How eloquent are eyes! Not the rapt poet's frenzied lay When the soul's wildest feelings stray Can speak so well as they. How eloquent are eyes! Not music's most impassioned note On which Love's warmest fervours float Like them bids rapture rise. Love, look thus again, — That your look may light a waste of years, Darting the beam that conquers cares Through the cold shower of tears. Love, look thus again!
Are you familiar with the fable of 'the dog in the manger'?
I humbly ask if your guests and colleagues are ready to place themselves under honest scrutiny in this context?
It's not good enough to say 'I realise I'm a dog too'. One must stop pointing it out in others by using the term "they" to escape so easily, in psychological terms.
A supplemental escape route from this allegation of mine is to say "look you are doing it too hypocrite"
And I would say "thank you for reinforcing my point so intensely. Then we're both in agreement on it about each other, right?".
There's nothing special about me being a messenger here. I'm just as complicit as you in my contributions to the world's great social problems. But I confess it openly, ready to accept the consequences, in the hope that opens a dialogue delivering progress onto higher ground for all. There are no guarantees of this of course. But without this personal confession it is guaranteed nothing will change.
This is useful depth psychology in a time where the vote is being rightly exposed as just another escape route for the weak in heart. Power can exploit us with it because we asked for it and by the very act of asking admit to our weakness. That is entirely a free choice we make, to demand democracy. It has never worked, nor is there any sign of it doing so. So why do we proceed with it and insist?
This is not in the least bit to claim to be superior. But as the first step in the possibility of progress, without which nothing will change about me. And then the world.
Your guest this time frequently used the term "they" when projecting blame. Which is astonishing because he is also fully complicit in the same kind of deep level problems he blames 'they' of. Evidently he is totally unaware of this. Because he cited several cases where others do exactly the same thing. He walks with a bag of other people's thoughts in front of him and those of his own behind him.
David, I've observed this frequently in you too, even back in the Golem days.
Don't you think it's time for a change? If you're deadly serious about progress. Yes, the left and the right are irrelevant today. As is democracy, whatever that is(it used to be sortition in ancient Greece not one man one vote). But has this not always been the case that democracy is an inherent farce?
We are not making progress because we're in chronic denial about the foundations of the house all of us are compelled by the world to build when we're born. That was not a free choice, and what will we make of it?
What we make of it is what makes us as actors in the world in spite of the problems. When we don't move onto the higher ground we simply continue to cause all the problems we blame in others. But do not realise it because we can escape with "They".
I would consider this a Tmonist response to what I found an interesting dscussion between David and John on the Hyperland Blog.
“Who seeks for better of thee, sauce his palate With thy most operant poison! What is here? Gold? yellow, glittering, precious gold? No, gods, I am no idle votarist: roots, you clear heavens! Thus much of this will make black white, foul fair, Wrong right, base noble, old young, coward valiant. Ha, you gods! why this? what this, you gods? Why, this Will lug your priests and servants from your sides, Pluck stout men’s pillows from below their heads: This yellow slave Will knit and break religions, bless the accursed, Make the hoar leprosy adored, place thieves And give them title, knee and approbation With senators on the bench: this is it That makes the wappen’d widow wed again;” ― William Shakespeare, Timon of Athens
These are the main themes without the psychology-isation of the Conformation bias and moete and beme aspects that commenter Robin Smith Claims.
1. Political Disillusionment: The conversation highlights a sense of disillusionment with the current political landscape, with both speakers expressing dissatisfaction with the status quo and the lack of genuine opposition in the political system.
2. Freedom of Speech: The discussion emphasizes the importance of free speech and the need to resist attempts to suppress or control it, particularly in the context of increasing censorship and disinformation campaigns.
3. Need for Radical Change: There's a shared belief that the current political system is failing, and there's a call for radical change to break away from the existing structure and create a new paradigm that prioritizes truth, transparency, and accountability.
4. Opposition to Manipulation: Both speakers express a strong opposition to being manipulated or coerced into accepting predetermined narratives, highlighting the importance of critical thinking and independent judgment.
5. Skepticism of Traditional Politics: The conversation reflects a general skepticism towards traditional political ideologies and parties, with an emphasis on the need for genuine change rather than perpetuating existing power structures.
6. Resistance to Control: There's a clear resistance to being controlled or coerced by political or corporate agendas, with a focus on empowering individuals to think for themselves and challenge the status quo.
Overall, the conversation underscores a growing sentiment of disillusionment with traditional politics and a call for radical change that prioritizes truth, freedom, and genuine democratic principles.
“Whenever you get two people interpreting the same data in different ways,” “that’s metaphysics.” is a quote from an interview published in Scientific American with Thomas Khun the coiner of the term and proposer of the concept of paradigm shifts.
It’s worth noting that these days Eddie Holmes is not only based at the Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity at the University of Sydney, but has also been working for some time at Chinese institutions, such as the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center and School of Life Science at Fudan University, Shanghai and the Zhejiang Forest Reserve Monitoring Center in Hangzhou. It is therefore possible that he is unconsciously sympathetic to Chinese colleagues, and sensitised to avoiding the causing of embarrassment to his hosts. [See: Gao, Holmes, Zhang et al., “Newly identified viral genomes in pangolins with fatal diseases”; Viral Evolution; 2020; 6(1); veaa020, published on April 12th. This article reports the identification of two new viruses in pangolins; however, neither were coronaviruses, and no coronaviruses were detected.]
Now we come to Bob Garry, the final author of the Andersen piece, who has what is sometimes referred to as “a chequered history”, as evidenced in the narrative below. He is known by some of his peers for publishing on a wide variety of subjects, including some which fall outside his expected range. In 1991 [?] I went to New Orleans to interview Professor Garry, because he claimed to have positive Western blot tests from a mooted early case of AIDS (Robert R, a teenager from St Louis Missouri, who died in 1969). Garry turned out to be an unexpectedly colourful character. We arranged to meet on a street corner in New Orleans, which was unusual, and he left me standing there in near-40C heat for more than half-an-hour. Finally I returned to my hotel room to take a shower, only for him to knock on my door 5 minutes later, to say that he had been watching me from his car, and that this had been a necessary security measure. Days after my return to the UK, I phoned Garry to ask some follow-up questions, and he now claimed that some of the Western blots from Robert R. had been stolen from his lab, that this had happened around the time of my visit to New Orleans, and that he suspected me of involvement. I was flabbergasted, and quickly disavowed him of that notion.
However, in 1997 I heard rumours that Garry was getting results from Polymerase Chain Reaction analysis of the Robert R. samples, and so I phoned him to find out more. He told me that the PCR sequences from Robert R. were “very strong” and that they diverged by only around 3% from early isolates such as LA1 from France and Gallo’s HTLV-III. Two years later he and co-authors reported their findings. They appeared not in a medical article, but in an abstract presented at the 11th Conference of Virology in Sydney, Australia [VW69.01, on page 64 of the Proceedings]. A brief article in New Scientist [“Old adversary”; New Scientist; August 21st 1999, page 18] claimed that the PCR sequences from Robert R were over 99% genetically similar to HIV samples from 1983 which, said Garry, suggested that HIV had existed in humans for “hundreds of years”. However, people who are experienced in PCR work point out that this degree of homology with lab clones such as LA1 and HTLV-III strongly suggested that there might have been contamination involving the control samples used in the lab. I phoned John Sninsky, a man from the Cetus Corporation who had apparently been involved in the PCR testing, who would only say that he had withdrawn his name from the work, and wanted nothing to do with it. [See The River, pages 778 and 133-137.]
Later, after The River was published, in which I proposed that OPVs prepared in chimpanzee kidneys might have been used to prepare Koprowski’s vaccines in the Belgian Congo, and might represent the source of the AIDS pandemic, Garry was quick to write to Science, to state that “this assertion is vigorously disputed by Hilary Koprowski and others directly involved in producing the vaccines used in the trials in central Africa in the late 1950s.” [R.F. Garry, “Chimpanzee Kidneys Not Used to Prepare Oral Poliovirus Vaccines”; Science; 2000; 288; 1757-1758.] Koprowski and his colleagues claimed that the Congo vaccines had been prepared in the US. However, their claims have since been contradicted by Belgians and Congolese who were directly involved with preparing these polio vaccines locally in Stanleyville, based on the vaccines that Koprowski had sent out from Philadelphia. These witnesses were interviewed on camera in the award-winning 2003 film documentary “The Origins of AIDS”, and they said that chimp kidney tissue culture had been prepared for many years in Stanleyville, and handed to Paul Osterrieth, the virologist who was preparing the Koprowski polio vaccines in his lab. That chimp kidney cells were being used to prepare the vaccines in Stanleyville was further confirmed by the Belgian technician, Piere Doupagne, when I re-interviewed him 3 weeks before his death in 2008. [See: “The death of a truthful man. Pierre Doupagne, 1923-2008” on this site.]
To sum up, all three men who helped write the Andersen article (Holmes, Rambaut and Garry) have been prominent in the OPV debate, arguing that the OPV theory must be wrong, but doing so on dubious grounds. The fact that they are also Andersen’s co-authors raises questions about their roles in debates about how new diseases get started in Homo sapiens. Science journalist Jon Cohen is another person who has appeared prominently as a sceptic in both debates. It appears possible that these are men who have decided that writing articles such as these, which seek to refute theories that might otherwise cause embarrassment to senior members of the scientific community or to certain powerful governments, is not likely to harm their careers. This hypothesis would be strengthened if other well-known OPV nay-sayers such as Stanley Plotkin, John P. Moore, Michael Worobey, Beatrice Hahn or Paul Sharp were to take up similar positions in the COVID-19 debate.
Quarterly, is it, money reproaches me: ‘Why do you let me lie here wastefully? I am all you never had of goods and sex. You could get them still by writing a few cheques.’
So I look at others, what they do with theirs: They certainly don’t keep it upstairs. By now they’ve a second house and car and wife: Clearly money has something to do with life
—In fact, they’ve a lot in common, if you enquire: You can’t put off being young until you retire, And however you bank your screw, the money you save Won’t in the end buy you more than a shave.
I listen to money singing. It’s like looking down From long french windows at a provincial town, The slums, the canal, the churches ornate and mad In the evening sun. It is intensely sad.
——- The “shave” in the 3rd stanza is the final shave that an undertaker gives a corpse (O.K.)
Exegis momenti (horace, pushkin, fragment raise stone, shelly/coleridge ozymandias
I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desart.[d] Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed: And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" No thing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.
We heard him say, "I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands."
-Mark 14:58
I've reared a monument not built by human hands.
The public path to it cannot be overgrown.
With insubmissive head far loftier it stands
Than Alexander's columned stone.
No, I shall not all die. My soul in hallowed berth
Of art shall brave decay and from my dust take wing,
And I shall be renowned while on this mortal earth
A single poet lives to sing.
Tidings of me shall spread through all the realm of Rus
And every tribe in Her shall name me as they speak:
The haughty western Pole, the east's untamed Tungus,
North Finns and the south steppe's Kalmyk.
And long shall I a man dear to the people be
For how my lyre once quickened kindly sentiment,
I in a tyrant age who sang of liberty,
And mercy toward fallen men.
To God and his commands pay Thou good heed, O Muse.
To praise and slander both be nonchalant and cool.
Demand no laureate's wreath, think nothing of abuse,
And never argue with a fool.
Fuck you buddy
a fake science used as a system of political control to shore up a violent collapsing society its categories of madness and sanity had no reality madness was simply a convenient label used to lock away those who want to break free
The saying Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad, sometimes given in Latin as Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat (literally: Those whom God wishes to destroy, he first deprives of reason) or Quem Iuppiter vult perdere, dementat prius (literally: Those whom Jupiter wishes to destroy, he first deprives of reason) has been used in English literature since at least the 17th century. Although sometimes falsely attributed to Euripides, the phrase does have classical Greek antecedents.
The phrase "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad" first appears in English in exactly this form in the Reverend William Anderson Scott's book Daniel, a Model for Young Men (1854) and is attributed to a "heathen proverb." The phrase later appears in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem "The Masque of Pandora" (1875) and other places.
Shumpeter democracy.
‘Democracy is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote’.”
The Ruling Class consolidate their power and control through the Iron Law of Oligarchy. ´´first developed by the German sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties.[1] It claims that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an “iron law” within any democratic organization as part of the “tactical and technical necessities” of organization´from Wikipedia. The Oligarchy is the commissariat of the ruling class, the rash of Billionaires in the past 20 years has been the blossoming of the new face of our political reality as the rest of us or the 99%. The functionaries populate the Organs of the power Elite aptly described by C Wright Mills in the Power Elite also from Wikipedia
The resulting elites, who control the three dominant institutions (military, economic and political) can be generally grouped into one of six types, according to Mills:
the “Metropolitan 400” – members of historically notable local families in the principal American cities, generally represented on the Social Register
“Celebrities” – prominent entertainers and media personalities
the “Chief Executives” – presidents and CEO’s of the most important companies within each industrial sector
the “Corporate Rich” – major landowners and corporate shareholders
the “Warlords” – senior military officers, most importantly the Joint Chiefs of Staff
the “Political Directorate” – “fifty-odd men of the executive branch” of the U.S. federal government, including the senior leadership in the Executive Office of the President, sometimes variously drawn from elected officials of the Democratic and Republican parties but usually professional government bureaucrats”
The Analysis from the early 20th Century to the early 21st Century changes in Global Scope and also the America Exceptional slant now reflecting US uni polar phenomenon since the early 1990s and the collapse of the Soviet Union. One can think in terms of democracy among the International Elite based upon National Franchises. Schumpeter’s competing elites model of democracy serves double duty in demonstrating both the Political Theater of FAUX electoral political democracy and also in the behind closed doors machinations of the powerful list found in magazines like Forbes. ´´( quotes from Roy Madron, Super Competent Democracies).
‘Democracy is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote’.” Joseph Schumpeter, Quoted from Roy Madron, Super Competent Democracies who in turn Cites. “Participation, and Democratic Theory” by Carole Pateman. Dr Pateman says that, Schumpeter and his followers: … set the current Anglo-American political system as our democratic ideal (with) a ‘democratic theory’ that in many respects bears a strange resemblance to the anti-democratic arguments of the last (i.e. 19th) century. No longer is democratic theory centred on the participation of ‘the people’; in the contemporary theory of democracy it is the participation of the minority elite that is crucial and the non-participation of the apathetic, ordinary man lacking in the feelings of political efficacy, that is regarded as the main bulwark against instability.
Some time ago (May 2012) I wrote two articles about ETFs suggesting they were The Next Accident Waiting to Happen. In that first part I described how they work and who owns and runs them. My argument was that,
I think the signs are already there to suggest ETFs are where the instability and risk is accumulating. If I am in any way correct then ETFs will be to the next stage in our on-going state of siege-mentality crisis what CDOs were to the last.
…the clever boys and girls of finance have found ‘innovative’ ways of pumping those ETFs up a bit, just like they did to Securities.
I detailed the alarming number of different ways ETFs and their market are being mutated into a monster of instability just as securities, CDOs and the like, were before them. I wondered about how many ETFs would be stuffed with high-risk sovereign bonds but held with a risk weighting of zero? I ended by suggesting that the claims being made for ETFs, of access to high returns via a product that massages away the risks, were as false now as they were when the same was said of mortgage backed securities in 2007.
I ended by saying,
ETFs have in their DNA everything it takes to become monstrously dangerous. They are wide open to all the fraud and shitty behaviour the banks seem not to be able to stop themselves from bathing in. They are awash in leverage and riding on a tide of derivatives which hide so much concentration of counterparty risk that it makes a mockery of ‘risk management’.
Then this week I have read a flurry of articles which set the alarm bells ringing.
First there was Andrew Haldane’s testimony before MPs at the House of Commons. Mr Haldane is Director of Risk Management at the Bank of England and in my opinion by far the brightest person there.
Mr Haldane made his bosses at the BoE very uncomfortable when, as the Guardian reported, he rather bluntly told MPs,
“Let’s be clear. We’ve intentionally blown the biggest government bond bubble in history,” Haldane said. “We need to be vigilant to the consequences of that bubble deflating more quickly than [we] might otherwise have wanted.”
Of course you are right that debt abd credit will always exist.
When I read GB’s comment I read it as referring to fractional reserve banking as we currently have it – controlled by the private banks. It is that kind of sovereign debt I was thinking of in my reply.
I don’t think many people object to one person lending to another or a chit of credit acting as a temporary store and means of transferring wealth. Perhaps some do. I am not one.
Credit is a useful social mechanism. But it has got out of hand and into the hands of a few who use it to cause destitution and as the means to create huge and increasingly non-democratic power.
I think we can and must move away from such a distorted and morally corrupt social construction.
I am not looking for moral or political purity in some utopian fashion. I am simply looking for a better social compact and one that fits to an environmentally constrained world not the old idea of ever expanding growth.
The Chinese authorities have, for some time now, been talking about the desirability of moving their economy from being overly reliant on exports to one which has a significant domestic component of goods produced in China for consumption in China. The central authorities have wished rather publicly that more investment and bank lending was going in to domestic production and consumption and less into property speculation. But wishing, however fervently, has had little effect.
So news of what, if we dare trust Chinese government’s figures, would appear to be very large wage rises, seems to me to be very significant. As the Wall Street Journal reports today,
Wages in China continued to climb at a double-digit pace last year despite slower economic growth.
In an economy which is still quite heavily, centrally – if not planned and controlled, then certainly centrally meddled with – then such large and across the board wage rises would suggest a deliberate policy. I do not see these wage rises as the central authorities as losing control of wages but quite the opposite. I suggest that allowing wage rises is part of a policy of creating a consumer demand to be satisfied by domestic production.
So while Bloomberg recenlty ran the headline,
China Surging Wages Threaten Economy’s Competitiveness
I disagree. Bloomberg’s article goes on to report that,
China’s surging wages and other costs are showing signs of undermining the competitiveness of the nation’s economy, threatening its growth potential, the Asian Development Bank said.
Phew that last one was long. Good work fella! Apologies, I didn’t read it.
See here for how the legalised ponzi scheme we are all playing a part in and vote for called the economy manifests in yet another magical way… and what to do about it:
Chomsky and Hermans’ Manufacturing Consent also remains relevant to the Belief structure. Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media – Feature Film
They are an Oligarchy.
Oligarchical Collectivism.
The Revolution Betrayed ( Trotsky )
At the root of it all is a Full Spectrum Imperialism, the question is is the Imperium transferring from Washington DC to ASTANA
At the root of it all is a Full Spectrum Imperialism which we could call Globalism for short. the question is is the Imperium transferring from Washington DC to ASTANA
On the question of Lavatory Seats if walls have ears etc.
To sum it all up. Same old Shit different day.
“Charles Darwin insists that because man is wild he can never expect to to domesticate himself because the people on top would always be undomesticated in sooner or later always run wild I I think there’s a good deal to be said for this this part of you in regard to the permanence of any dictatorship yes I have a question worried about a relationship that seems to exist between cost consent and control if a government wants to control its people of course this job will be easier if they are more willing to consent and the job will be correspondingly more costly if the corresponding consent isn’t there could you make a few remarks about the economic feasibility of introducing biological controls of the sort to Port Authority I don’t know I mean wouldn’t it I would have thought in some ways it’ll be cheaper than maintaining very large security forces and concentration camps and so the – I mean just as in asylums chemical control is a great deal of simpler and cheaper than physical control “ Aldous Huxley.
As Bill Clinton basically said when asked why his administration had been so favorable toward China after beating up Bush in the campaign about it, sometimes we don’t know what we think we know until we’ve jumped into the ring.
One reason I did jump into the ring was to run my own direct test to determine (a) whether change is possible, and (b) what people really want. I planned a 1-year test from the point I initially started publishing, but it took less than 9 months to conclude:
a. Change is not possible through journalism, the media, or online debates. Plus, as Chris Hedges says in Empire of Illusion, at this point it is impossible to bridge the divide between “a literate, marginalized minority and those who have been consumed by an illiterate mass culture.”
b. As I said in previous articles, IF we participate in the system, I’m not opposed to it at all. How could I be? I’d be a tyrant if I wanted to force hundreds of millions of people to change their behavior. And the fact is, that “IF” was answered long ago. We Americans have chosen the material benefits of being managed by the financial system for generations. We like demand-side freedom, i.e. choosing between Coke and Pepsi, but don’t want supply-side freedom. We like the supply-side to be taken care of for us. We love the benefits that come from it being imperially run—the credit card always works, the gas station is always open, our water faucets and light switches do what they’re supposed to do, the markets keep going up (oops…maybe not). All of our economic needs are outsourced to others, so we have the luxury of spending our time pursuing wants. And if these types of benefits are good for us, they’re good for the rest of the world. We have no moral authority to stand opposed just because we’re now going to lose our privileged position—a rather childlike perspective.
Given #2, my only wish is that the system would be transparent. Like Carroll Quigley, I see no rational reason not to inform people so there are fewer caught on the wrong side of the tragedy and hope dialectic. That was the purpose of my last video—to simply explain what’s happening with a slightly different twist than the others who have described the same basic system.
Putting all blame on the top of the system is biased and psychologically immature. Labeling a group “all bad” is an example of splitting—a primitive defense mechanism we tend to use to maintain an illusion of “all good” for ourselves, our country, our political party, etc. Some of my articles and videos intentionally played the splitting game because the media is designed to exacerbate splits, so if I wanted to pursue media work, I needed to play the game. But splitting is very harmful to society, so I will no longer do it. Moreover, as stated in #2, almost everyone contributes to the system so blaming only the top would be disingenuous.
Given human nature and the inherent requirement for empires to grow (or die in defeat to another empire), we will have one type of imperial system or another as long as humans are in charge. All such systems are narcissistic in form, so it’s futile in my view to argue between different forms of narcissism.
So I will not be publishing anymore, at least with the narrow focus on the financial system. It’s an illusion to think arguing about finance, economics, and markets will fix anything. But for those who want to continue learning about the system, I recommend Catherine Austin Fitts. I’ve said nothing more than her. In fact, I learned it from her—she was an insider, I was not. I borrowed the phrases “multi-generational wealth” and huge “pools of capital” at the top of the system from her. Noam Chomsky’s phrase is “coalitions of investors.” Same thing…I’ve revealed nothing new.
I also recommend Hedges’ Empire of Illusion for those who want to dig more into the spiritual and psychological dimensions of the situation in which we find ourselves. I agree with him, “The world that awaits us will be painful and difficult.” It’s useful to accept and adjust to this inevitability rather than wishing it away or being angry about it. There is no way around it because the ruleset we’ve lived within for decades was not sustainable. It depended upon exponential growth, exponential debt, exponential resource consumption, and exponential environmental impact.
As the world goes through a necessary reset of the rules, we will experience significant upheaval. I recommend Chris Martenson’s material at
http://www.chrismartenson.com
to understand the exponential ruleset and to dialogue with an enlightened community taking steps to minimize the upheaval for their local communities. That is the only prudent option at this point.
World Premiere Performance of Bourgeois resolution. A poem in Three Voices for added 4th part Harmony.
It all started from this mans speech to the Oxford Union, ”poets the unacknowledged legislators of the world´´ Shelly.
the poem is concieved as a Matrix which can be read in columns as single voices or sequentiually as a dialogue.
The PDF will be available for download for Patreon subscribers or customers on Amazon. The formatting for the downloads will be completed hopefully by the end of this weekend.
Bourgeois resolution.
A poem in Three Voices for added 4th part Harmony.
Synthesis Speaks to introduce, And Thesis, Anti Thesis and Synthesis dialogue
The conversation revolves and we find
Revolution plagiarizes past mistakes.
In Consensus the three Voices resolve and entreat your contribution dear reader for a fourth part, shall we harmonIse.
Synthesis.
Start here with your own experience. Bring here your
open mind and trust your instinctive feeling for truth.
As resolution of discord demands a return to the tonic. The Tonic for our dissonant condition is a harmonic resolution to the Chord of Nature.
∲6/8 bb :
Thesis.
In a diary of a nobody, Mr Pooter,
is everyman and woman. Striving.
Petit Bourgeois, discordant with
their lot, in earnest to impress.
Anti Thesis
Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness,
inalienable rights , the laws of Nature
and of natures god.A constitution
written for a usurping class, claiming
authority, a reflection ofcommon sense, and pained to see. This revolution of , by and for Whom?
Synthesis.
As the victor writes history so the powerful pass laws to satisfy their own ends. Power only represents the powerful.
Moyenne Bourgeoise and Grande
Haute Bourgeoise. A Class cuisine, Escoffier
Classical Aspiration. One acquires,
A bourgeoise aesthetic, Petit Bourgeoise Sycophancy.
Will the Chef of the constitution,
Taste his own cooking.
Does he as a class walk the walk and talk the talk
Or is it ; do as I say and not as I do.
An appeal always made, at once
to Authority.Follow faithfully, blindly.
Ask they who would your bidding do. Listen to your life’s story, History, His History will not be yours? Be heard.
Pygmalion’s elocution for the ordinaire.
Les rois et philosophes merde-et
ainsi de faire des dames. Conventional
pieties of the extraordinaire, Elite.
Écoute Et Répète, Listen and repeat
Learn by rote and do not question,
To Each that has shall be given,
those who hath not will be punished,
Know ones betters and issue scripted
speech when spoken too, Obsequious.
Do not blanche before appearance of grandeur.
Pompous ceremony seeks to silence chafing curiosity.
How readily the pecking order
has regiments in line , volunteers
to a false consciousness of liberation by
societies consumptive ills, Polysemous
At the sign, Obey and join the
que. Wait your turn and receive
your due. Punch the clock and
Answer the bell. Ask not for whom
the bell tolls, The bell rings the benefit
makes a gift of what is rightfully yours.
The hand that gives also takes away. Often the gift
merely returns that which was stolen from you.
Citizens within a polity, city state
yet the peasants range free of sophistry
Freemen in the confined spaces
offer conformity to the graduated mould.
Glamorous flashing city lights
Suburbia within commute of higher
Dreams. A stairway to real Estate heaven.The only Ladder, oh to be
upon the bottom rung and rise.Dreams for mortgage, no hostage to Fortune.
Sophistication often masques ignorance. The humble and rustic often belies an appreciation of what truly is.
Calliopsis or Magnesia where poets
slave to familiar rhymes and themes
Not golden or silver words but workmanlike
fashion hymns of safe iron and copper.
On The city on the hill,
Songs sung to green and pleasant lands
My Country Right or wrong
Patriotic duty, above the evidence
heroic deeds, laurels earned
Myths of Wagnerian operatic spectacle.
Behind the claimed reality
of how things are lies a deeper truth clothed in the noble lie. He deceived by the noble lie is excluded as unworthy of an opinion.
Where Stockholm once commanded
St-Petersberg in that peculiar syndrome
did the people know of freedom, which noble lies
will accommodate the others’, too Slumber.
A common purpose, to ideals,Shared
and narrated from Cradle to grave.
History written in our victorious mood
Always times distant, always yesterday
A better day , a past nostalgic searching
For a future, yet to become tomorrow.
Being keen to please and seeking approval from authority feeds ego and starves the real self.
An irony of words pretending a meaning
which no longer holds and yet
serves to bind a convention, a grip
that hampers the gait, Barre the pedestrian.
Witty Double entrendre to pacify,
Laughing at the otherness, not of
our own genre. Bending of wills
or an ends of a means which makes
a meaner mind , setting examples
Cruelty for kindness sake, who´s End?
The devil takes the hindmost. Trampling upon the unfortunate excuses elitist privilege. There but for the grace of privilege
go they!
Self censored by a Mean temperament
no longer just and a bespoke Key
The city gates envelop to constrain
Invention no longer a prize, only too fit.
Which mode of government befitting
The cadence of Timocracy, Oligarchy
or the tyranny of democracy, Which?
A key to unlock the wealth of timbre
Trusting in the chastity of greed
the diabolas in musica. Descend below.
Discord or overbalance
corrects naturally. In a system where gross imbalance and discord is evident are we to believe that harmony was ever thus.
As poets slave to the set rythym
so a ruling Class Slaves to support
its very tyranny, no purpose theirs,
tis only to own be owned and Owe.
There is no Alternative, leave behind
your utopian dreams of youth, Grown,
reality demands that you sing Our
democratic song making it your own.
No third , way. Just the chord of power.
Ambiguous, A Capitalist mode production.
Power is an end in itself.
Seeking power to reform injustice is a contradiction in terms. For harmonious consensus all voices must
strike a chord.
Oh such discordance felt heard seen
demanding resolution. Harmonies equal
in temperament to guide back home
to the unity. One full revolution
Tracing the musical image in
Camra obscura, inverted and
opposite, do you see what it is yet
As the tonic marks a tranquil resting
place so conformity leaves us resolved
resiled and not reconciled Trapped
Power relations beget power relations, As the wheel of history turns repeating mistakes of previous revolutions.
As the wheel turns a revolution
as a harmony resolves Resolution
A new hub for human consciousness.
Not the machine now but organic.
Yours to follow little people
Know your place and praise
Elite heroes, distant an shimmering
As all mirages inspire the thirsty
to crawl into the oasis of illusion
squeezing blood from exhausted humanity.
As resolution of discord demands a return to the tonic. The Tonic for our dissonant condition is a harmonic resolution to the Chord of Nature.
The conversation has revolved and we find
Revolution plagiarized its past mistakes.
In Consensus the three Voices resolve and with your contribution dear reader a fourth part, harmonIsed. Or perhaps we as yet have to find a resolution , play on and seek new voices for our symphony of freedom is not yet written and least wise played freely with authentic joy.
Others we invite TO ,
Start here with your own experience. Bring here your
open mind and trust your instinctive feeling for truth. :D.S. ∲ ::
Hello, I worked directly with Dr. Wrigley on this policy. It was me who took the policy to market between 2007-12, feeding that back into it's development.
Hello Robin, I am aware of your work on this with Dr. Wrigley, I also recall your comments on the Golem XIV Blog and the Melt fund. The principles of Tax policy paper is I think the best exposition of the relationship between the Banking Cartel and Government Taxation. Best Wishes Roger
@RogerLewisGuitarPlayer My goodness thank you Roger and my big apologies for not recognising you. Did we talk on those forums. Did we meet. I used to try to meet in person anyone who was in dialogue.
@Robin-Smith Hi Robin, I connected on Skype with you but we never got to speak. I enjoyed Meltfund and your approach on Golem xiv, you might recall some commenters were to serious to see the joke. Best Rog
@RogerLewisGuitarPlayer The Golem guy, David Malone was very 'landed'. He would never discuss that with me. That was typical. George Monbiot and Polly Toynbee etc the same. So sad.
@Robin-Smith David and I have become very good friends over the years, Robin, I see him when I travel to the Uk and we often speak on Skype when I am here in Sweden. I would be good to talk after all these years,
Lets take a peek at the history of Neo Classical ideology?
Marx on the far left, ironically started it accidentally, ‘encouraged’ by the ultimate of champagne socialists, Engels. Marx posthumously conceded his huge error in Das Kapital III by conceding land not capital as the mother of all monopolies. Engels never conceded and fought hard as a neo classical thinker to maintain the corruption as do most socialists today. Socialism is neo classical ideology in its heart.
Next came the church in the form of Pope Leo XXIII, Vincenzza Pecci, who made his fortune as a property speculator, as a tax collector and assisted heavilly in that enterprise as a leading civil servant. He used his famous encyclical Rerum Novarum to tell the poor of the world “… to be happy with their poverty and not complain. Redemption will come in heaven. God’s earth can be owned as private property, just like capital. They are the same thing”. The church has since become transfixed by this doctrine and exists in a schizophrenic state of denial about what the bible says about it in the Levitican Jubilee and Redemption of the land, constantly punished as pious hypocrites by those with even more monstrous doctrines like Richard Dawkins and rightly so. The church is neo classical ideology in its heart.
Then the ‘Chicago school’ on the far right, through Clark was built at huge cost, by the biggest in wealth and power, to blot out the astonishing revolution in economic thought that had taken the modern world by storm. This new ‘academy of knowledge’ finally set neo classical economic thought into concrete form. With the help of Marx and the church. See here for this corruption of economics. Libertarianism is neo classical ideology in its heart of course.
1. Richard Rorty was a prominent American philosopher who faced criticism from both the political left and right for his views. He was accused of being a "relativistic, irrationalist, deconstructing, sneering, smirking intellectual" by conservatives, while leftist thinkers saw him as an intellectual snob.
2. Rorty was deeply concerned about the threat to liberal democracy, which he explored in an imaginative essay "Looking Backwards from the Year 2096." In this essay, he envisioned a dark scenario of a military dictatorship taking over the United States in the 2014-2044 period, before a gradual recovery.
3. Rorty shared Orwell's pessimistic view that the idea of "liberal democracy" could be completely obliterated, as exemplified by Orwell's character O'Brien in 1984, who saw the whole concept of exchanging ideas as a sign of weakness.
4. Rorty feared that growing economic inequality, the decline of the "Reformist Left," and the disconnect between academic leftists and the working poor could lead to the rise of a "strongman" figure, similar to the scenario depicted in Sinclair Lewis's novel "It Can't Happen Here."
5. Rorty's themes of contingency, solidarity, and irony are deeply tied to his political concerns. He believed that the practices of a liberal democratic community are fragile and contingent, and that solidarity is a fragile achievement that requires constant vigilance to maintain.
In summary, Rorty's later writings reflect a deep concern about the potential collapse of liberal democracy and the need to cultivate a sense of solidarity to counter the growing forces of selfishness and authoritarianism.
In all matters epistemological and philosophical I demure ultimately to C S Pierce and this made-up quote from ´We Pragmatists ´ CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE: ´´In order to reason well …. it is absolutely necessary to possess … such virtues as intellectual honesty and sincerity and a real love of truth (2.82). The cause [of the success of scientificinquirers] 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 in a diligent inquiry into truth for truth’s sake(1.44), … in actually drawing the bow upon truth with intentness in the eye, with energy in the arm (1.235). [When] it is no longer the reasoning which determines what 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…´´.
Pierce’s seminal essay How to make our ideas clear is also a great starting off point for embracing such truth as we might be fortunate enough to encounter in our allotted time on this blue marble suspended in eternity.
[29/06/2024 09:25] rogerglewis13: Also this on The evil empire v the Crown ? My Nimrodist compendium post and Dean Hendersons Magna carta stuss along with Frances leaders Black nobility stuff.
The 3, La rouche documents and the corporate watch Crisis publication have a good spread of the real meat here. Robin Smith seems very Hobbesian in his view, the democratic direct democracy view as set out in James Burkes video on BBC a few years back is a good introduction to the emergent process predicted in the Rorty NYT article mentioned in the pdf above.
Super-Competent Democracies: Dissolving Neoliberalism, Managerialism and Elitism
This book proposes that our societies will have to become ‘Super-Competent Democracies’ in order to learn how to manage the immensely complex challenges and threats that we are facing.
The purpose of the book is to explain why and howSuper-Competent Democracies have to emerge so that our societies can become increasingly just and increasingly sustainable.
The world we live in and depend upon is immensely complex and so are the problems, the threats and the challenges that we face. Because they are complex, they cannot be solved with the lavish application of technological ingenuity and human resources as we can with ‘simple’ problems such as building a bridge or ‘complicated’ problems such as putting a man on the moon.
As David Snowden and Mary E.Boon said in A leader’s framework for decision making, (Harvard Business Review: November 2000)
Complex problems involve large numbers of interacting elements The interactions are nonlinear, and minor changes can produce disproportionately major consequences. The system is dynamic, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and solutions can’t be imposed; rather, they arise from the circumstances. They emphasise that tackling complex problems requires “A deep understanding of context, the ability to embrace complexity and paradox, and a willingness to flexibly change leadership style.” Indeed by treating complex problems as if they were simple or complicated leads to the emergence of disastrously chaotic outcomes, of which there are multitudes of florid examples at every level from the local to the global. By contrast, by applying ensembles of ‘Super-Competencies’ complex problems can be dissolved, as the great management cybernetician Stafford Beer says in ‘Decision and Control’. (1966)
All of the ‘Super-Competencies’ we can use to dissolve the complex ecological, economic, social and political challenges and threats we are facing have been tried and tested and rigorously evaluated over the past fifty years or so.
However, while learning how to dissolve those problems, we will also have to dissolve three great ideological obstacles to their implementation: Neoliberalism, Managerialism and Elitism. The anti-human, anti-nature and anti-democratic systems that have been created by these three ideologies are herding the whole of the human family, and much of the natural world to the brink of chaos and extinction.
Why and how these ideologies combine to present a lethal danger to the future of the human family and the natural systems on which we depend is detailed in the first half of the book.
The why and how of Super-Competent Democracies will be detailed in the second half.
´´( quotes from Roy Madron, Super Competent Democracies).
‘Democracy is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote’.” Joseph Schumpeter, Quoted from Roy Madron, Super Competent Democracies who in turn Cites. “Participation, and Democratic Theory” by Carole Pateman. Dr Pateman says that, Schumpeter and his followers: … set the current Anglo-American political system as our democratic ideal (with) a ‘democratic theory’ that in many respects bears a strange resemblance to the anti-democratic arguments of the last (i.e. 19th) century. No longer is democratic theory centred on the participation of ‘the people’; in the contemporary theory of democracy it is the participation of the minority elite that is crucial and the non-participation of the apathetic, ordinary man lacking in the feelings of political efficacy, that is regarded as the main bulwark against instability.
