists have gone to jail as a result of the “Green Scare.” When considering the use of militant tactics it is important to do a cost-benefit analysis.