Voidance

I’ve smoked for a long time and I hate it. I have no illusions left about it. I generally look after my health pretty well, eat healthy, work out etc, and every time I have a cigarette I feel disgusted and like I’m slowly killing myself. It’s not so much the physical difficulties of withdrawal that I can’t handle - it’s more like smoking is ingrained in my identity, like I can’t conceive of myself as a non-smoker or going through life without having it as a crutch. I’m wondering if anyone has any advice on re-orienting psychologically towards being a non-smoker? I’ve managed to cut down a lot but I can’t seem to let myself give it up completely no matter how much I want to.

The primary driver of support for the Right, all throughout the West, seems to be opposition to immigration. Within that, there are basically two groups: white supremacists, and people who have been conned into seeing migration, rather than economics, as the fundamental cause of their declining living standards.

It seems like this is a wedge issue that any successful populist left movement would need to confront. I guess what I’m wondering is whether it’s possible to resolve in a way that doesn’t abandon leftist values entirely.

Whilst we on the left regard multiculturalism as an inherent good, the reality is, in a democratic sense, it was something imposed from above - and largely as a means of growing the bullshit neoliberal service economy whilst simultaneously undermining working class power. That it was utilised in this way is partly why so many working class people have been able to be led by the media into blaming immigration, rather than economic policy, for declining living standards.

I’m not sure about the US, but in most Western countries the vast majority of immigrants are not refugees. For example, in the UK only 10% are refugees. It is actually nearly impossible for the poor of the developing world to immigrate to most Western countries.

Would it be possible for leftist parties to advocate for reductions in immigration, if that came within the context of increasing refugee intake? Of course there is no necessity for such a policy, nor is it desirable, nor ethical - I’m talking purely in terms of strategic necessity. Or is any kind of kowtowing to anti-immigrant sentiment too great and too dangerous a betrayal of our values? Would any retreat here only be aiding the resurgence of fascism?
I guess I’m thinking about this lately because of whats happening in France - I feel like most Western countries either are or soon will be following that direction. It seems we’re already running out of time, and still nowhere near ready. And I feel like all this anti-immigrant sentiment is the backbone of it, and yet it’s something that people who aren’t far-right are loathe to address. And maybe they’re right not too, maybe their is no possible compromise here. I really don’t know, so just wondering what other people think

My feeling is that Casalaro got played by fantasists. The inescapable nature of ‘the octopus’ conspiracy is that its extremely undercooked in terms of evidence. Casalaros investigations point towards CIA laundering of drug money - but we already know about Iran Contra, it was known in the early 90s, and the world greeted it with a shrug. It’s a big leap from there to the realms of literal ‘shadow government’ type conspiracy.

So why did guys like Micheal Rioscutto or Booth Nichols spin these stories?
Riocsutto claims he has it all worked out. In reality, he is trying to work out his own life. Yes he was involved with intelligence, these kinds of operations are compartmentalised and its likely he never understood the significance even of his own role. Now as a washed up pawn of no importance to anyone, having sold his life to the most grubby and evil enterprise and having been burned for it, his desire to understand - combined with a narcissistic refusal to realise his own insignificance - leads to him creating fantasies of being an integral part of an earth-shattering conspiracy of power.
Nichols Booth is a similar story, although probably more self-conscious. Recall the scene in the documentary where a female journalist tells of him showing the ‘true’ Zapruder film. Her interpretation is that this is to ensure plausible deniability (ie her reporting of such an obvious fake would discredit anything else he said in meeting with her). My interpretation is it was rather the actions of a narcissistic conman trying to weed out a sucker. Is she prepared to go along for the ride with him, or does she have the critical thinking skills that will ultimately lead to her doubting him (and thus crippling his self importance) - if it’s the latter, best not to waste time in the first place. So show her something absurd straight away.

I dont know if Danny was murdered or not, but regardless I think his life was effectively stolen by these creeps, and it’s a dead end as far as conspiracies go.

What do you think? Apologies if it’s been discussed here already

Edit: none of this is to suggest that the idea of an old boys intelligence network involved in all sorts of heinous shit isn’t plausible in theory, just that Cassalaro’s sources were the worst possible combination of dangerous and useless