Postmodern "anthropology"

Discussion in 'Paleolithic Egalitarianism' started by ousia, Jul 18, 2015.

  1. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    Randy as in 'randy' -- Mmm ... Holy sexual intercourse? Randy as in Ayn 'Rand'y?

    I never said anything about central banking (which indeed is privately owned by the private member banks - under the deceptive aegis of government fiat). I stated the 6 largest American banks, for which all I know are majority foreign owned, except for ousia's shares. Which, BTW, Jerry do you know how much of the American economy is controlled by those banks?

    But yes, all of that is fascist - by definition given such as the bailout loans.

    I wonder what ousia's position is on the Supreme Court ruling that corporations are essentially 'super' humans? Maybe this is what what Mitt Romney was really referring to when he said that "corporations were really human beings, after all." Mitt Romney, the "vulture capitalist", according to Newt Gingrich, who likes to buy otherwise profitable companies, break them up into their constituent assets and then sell them off, with the poor socialist thieves (the displaced workers) having to steal even more from ousia. Where did the Robber Barons fit into this picture?

    With ousia's 'no rules of the road' (except his gun I guess) COMPLETE SEPERATION [sic] schema the whole arguments about so-called freetrade agreements are moot. Or maybe with us all not paying any taxes anymore, there will be no more international trade, because of PIRATES (thanks Flying Spaghetti Monster), no FAA, and such? Then the factories must back?

    Better off that we return to our old familial professions, no not engineers, but warlords. If we don't do it someone else will. As such ousia is clearly squatting on my lands and not paying his rent tithes.

    Because ousia, like us before, has been laser focused on that he is being constantly scalped by his fellow envious victims, he has latched on to a dystopian scheme where there is a society of nothingness, but his Rational Shellfish Interest. Like with the saying about LA, "there is no there there." It's not that I don't agree that rational shellfish are certainly better than irrational shellfish, but he wants to throw the shellfish hammer (the one used to break the claws open) out, just because he has been sold that such tools (government and any of their programs) must necessarily be run by the glutenous crooks. But why is that so?

    I really think what is happening here is that the real goal with all the economic disruptions, and cultural degradation, is a planned desire and program to pit people against each other, while the next phase of globalization is established. 50,000 + American factories are relocated offshore and ousia is convinced that the now unemployed workers (and us) are the cause of the problem, because the Koch brothers have convinced him this must be the case. Their radical Catholic fealty more to Rome's (Ok, Venice, London et al.) global victory than Libertarianism.

    Funny, I was just reading in The Evolution of God again where Wright discusses all the kvetching about moral degradations of the pure Judaic society by the Hellenizing (globalist) camp. Then the New Age arrived. Point being, if no one is programmatically poking sticks in your society, economically, culturally, or whatever, then its much harder to roll out and ultimately gain acceptance the new paradigm. America was built upon OT justification of genocidal land Conquest and now the author of a book that explains how the Romans neutered the original Zealots is apparently in the same camp as this New Age Zealot. And so now the Zealot, in his obvious rage against the mis-perceived enemies of his warped cosmoview he must attack the wolfish messengers, all because they think there are better alternatives that deviate from the unassailable Logos revealed to him by some other shellfish.
     
  2. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Um, "Rand"y as in Jesus and the Immaculate Conception? No wonder I didn't get it, sigh...

    I meant to include the TBTF commercial banks under that umbrella, sorry I wrote incorrectly. I would love to find out how much of the economy is controlled by those banks, and the easiest way for me to find out is by asking you. So here's your opportunity to shock and awe... drum roll...

    I wouldn't be so quick to assume that Joe really is in the same camp as ousia. And, I do see the rage in ousia's post: rage against collectivists, crony capitalist fascists, postmodernists, death-worshiping givers and receivers of human sacrifice, and so forth. But surely he couldn't mean US? Why not assume good intentions, and deflect the anger?

    No death-worshiping human sacrifice going on here. If ousia thinks there is, he's just confused, right?
     
  3. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    Well, I do have some egg on my face Jerry. You see I don't really know and was hoping that you really did and therefore would spare me from such disgrace.

    However, rather than telling you how much they 'control' today, I can tell you that as of 2009 they have come to have assets equally ~63% of American GDP, up from ~15% in 2004. And I am truly sorry about having to use such a source, but they do claim they confirmed the numbers from the Fed. In any case, this is what being "too big to fail" gets you. I'm sure that even without the bank regulators that ousia will get rid of that we'll never have another mortgage bundling crisis again.

    As for Joe, I'm just going by ousia's words, but really I was just trying to point out the irony of it all.

    As to human sacrifice and such, surely ousia is capable of metaphoric expression, as are most shellfish these days.

    I wonder what happened to our promised prophecy, after all the clock is ticking? Could this mean I scooped him on the Last Pope prophecy?
     
  4. ousia

    ousia Member

    OK, I am going to delay responding here to get to the "prophecy" discussion.
     
  5. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    Hi ousia,

    I wonder if you would like to take a break from preparing your prophecy and comment directly upon this recent post by David Livingstone on the connections between libertarianism and certain other 'elements'? Could this be why you carry such an elitist chip on your formerly multi-tongued (notice I didn't say forked tongue) shoulder. Sorry about the mixed metaphor.

    Paul’s newsletter was a joint effort between he and another popular political commentator, Lew Rockwell.[30] With Murray Rothbard, Rockwell formed the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which Paul still has a close working relationship. Von Mises (1881-1973) had also become one of the closest economic advisers of Engelbert Dollfuss and Otto von Habsburg of the Knights of Malta as well as Mont Pelerin, and both of Coudenhove-Kalergi's synarchist Pan-European Union. Rothbard was born in the Bronx, the son of Jewish immigrants from Poland. In 1954 Rothbard, along with several other students of Ludwig von Mises, associated with novelist Ayn Rand.


    According to a Reason magazine article on the Paul newsletters, “Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist ‘paleoconservatives’…"[31] A detailed description of the strategy was presented in an essay Rothbard wrote for the January 1992, which is summarized by Sanchez and Weigel:


    Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an “Outreach to the Rednecks,” which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes. (Duke, a former Klansman, was discussed in strikingly similar terms in a 1990 Ron Paul Political Report.) These groups could be mobilized to oppose an expansive state, Rothbard posited, by exposing an “unholy alliance of ‘corporate liberal’ Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America.”[32]
    Could it be the mindset induced by the clever propaganda that you bought into, just like Jerry and I did long ago, that is really what gets your goat when we use various words in a very literal, and non-cryptic, manner? As such, if you are not 'egalitarian', then just what are you?

    You were certainly correct about the technical difference between democracy of the mob, and that of a republic. The founders of the US Constitution definitely wanted a representative republic, for only white Protestant (real Protestants, not mystical crypto-papist snake charmers and tongue babblers) men who owned adequate assets, such as real estate (whose original deeds flowed from the justly favored grants of the divinely annointed crowns) could be trusted to make the correct decisions for the nation.

    Is it possible for Jerry, myself, or any others to discuss alternative means to deploying capital in a more optimal manner for most everyone? Or do you feel it is your Savonarola-esque duty to browbeat, with your worthier labels, anything that threatens the leverage potential of the original 'capitalists'? I'm sure that you'll answer the latter that this is certainly not your intent, because once you and your friends eliminate cronyism that all will be healed, except for the scummy poor parasites that thankfully Jesus warned us about as always 'being with us'.

    This latter is why the Church (the real church) has traditionally supported the so-called ancien regime where the worthiest people are born to the top and always stay there, and vice-versa. Interestingly, these people and their Judaic mercantile friends were the first capitalists, because they were the only ones who had 'capital'. So its interesting to me that such as the above mentioned people are so interested recently in promoting 'free markets' for such as us to participate, like profitably trading in Global Crossing and Worldcom (both now worth $0.00), etc.. Or who pulled their capital out of the market just before 9/11. And you think you are going to fix rigged market problems by complete Separation. Really?

    Speaking of supposed wolves, the 'Marxist' economist, Richard Wolff posits that since Capitalism is obviously abandoning America, then why should such as ousia care so much, since as I pointed out earlier, the sharks are 'All In' for off shore Communist (recontextualized slavery) production of our goods? In the link he frames your 'parasites' responses as being "Alternatives to Capitalism", but maybe it should better be framed as Better Deployment of Capital?

    So it superficially seems to me that, based upon your mantra, or at least the mantra of those who put the ideas in your head, that you prefer offshore slavery to our onshore 'parasitic Underclass'. Ironically, this was the same concept that the rise of Romanticism was created for, so as to justify the imposition of the profitable rights of the noble elites of Europe to garner slave profits offshore to themselves, so that they could maintain their wonderful image. It was here that they had to emancipate the serfs to work in the factories of Europe, but far better to move all that activity offshore to the colonies and their slave labor. In many cases they easily convinced their former slaves to become good Christian slaveowners in the colonies, remitting taxes, rents, and such back to the rightful lords.

    So beyond decrying our bad labels with your obviously better labels, what do you really think ousia? Have you merely replaced speaking in tongues with speaking in empty labels?
     
  6. ousia

    ousia Member

    I have been reading Livingstone while composing my post. I did read that article and many others. I see a consistent them in his historicism.... I don't want to start the philosophical critique just yet because if I do I will never get to my post. I will say this, In terms of epistemic justification the conspiracy exegetics haven't even stepped on the mat.... In terms of "labels" I do realize the need for propagandist to vilify categorization, this makes their narratives elusive. That way the only way to figure out what they are arguing for is to figure out what it is they are NOT categorizing.... Which is easy for someone with a valid epistemology......

    I'm finding the rabbit hole so deep that I am realizing that there is alot more to be said than I intended on the charismatic vein...
     
  7. ousia

    ousia Member

    Oh,

    Richard said:

    Why not just stop making more errant prophecies of your own about my intentional states and future actions and just wait for me to actually say what I intend? You have repeatedly conjured nonsensical attributions and they will all by laid back at your feet.

    I will debate you, that is, demolish your strawmen in good time. (directly, without evasive strawmen and analogical innuendo)
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2015
  8. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    Wow, that must be some prophecy, you're already over one week into writing it? Should have started offline.

    In any case, I thought you said in your rather odd prophecy intro that you weren't cryptic? What do you call the above? Despite all your philosophical tongue wagging, why don't you do us all a favor when you get around to your above promise and give us an analysis of both our surface content and then your deeper 'deconstruction'. Do you plan on using the word 'ousia' in any of this?

    If you don't like the way I've treated you, then maybe you might want to do some introspection and examine your behavior. Apparently when your parents were diligently teaching you the Golden Rule they were babbling in a tongue you couldn't understand.

    I'm glad that you are going to illuminate us on the "charismatic vein". Can I assume that you are going to tell us that today it is all latter day agitprop with a secondary goal of fleecing the flock, mostly the poor? And that the Biblical pentecostal account is merely describing the Flavian international propaganda apparatus?
     
  9. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    You have had quite a long time to say something intelligent here, and so far there is nothing much to speak of.

    Do you make a frequent practice of starting first conversations with insulting one liners? As you did here, you left nothing else to do but divine the entrails of your laconic 'wolves' comment, or just let it go. Now, after claiming to feel abused, you switch gears and show that your real desire all along was to demonstrate that you have some intellectual chops. As such, why didn't you start with the honest and decent approach, and maybe you would have gotten a different result?

    ****************
    Jerry has just informed me that I have conflated a current discussion between Collectivist and Jerry regarding democracies and republics with ours. For that I apologize to you and any resulting attributions, false or true, that derived from that.
     

Share This Page