Well its likely that the rothschilds for example will continue to ‘win’ for the foreseeable future, they’re not wrong. In my country, the descendents of rulers of 1000 years ago still largely rule. One person of this kind I met told me ‘we’ve been fucked since the Pharoahs, we’re just slaves’ and I can see his point. What good is communism to a western peasant, its kind of ‘pie in the sky’ to someone who’s never seen, or been decived about, a tangible victory.

I guess from the point of view of a ‘peasant’, I can see why they think that way - for example, it does look like collusion when China trades with and signs deals with the US, or Russia does the same, or when countries participate together in international bodies, despite their differing interests and conflicts. Of course, as you say, its a narrow focus and lacks a kind of context & analysis that is more kind of big picture. But its the education system and propaganda at fault, not them so much.

Power is kind of mana, its just money, laws & the more abstract ‘influence’, and of course guns and such, and money is spent like mana and granted by a higher power (social relations). I think the ‘evil esoteric arcane means’ is just code for legal systems - ‘fairy tales’ talk a lot about this kind of thing in metaphor, like these conspiracy theories, because its a way of communicating knowledge and getting it past censors. Simultaneously, a lot of these theorists use a religious framework to talk about this stuff, coming from that kind of upbringing, hence the constant references to demons (amusingly, also how Iran refers to the west in terms of Satan).

But I think they’re talking about the same things, usually, and in fact its kind of like ‘esoteric anarchism’ in the sense of anti-archon ism. I think the constant ‘they’re dividing us’ ignores the material reality that people are divided (and often fails to question and criticise those divisions and how they can be resolved), but it also idealistically displays a yearning for people not to be divided by for example, race, which is a laudible goal or wish.

I don’t mean to write an apologia for them so much, but I’m not sure about this kind of reaction against them being particularly useful, its the kind of orthodox reaction against heresy, and our current orthodoxy is capitalist, aristocratic, and so on. If someone is shitting on the Rothschilds or Freemasons, I don’t see much of an issue. But I can understand the frustration, but I think its also important to understand them too, and why they think like that, and also not to take what they say entirely literally.

its a Usian thing I think, you’ve got a peculiar and unresolved relationship with so-called ‘race’ - your government still subscribes to racial theory in its administrative definitions. The arguments tend to be different (more pertinent to the issues) in other countries, and in ‘non-white’ US.

of course, color is an aesthetic argument, and it isn’t an intrinsic property of a thing or person (and ‘white’ is indisputably a type of color). And aesthetic arguments, like the debates about ‘taste’ when it comes to media or consumption, are somewhat pointless. I think people argue about aesthetics when they’ve got no other pressing concerns, which isn’t a bad thing per se, just unrelatable to people who do have those pressing concerns.

obviously, this is a US website (like most websites) so its to be expected that you have these kind of discussions, and hyperbole is a natural aspect of that. But really, it might be good to remember to be somewhat internationalist, and be aware that attitudes/understandings toward terminology, and also to so-called ‘race’ aren’t universal. These kind of discussions, on this topic, are very insular.

I don’t mean to criticise, I can see where the sides are coming from and why the arguments happen like they do here. But really, it makes no sense to say ‘white people’, referring to a kind of construct, outside of the US (and probably inside parts of the US). People will just read it as the skin color, or a proxy for or reference to ‘racial theory’.

It would be better, and more accurate I think, to refer to yourselves (the ‘white people’ of the US) as European settler-colonists, since that’s what you are. 400 years isn’t that long at all - line 5-10 people up in space, and its not much at all, line them up in time/generations and you get 400 years.

Really, in the sense of a paradigm of understanding the world around us, leftism is a religion, albeit a generally atheistic/untheistic one like some east Asian ‘religions’/philosophies (you can see its origins and similarities in other religious movements like the Hussites for example or the Zaydi Islam). So its to be expected that self-flagellation occurs. But self-flagellation is just self-indulgence - maybe useful for some, but not for the many.

Its probably related to the elections to a degree… but Kid Starver has the same foriegn policy as the tories (not a surprise, given his background). Which isn’t too unusual, since the Labour party is often the party of war - usually if they want Labour in (and they clearly do) its to fight a war.

On an anecdotal level, I’ve attended a lot of job fairs, and I’d say that starting around Covid times, there has been a military recruitment stand at all of them, which is new (at least from my experience).

I asked a colleague (hospitality sector) when the Russia war kicked off, if he’d sign up to fight in the event of an invasion, and he said yes. Then I asked what if it was just London being attacked, and he looked disgusted and said no (this was in the North).

This is true, but Freemasonry also exists as a higher cult than that - lots of US presidents have been members (partly because elites join every exclusive club going for networking), and it was/is rife in the British Empire at all levels, just that the higher levels like with every cult exploit the lesser, while allowing the lesser to exploit outsiders.

In religious terms, Freemasonry is just protestantism mixed with old Judaism - partly why its disliked by ‘popular’ christianity, being suspected of a return to what the ‘early church’ had an issue with.

Is the Freemasonry one ‘centrist’? I’ve seen it advocated by all kinds… its an anti-British Empire, sort of Catholic one isn’t it? And the protestants respond with ‘its actually all the Jesuits and the Vatican’. And then there’s syncretic versions that accuse both.

I’m not sure they’re intellectually lazy, but its rather like tracking the cults of the Elites, of which there are many. They do tend to ignore environmental/class causes and processes and focus more on individuals and discrete specific parts, but they do a lot of research (sometimes of dubious quality ofc). Misguided or tunnel vision maybe, but not lazy.

Personally, I don’t think they’re too offensive, they broadly share the same principals - anti-elite and pro-popular mass movement. Though maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re referring to, ‘centrist’ is confusing me.

Ok, thanks.

Do the small bourgeoisie like immigration in the US? They tend to be against it in my country, especially in less urban areas, because they can rely on local (often familial) networks and being the only game in town for their labor, and need less of it in any case.

Given what you’ve mentioned, where does the outrage (I saw reported - maybe its untrue) come from when border states started moving migrants to cities? Just that it was messing with the ‘usual’ system of filtration or those states usual ‘sourcing’ of migrant workers, or they were the wrong kind of labor?

I’ve seen that Biden is, apparantly, wanting to ‘toughen’ the border (conditionally on passing other foriegn policy related budgets), is the ‘crisis’ simply a matter of those states wanting in on the public money tree that the Biden admin and backers have been enjoying with Ukraine?

Also, do you know or suspect if the ‘crisis’ relates in any way to the spats with Mexico (I think they recently nationalised an oil processing facility, and there’s been talk of re-writing the trade agreement), or in any way to the infamous intelligence agency directed drug trafficking business across the border?

I wonder also about the demographics of those moving north, usually its the case that people who migrate internationally (as opposed to internally displaced) are relatively well-off (in their home countries), because the very poorest can’t afford to move. Are they mostly from South/Central America, or is cheap air travel also adding people from other places (I’ve seen some claims of this, but I’m not sure whether to believe them)? Are the people coming from the South useful at all to the Dem’s usual backers?

Thanks for responding, I don’t mean to flood you with questions it just seems like a fairly big deal and the reporting and analysis around the issue just frames it in terms of a political dispute without mentioning why. Like, I understand the (low level) border conflict between Canada/US, because its about fishing. But this, I have no idea…

Yes, the current border fight - I don’t mean like a physical struggle, but a political one.

I guess I’m asking, who profits? and whose profits are being impacted, by this current struggle? To try to understand the interests involved.

Seemingly both parties backers (and factions in those parties backers) have good reason to have immigration, and also have those immigrants desperate and exploitable. Of course there will be those who don’t have an interest in immigration too, some because of ideology, but also and primarily because of economics. Seemingly, the new Confederacy is on the face of it, appealing to those interests - who are they?

Well, SA has a big population (comparable to Germany, UK, Iran, Turkey), a lot of resources, a pretty big economy (with lots more potential to develop, around 30% rural population compared to ‘developed’ nations average of 20-25%), comparable military to Euro countries. It has a lot of standing internationally and in Africa, and occupies a crucial geographic (trade and strategically speaking) position. Thanks to Rhodes wanting to break from the British Empire, it was also relatively well industrialised, compared to for example plantation type colonies. Its also something of an international ‘intelligence community’ hangout location, or spy hub. And of course it is part of Brics, and on good terms with many countries, particularly those who oppose the ‘international rules based’ or US/European hegemonic order. It also has good ‘moral authority’, like the pope.

So I wouldn’t say not powerful on its own, and with international support (which it has in this case from all the Islamic countries, and others) it is a significantly powerful ‘side’ in the dispute, even weighed against the West. And of course Russia and China back SA in many regards (just as SA backs Russia and China).

But I’m no SA expert, I’m sure someone local could give better info - that’s just my perception on what I do know.

I think I just caught Ramaphosa speaking and emphasising ‘all parties to’ or similar. My expectation (i’m not an international lawyer obviously) is that no Hamas is not obliged (any actions would be prosecuted under Israeli law, it being the occupying power, I assume), that ‘all sides’ refers to the states in dispute, i.e. SA.

edit; The State of Palestine is an observer to the UN and signatory, actually I’m not sure, because Fatah & Hamas are in dispute… but I think its Fatah that are recognised as the government internationally, so I guess they would be responsible in that sense, not Hamas, unless Hamas were recognised as the legit government.

Some initial conclusions from today’s ruling;

Israel and its international supporters have been found guilty of committing genocide in occupied Palestine, on the basis of the ‘no smoke without fire’ precedent. Or, is plausibly suspected of, being pedantic.

Ansarallah & Hezbollah are both non state actors doing their respective countries proud by upholding committments they are only ethically, not actual signatories to, being non-state actors.

The US and UK are attacking Ansarallah without any legal justification, as China has said, and actually impeding their efforts to uphold the genocide convention.

of relevance to the UK, the leader of the Labour party has publically incited genocidal acts. And the Unions, by not supporting Hamas as requested, are also complicit. The Isreali ambassador needs to be sent home for her disgusting comments. Time to start filing lawsuits with the ICC i guess

South Africa (and co-signers) is now the vanguard of moral authority in the world, if it wasn’t already, and should be listened to hereafter on matters of international ethics.

it seems like its kind of giving both sides what they want (usually what courts do when ruling between powerful interests as far as is possible)

israel & US & Europeans can keep attacking, but also there’s a suspicion of genocide, it makes a bombing campaign and demolitions, not to mention the attempt to provoke the West Bank very difficult.

I guess a case of giving Israel enough rope to hang itself, but also not telling the US to stop its foriegn policy?

This is true of course, but then on a more fundamental level, the ICJ does uphold an international legal system agreed on by fewer countries (and is founded on even fewer, per the League of Nations) than exist today, that is based in British and to a degree French legal systems, so it still to some degree upholds ‘western’ hegemony in that sense, like foundationally.

but then, the hegemony really tied their own laces together with the Serbian & Myanmar rulings here, I guess the law is a double edged sword

I guess it makes sense, public (specified in the statement) incitement is just going to harm their own legal defence going forward (whether they can actually get politicians to stop doing it is another issue). They already claim they’re meeting the humanitarian conditions thing, and its easier for them to split hairs over (‘hamas stole it all’ etc), plus other countries will pay for it.

yes well it explains the recent ceasefire offer of 2 months, and Hamas saying ‘sure if the ICJ says ceasefire and you’ll abide by one’

Hmm lots of wriggle room for Israel in those orders…

Thanks!

So I take it you’re saying that those states who want to make it harder are interested in illegal status migrants?

I hear a lot that the Dems or Biden admin (and therefore, presumably, the various capitalist interest groups they represent) haven’t actually changed anything about the border issue - is this true? If it is, it seems like the Dem capitalists also want illegal status migrants for their own industries/sectors, so therefore what is the fight about?

And for example, California (which I think has a big agricultural sector) hasn’t joined the new Confederacy, is that because its going with the party line, or is it that its a richer state so can afford to subsidise that sector more and still compete, i.e. not be reliant on undocumented or illegal status migration?

I understand the process of exploitation you describe, it happens where I live too, but I was wondering more about the sectors, factions etc involved and what they’re trying to achieve, if you see what I mean?

edit: to clarify, would it be accurate to say (from what I’ve inferred from your reply) that the poorer states that are concerned more with labor intensive industry are joining this coalition, and that the purpose is to make it harder to attain ‘legal status’? Or is it more complicated than that (obviously there are labor intensive industries in big cities and other state too)? What is the unions position on migration, or are they not involved? You mentioned the agricultural sector, what’s the positioning of other ones like construction and hospitality, if you happen to know?

My bet is it’ll pass. US, Germany, and possibly (less likely) UK & Australia (less likely than UK still) will vote no, the rest yes.

I think the wording of some of the requests by SA will be altered slightly, and some might not be mandated, but most will.

Although it’s supposed to be without predujuce to the merits of the case, these preliminary judgements de facto are an indication of the merits, lawyers always fight a preliminary ruling even though its supposed to make no difference to the final one because actually it obviously does.

I hope I’m right, but I’m prepared to be mocked as a fool if I’m wrong.

In terms of what happens next, Israel will ignore it in practice but also do a propaganda blitz pretending to abide by it, the US will continue to pretend its ‘influencing’ or ‘pressuring’ Israel to play nice. But it’ll open up other legal and diplomatic attacks, and also raise SA’s standing and create a good precedent for others, so its good.

edit; obviously ignoring the two ad hoc judges, who will vote yes and no respectively.

Hi, apologies for the delayed reply, work got in the way.

I’ve tried again with the exercise, and it didn’t give me an error this time, but the tab didn’t work at all, it messed all the spacing and sizing up when I posted it… not sure how to fix that unfortunately.

I have played a lot with others yes, not so much at the moment. I think its maybe better to develop your own kind of time discipline, so that if you’re playing with people who go out of time (excited or drunk usually) they can follow you. As before, I can’t comment on the utility of a metronome, having never used one, but I expect it must be helpful - however its clearly not vital. If I’m playing rythym, I often need to tap my foot, but with fingerstyle or lead I don’t need to, maybe because the notes being more broken up than chords helps you keep beat better? I’m not sure its an ‘innate’ thing, though it might be that people’s differing experience helps, but rather that I learned by practicing (on my own, and with other people).

Yes, I think tableture is a lot better for guitar, since sheet music I think is developed or at least refined for orchestras, where they’re expected to know the piece they’re playing anyhow so it emphasises the beats/timing more than the notes, and isn’t tailored for a particular instrument.

Hope the practice is going well, and good luck with it - anymore questions let me know.

deleted by creator

With palm muting, try first playing a three chord sequence (or one to start with) muted entirely (that kind of ‘chunky’ sound like in Cecelia), then lifting then mute on and off with different beats, or different chords, to make a pattern.

With left hand muting, try playing one (or three) chords, and alternating pressing and relaxing your fingers, with a simple rythym so you’re not doing too much at once.

With the metronome, many people reccomend it, presumably for a good reason, but I will say that I’ve never used one, but its presumably helpful.

With the fret markers, its kind of like stabilizing wheels when learning to ride a bike, so that you can learn pedalling etc first before worrying about balance. I don’t use them anymore (I kind of feel what fret I’m on not so much visually but by relative distance and the feel of the strings more), and I don’t think they impeded me learning that, but of course different things work for different people - they do make the initial counting frets easier!

Yusuf Islam is great for fingerstyle!

I will try to write the excersise again, as a new reply not in this thread, because its frustrating reformatting over and over - I keep getting an invalid_body_field error when I try to post, idk if it thinks I’m trying to write code?

Some book recomendations, these aren’t ‘how to play’ (though they do have tips), but more just pieces (in tableture and sheet music) that are well arranged and with a lot for begginers. Obviously if you can find them free its better, and I don’t want to tell you to spend money if you end up not being into fingerstyle, but for your consideration. On that subject, before even thinking of perhaps getting a nylon string, or maybe a steel string better made for fingerstyle, go to a guitar shop and ask to try them first, so you can get a feel of them (ask them to tune them or bring a tuner, they’re always out).

1. Fifty Easy Classical Guitar Pieces, Guitar Tableture Edition, Amsco Publications
2. Fifty Great Pieces for Easy Classical Guitar, Amsco Publications

These two are good for learning, arranged well and in order of complexity. A lot are called ‘study no.2’ or similar (like Etude), because they are exercises for students. You’ll end up realising a lot ‘oh this is just C chord with variations’ as you play, and they’re good for learning scales, chords, and timing in a ‘doing’ or intuitive sense.

3. Fingerpicking Beethoven, Hal Leonard

There are a whole range of these by this publisher, of different composers like Bach or Mozart (good because they’re orchestral or piano pieces transcribed for solo fingerstyle guitar, so it helps with learning), and also of different styles, like Latin or Jazz Standards or Film Score and so on. Unfortunately, they tend to have only around 15 or so pieces. But they’re generally well arranged, and not too difficult - not ‘studies’ but also not some kind of advanced concert level piece. You’ll also be more familiar with the songs, from films and shows and so on.

4. 30 Easy Spanish Guitar Solos, Cherry Lane Music Company (distributed by Hal Leonard)

This is great for starting with Spanish style - its not complicated like flamenco, again well arranged and for beginners.

5. Classic Rock for Classical Guitar, Hal Leonard

This is more your genre to a degree, and its good because (while being probably more complicated arrangements than the above reccomendations), you’ll be a lot more familiar with the songs, their timing and style and so on. And, as I mentioned, its a lot easier to get a satisfactory level of fidelity to the ‘whole band’ sound with fingerstyle, compared to strumming.

6. 100 Most Beautiful Songs Ever for Fingerpicking Guitar, Hal Leonard

These are mostly more ‘pop’ songs, again good because of familiarity. Despite the effusive title, they may not be songs you’d enjoy listening to, and the quality of arrangement does vary more than the previous ones, but they’re generally relatively simple, and also there’s a lot of them.

7. Celtic Guitar Encyclopedia, Fingerstyle Guitar Edition, Mel Bay Publications INC.

This is an excellent resource of arrangements of Irish/Celtic ‘folk’ music, which is good as it will be a difference in style and manner of playing. The arrangements vary a lot more in difficulty, but there are lots of easy ones to start with.

Of course, there are many more, for different genres and styles and regions. But these are all good for starting to learn fingerstyle, and even though many are easy (and you’ll end up disliking some), there are pieces in there that you’ll end up playing indefinately. And some pieces you’ll learn the simplified version of, like Canon in D, and then as you progress you can find published the actual concert level music (often individually rather than as part of a collection), to make it sound even better. I tend to avoid the ones that are specific to a band, because I found that the arrangements aren’t always so good - its more kind of ‘merchandise’. Also, because I can’t read sheet music, I always make sure they have the tableture as well, which I can read. The ones with just chords aren’t worth it imo, but then again if you can ‘play by ear’ you can probably use them to figure stuff out.