Postmodern "anthropology"

Umm, Joe, you agree with the epithet "wolves"? As to "social constructivist", I don't even know what that means. And, "leading us into the light" seems to be a Luciferian reference?
Joe, what are you doing associating with neo-Marxist-social constructivist wolves?

Wolves are actually very nice creatures, so I think you are doing them a great disservice when you associate them with what you arrogantly and ignorantly think of Jerry and me. The subtext of how you frame us reveals much about you, but still leaves ambiguous what your actual foundational motivations for 'believing' so are. But your rather laconic one-liner insult reveals that you have supreme confidence in your framework and/or that you perceive great profit in maintaining your worldview to the view of all the poor sheep. So the big question remaining for you is whether you are a sheep or a sheepdog. I rather doubt that you are either a shepherd or a 'wolve' as you would have it.

Despite my aristocratic adoptive surname, I was raised as a good (and deluded) Caesarian sheep, who like my good and decent parents had drunk the Kool-Aide of the Stepford Wives system bequeathed to us, by our founding fathers who were in love with the Roman heritage. This is why the American 'federal' government, and state governments, operate the way they do. The problem for people like me, and Jerry, is that we were encouraged to think for ourselves and as former engineers we necessarily had to put that ability to use - or else starve. One of the key aspects of this occupation is in resolving life's arbitrary and seemingly otherwise senseless and brutal contradictions, which either you have not come to terms with, or you have made the typical sheepish or sheepdogish accommodations to it.

As I think I explained before to (the faux) Collectivist, an Amazon Caesar's Messiah discussion about the real meaning Christ being the Flavians, or rather the collective Caesars, is that one participant, a black Christian minister stated that he had always understood this as the underlying message of Christianity. And thus explained to all his young males, frequently prone to lash out in frustration (or worse) at the unfair inequities in what once equated to your otherwise undebased vision of Providential perfection, i.e. the American Republic, that they were much better off in conforming with the subliminal message of the cross. Namely, don't make waves and likely the Man will provide a few more bread crumbs than otherwise.

In your's , and other's (like Joe), view all we need to do is set the clock back (to Ozzie and Harriet Time) and put certain uppity people back in their proper place, so that you can continue to feel superior and and pretend that your sheep stink isn't offal. So, it's always those damn Jews, and/or Freemasonic Illuminati who are screwing with Christ Caesar's proper order. This is the result of following a bad model, either willingly or unwittingly. There is more than abundant evidence that Caesar, both then and now, runs both sides of 'good and bad equation', the Bible even says so:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Isaiah 45:7​

As I tried to explain to Christian 'Sacred' Hart, this verse has to be true if one entity, a god or otherwise, is the sole creator of EVERYTHING. As a riff on Colin Powell's doctrine, "If you make it, you own it."

As a perfect segue, this is the way things should be for humans. Workers should own and 'profit' from the efforts they produce, but instead you and Joe have hitched yourselves to an abusive and degenerate model that obviously works for a certain segment of society and have convinced yourselves, from your a priori blinders that this must be the optimal economic system for all humanity, not too inconveniently violently supported historically by the Roman Church and its sheepdog-ish spawn, the controlled 'Protestant' opposition. A church where traditional un-degenerate family values, derive from Christ Augustus and his propagandist, the honorary Christian - Vergil.

This is why the American colonies were all founded as slave societies, because this was where the Catholic and Protestant elites could sponsor and capitalize a cheap replacement for the old feudal system that had been broken up by the exigencies of such as the Industrial Revolution - and that dangerous (to the old order) literacy was necessarily spreading. But, as always, when the sheep get access to the sacred word - not really ever meant for them, some of them, no matter what, need to believe that they are indeed the Elect being referred to and thus begin to make problems, e.g. demand that slavery is a noxious practice to God (Caesar), which it certainly isn't according to his Word.

And so cutting to today, the American workers of the last century, placed themselves on an untenable wage pedestal, thus stealing from the likes of you. And thus we now have the sad irony of watching every week, the hyper-capitalist Sharks in the Tank demanding from their whores whether or not they have properly outsourced their manufacturing to the Communists. Of whom the latter, Jerry has already exposed here as 'tools' of the oligarchs, just like you are.

This is why some version of Jesus had no time to waste on Greek pigs, of whom it would take too much time and effort to deconstruct their defective frameworks before building anew. As such, you'll do the typical dancing around and whining, like the other patriotic monkeys complaining about others taking their jobs, while their capitalist Elephant and Donkey patrones (heroes) have been busy shipping tens of thousands of USA factories to the Communists and other slave wage states.

There are only 3 general ways to make aggregate (not individual) wealth in any country: i.e. agriculture, mining, and manufacturing. We don't do much of the latter two anymore, and the first has mostly been adsorbed by the Wall Street corporations, so now you can understand why Caesar still needs to provide so much bread and games to the masses, only now the taxpayer gets to fund most of it.

It is no big deal today to announce that Christ was really the collective Caesars, as Jesus announced that he would be with us till the end of the age. Well, here it is, and the 'true-believing' Zealots in the Red states have once again drunk the Kool-Aide from the previous identical episode. Back then the Maccabees were the urban globalist collaborators of the Romans, but after it was all over the winners, the globalists, convinced everyone that the 'degenerate' Maccabees were really Jewish revolutionary 'heroes'. Same as it ever was.

In a few months, the AnteChrist (not the darkly amusing AntiChrist) will be visiting the USA and appearing in 'Pompey's theater', the halls of Congress. The good Jesuit (wink, wink) has been busy upsetting the moneychangers of the Church - among other violations of the perverse interests of the ancien regime. So despite the initial cries of hosannas by the degenerated lost sheep looking at him as the new 'savior, the traditional conservative interests are taking a noticeably dim view, including here in so-called liberal America. So in line with the Catholic prophecy that this one will be the last Papa (Vicar of Christ - the logically serial substitute for Christ Caesar of the Sabines), you might guess what will happen after he goes on trial. I say they will fake his assassination, as with Julius Caesar's, and Jesus' fiction.

Kenneth Atchity, another good Catholic, with a good Georgetown Jesuit education, is quite happy to assert that Christ is Caesar (Augustus in his historical novel), and apparently all its 'benevolent' implications. I'm sure you will be happy as you seem to know which side your bread is buttered on, and which of your Greek pigs is wearing lipstick, just don't look in the mirror. Hell hath no fury like a scorned Christian, and the real ones, the Roman Catholics are effectively in charge of all the levers of the neo-Roman American government. Thanks Vatican II.

Jesus said that the Truth would set you free, but he didn't bother to explain whose Truth he mean by that.

In any case, it has been determined by empirical evidence that predators such as wolves, lions, 'man-eating' sharks, etc., will lovingly treat you as one of their own if you don't do just one thing. Don't act like their meals.


Hello Richard,

This is a fascinating riff on the theme of sheep, shepherds, sheepdogs and wolves. And in terms of our neo-Marxist social constructivist model, I understand that the sheep represent the common people; the shepherds are the elite in government, religion, industry and the media who reap great wealth from their positions of power; and the sheepdogs are the shepherds' middle-class intellectual, military and managerial tools.

But in this scheme, who exactly are the predator wolves? Perhaps we really are the only wolves in the picture, in our attempts to attack the whole system from outside? I think not, I think we are allies of the sheep. But at this point, the zoological analogy breaks down: real sheep have no friends or advocates. Sheep just waddle around and get fat eating the grass, and hope not to be sheared or eaten, at least not today. What else is a sheep to do?

In Joe's view, the whole ancient stable system of sheep, shepherds and sheepdogs is under attack by the likes of the Freemason Illuminati, Kabbalistic Jews, CIA, rap music videos, other propagandists, and Freudian psychoanalysts. What about them: are they like wolves on the prowl, and ready to pounce on innocent sheep and shepherds alike? Or are they really just "sheepdogs in wolves' clothing"? Either way, do we really want to be seen as fellow travelers of these wolves? Is it necessary to take on wolves' clothing ourselves, seeking to avoid becoming their dinner?

By the way, having read the Wikipedia article on social constructivism, I've decided that the shoe largely fits, aside from such extreme positions known as "strong" social constructivism. Wiki says:

Constructivist epistemology is a branch in philosophy of science maintaining that natural science consists of mental constructs that are constructed with the aim of explaining sensory experience (or measurements) of the natural world. According to it, scientific knowledge is constructed by the scientific community, seeking to measure and construct models of the natural world.

And by extension, social constructivism is the application of that concept to sociology. Seems straightforward enough to me.

Having said all that, you have certainly thrown down the gauntlet to Joe. This sort of talk can only encourage the growing perception on the part of our audience, that we are not really on the same team. Can it be true that Joe sees us as Luciferian wolves who need to be taken into the light? Is Joe not also one of us neo-Marxist social constructivists? His efforts to lead us back to the land of Ozzie and Harriet having failed so far (if indeed that's where he's trying to lead us) -- I wonder what he will have to say in response to all this?
Last edited:
Hmmm, Jerry, you are quite the demonic Devil's Advocate (that's really an official office of the Roman Curia - checking that the proper propagandic credentials are in order of noxious fascists like Father Escriva can become saints).

In my mentions of wolves, I never meant to imply that we are such metaphoric entities, but ousia already obviously feels that way. In this regard, I feel that snakes are also very nice fellows and gals (figuratively speaking, that is), whom Genesis has terribly slandered. It was just necessary to comment on the wolves as part of my friendly exchange with her. It does though lead to some interesting question on the relationship between wolves and sheepdogs, who were one variety of canines domesticated (by human shepherds and hunters) from said wolves.

The old system has never changed, just the cover names of the different groups, excepting the umbrella Mother Church given to us by Christ Caesar. The central flaw in the contrary argument is that the Church learned its lesson(s). Its been learning its lessons about how evil it is ever since its formation. Such an organization needs to present to the sheep muggles that it is basically good, despite some 'understandable' flaws here and there, and .... everywhere. Silver bells and ...

Joe is simply too Romantic for my taste. The CIA was not known as a Mason Den, it was known as a Masonic/Catholic Den. Nuff said.


Joe has had plenty of time to digest the meaning of the content of Saussy's Rulers of Evil, which is far more important IMO than, say Catcher's in the Rye, not that its not a worthy project or has good insights. But like every Catholic, lapsed or not, Jesuit influenced or not, they are in complete denial that their Church's insiders are at the center of everything, including who really runs the Freemasons, and the Templars before them. Wink, wink, it's not called "Plausible Deniability" for nothing people. That the Church simply moved the Templars into the Hospitallers and are today known as the Knights of Malta. Was I on LSD when I was watching the initial news of our entry into Afghanistan when they showed old men (indentified as American Vietnam vets) wearing SMOM jackets scurrying to get off camera? Obviously, they were there for 'humanitarian' purposes, wink, wink.

Oh, but now we're supposed to believe that the poor innocent Church (that has murdered so many but has 'now' recanted) has been infiltrated in the last fifty years or so, and we should be absolutely bat shit paranoid in ranting about what those particular masonic evil-doers are doing to the poor sheep. The sheep, whom they are still feeding slices of Jesus's (Caesar's) penis to them, at least that's what they claim it is transsubstantially. I wonder what Freud (or anyone else) thought about that? Sounds like a bad case of Mass Stockholm Syndrome to me, not to mention cannabalism.

In any case, Adam Weishaupt was a Jesuit teacher of Roman Catholic law at a top Jesuit university before he became the leader of the Illuminati. But, then we get told that the Jesuits from day one were crypto Jews, so what do you expect? Well, this at least puts the lie to that the church was infiltrated only several decades ago. The other trouble is that the Jesuits are famous for teaching the pagan Classics, their curriculum being the ratio studiorum, the very name of which implies a 'harmonic' Pythagorean esoteric thrust, or which Plato was based upon, at least according to Plato.

This gets us back to ousia's complaint about our 'egalitarianism'. We are apparently 'bad' because we have more faith in humanity than she and the Church does. This stems from Plato's received notion of the caste system (shared with such as Pali Buddhism - coming before Christianity) being the ideal form of human society. Philo put his Judaic gloss on Platonism and this became the disguised esoteric basis for Christianity. This is why the Church has been so murderously militant (with Christ's Love) in attempts to break away from the 'proper' ancien regime which it had implemented as Feudalism, and to later replace it with American Indian and African slavery. The justification is that humans are on different levels, and so therefore, let's (the elites) keep them there - for their own stinky good and wink, wink, for our godly profit.

Then next we're told that what I just said is all moot, as circumstances, or God has ordained. My gosh, we have evolved to the blessings of Capitalism, seemingly necessitated by needs to fund large enterprises like industry and mass exploitation of natural resources. You see, idiot, don't you understand how wonderful everyone's lives are now, well, except for those incompetent and lazy malcontents, for whom the old caste (slave) system had an answer for. The answer instead, since slavery is now untenable, is to just kill them all, as in the original words of God, killing is very very good, but murder is bad. Here we arrive at such as the Spanish Civil War and Father (Saint) Escriva and his Nazi allies. How dare those greedy damn (Republican) peasants want more than a few centavos a day.

The irony here is that it was in Basque Spain, just after this time that a Catholic priest came up with the idea for a worker's collective, called Mondragon Corporation. There are other examples of such even in the USA. The idea is that workers should benefit directly from their labor rather than being constantly subject to the whims and greed of the ever hungrier 'wolves' of capitalism, who are now enriching the offshore Communists, who seem to be even savvier capitalists. (Sorry literal wolves, I had to do it.)

But, now I'm going to be told that such as the good priest that came up with the Mondragon idea is proof that I'm full of wolf crap. The problem here is in not making a distinction between the motivations of the lower level 'mendicant' priests and those of the traditional Church episcopacy, the Sabine family corporation.

Unrestrained capitalism, as evidenced in the USA, led to, and is now again, extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. Unfortunately, the weak minded aspirants to Trumpdom, perhaps too busy aspiring in keeping their small businesses afloat, can't figure out that when the majority of the population is barely on subsistence wages, if they're working that is, that their businesses suffer for it, even worse than the taxes imposed upon them. Thus we find them worshiping such as the Sharks in the Tank sending ever more business offshore while they grimace about having no customers. Well, at least we have the inflationary creating of money to bridge the fluidity gap till the imposition of a global caste system. The solution that will be provided sooner or later, will be globally uniform taxes, wages, regulations, etc., making certain other structures moot.

The United States of America is Rome revived (or perhaps better put as Rome's militant vanguard revived), masquerading as a democratic republic, but really a remote controlled imperium, a disposable steppingstone to Victory's final conquest, standing atop the globe over duped mankind re-caste [sic]. I'll bet even Joe has a copy of the Jesuit's The Art of War, and knows just what Saussy meant by discussing it.

Oh, BTW, that theater where the next fake assassination may take place ('may' because I gave the potential spoiler) has two Roman fasces mounted on the wall behind the Speaker's podium. Just coincidence, wink, wink.
My head is spinning with the addition of sharks and snakes into the tank. I never heard of a shark that ate a sheep. Wolves might be very nice, but you'll never convince a sheep about that. Whereas, Capitalists are not wolves, they've been thoroughly domesticated and are merely annoying to sheep, but necessary for herding. Some snakes are poisonous, while others just mind their own business.

JD Salinger sells a lot more books than Tupper Saussy. But we don't have to care.
I didn't start this metaphorical business, blame ousia.

The sharks in the tank is an obvious reference to the TV venture capitalist show, Shark Tank, but I forgot you don't watch TV anymore.

I did not want to leave snakes out in the cold, simply because one wanted humans to gain understanding, rather than be funda-mental. The papacy has had its scientific commission for well over a hundred years, all the while telling the faithful, until more recently (when they were infiltrated I guess), that science is the work of Satan.

Imagine what would happen if Rulers of Evil were required history reading in all schools including parochial.
What do you mean, "I didn't start this metaphorical business" -- Mr. Author of "Sheepdogs in Wolves' Clothing"? Isn't that like when the indians are ambushing the Lone Ranger, and Tonto says "what you mean 'we', White Man"? Or maybe instead of blaming ousia, we should blame God, since it's his Bible.

But I can definitely see the potential here. If we get "Catcher in the Rye" banned from the high school curriculum, what will fill the vacuum? What better than Rulers of Evil to fill its place? Need to start campaigning now, otherwise we'll get "Fifty Shades", or maybe "Barbarian Days".
I meant I didn't start this particular round of zoological metaphorical ad hominum attacks, on our own site, no less.

Obviously, getting such as Rulers of Evil as even approved optional reading will never happen in any school system. It all goes to the problem of why whistleblowers, 'prophets', the fictional Jesus, etc. are not welcome in their own land. The sublimal message is that one should shut the F up, so that the shepherds can easier go about their business of fattening the human flocks for further shearing and butchery. Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran ...

If everyone thought that Iraq and Afghanistan were problems, just wait for Iran and 'securing' its underground nuclear facilities. Its just amazing that more sheep never catch on that such as Khomeini spent his time getting prepared for his 'revolution' in one of the hearts of western 'capitalism', like Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, and Marx. Others like Saddam getting set up as 'our' straw men. Uncle Ronnie and Poppy get a free pass on the October Surprise and the former grants diplomatic status to the Roman Catholic state, maybe after the Bushs' Hinkley friends gave Ronnie a message. The Roman Catholic state uses Fatima to call global Catholics to support Hitler's crusade against the oligarchs' straw man of Marxism. And then never takes the time to excommunicate Hitler while they were excommunicating all Catholic Communists. They do, however, welcome von Pappen again (in 1959) to celebrate the display of Jesus' ephod, the Jewish high priest's 'seamless' robe, at the cathedral of Trier, Constantine's city BTW. The first time von Pappen got to do the same was in 1933 when Hitler rose to power and the former attended in place of the invited Hitler.

But, we are 'wolves'? Go figure. Maybe it is merely a matter of the contextual perspective of such as ousia, and that we are 'naughty wolves' for exposing the ugly 'sausage making' of global harmonization (that, in reality, will only benefit the Elect shepherds). I doubt that such as ousia are members of the Elect, who are too busy to participate, even to her level, here. Rather I suspect that she is another Useful Idiot, part of the Stockholm Syndrome Black 'Mass'.
Perhaps at this point we can compare Ousia to the metaphorical horse which has been the subject of excellent and extensive analysis.
Holy fuck! I just found all the response posts in this thread due to reading another thread were my user name was mentioned.... This is going to be interesting!

I promise to return to disabuse y'all of the false "narrative" that has been "constructed" in my absence. You have truly constructed a fantastical edifice but I will have to disappoint (or maybe pleasantly enlighten, we'll see what your made of ! ) your ambitious labor of deconstruction!

Truly, I have something else-wise to propose to ya'll and you will probably find it useful....

Until I have rested....

(I've something quite Aristotelian in mind)
Welcome back Ousia, and I am looking forward to being better informed about what you were trying to say.
Ok, lets review!

I came to this forum as a result of Joe's blog. I have participated in discussion of the Flavian thesis since way back in the now defunct forum. I read four articles when I came here:

These articles, along with the name of the site and the "social justice" meme mentioned in the forum purposes, was quite enough to categorize the philosophical "framework" animating the "cultural commentary" here. Since my initial post, I see that Jerry and Richard both are not really that shy about their New left agenda and apart from the backdoor-deconstructive, postmodernist methods deployed here, they are rather open about their anti-capitalist, anti-western, neo Frankfurtian agenda. (at least to those who have done their homework, and for those who are swimming in the cultural fog :

So, lets agree to contextualize my "wolves" comment as pointing at what initially appeared a mostly hidden motive. Rather, can we agree that the collectivist motive of the two of you is out in the open, (particularly with the posting of the "postcapitalist" propaganda in that other thread?

Clearly my initial post is predicated upon an understanding of Joe that differentiates him from the motives and methods that animate Jerry and Richard. The question is, what do I think Joe and I share as a basis for similarity? Clearly Jerry and Richard have deployed a dialectic narrative placing the four of us in an antithetical opposition between progressivism and regressivism ("conservativism" is the PC version) So, do I long for a 1950's revival? A Romantic nostalgia for a mythic period of the foundational union-synthesis of "conservative christian values" alongside the Founding Fathers insistence on an individualist constititution? One that preserves the metanarrative of the constructivist- social justice warrior's infamous "social hierarchy" of those damned "privileged" winners of the genetic and cultural lottery?

The answer is NO! I reject the whole false dichotomy propped up by the shared collectivist morality of "need" worship and call both the Postmodernist (socialist) and the NeoCon's (fascist) what they are, philosophically bankrupt balls of contradiction! Two sides of the same death worshiping, anti-life coin! Both consequences of the collectivist morality that props up the force initiating system of state backed extortion.

What do I want? TO BE LEFT ALONE! I want the givers and receivers of human sacrifice to get out of my way! I want A COMPLETE SEPERATION OF ECONOMICS AND STATE ALONGSIDE A COMPLETE SEPERATION OF RELIGION AND STATE! Only then will the crony capitalist fascism that is rotting this nation cease. But none of this will happen until the ethical rot of collectivism is stamped out. (by educating those who embrace it)

Now, Jerry quoted the sanitized account of Constructivism from Wikipedia but this account obfuscates all the philosophical nitty gritty and lets it remain inexplicit. (as well as reverses the order of infiltration from the humanities to the hard sciences)

Here is a more Philosophically explicit account:

The brainchild of the "Institute for Social research" AKA the "Frankfurt School"

What I don't understand is why, Jerry, did you need to look up Social Constructivism when the first article I read here by you said:

"We began this study in response to several pivotal events which have occurred in the authors’ lifetimes: the three major political assassinations of the 1960’s (JFK, RFK, MLK), the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing, and events of 9/11/2001. In each case, our view is that these events are actually best explained in terms of elite criminality and sociopathic behavior, in contrast to the false socially constructed reality promulgated by media and government sources, in which the elite are depicted as victims and problem solvers. However, it is only within our comprehensive framework, that these events can be truly explained and understood.


If we can agree to set our ethical and political philosophical disagreements aside for a moment, I have something to bring to those who recognize the Flavian thesis, and how the same use of "prophecy" is being mined today, attention. (it involves a "prophecy" of assassination)

Shall we proceed? (according to the "prophets" we only have days to do so)


BTW, I didn't introduce the concept of "egalitarianism" here, you all did when you named this forum section!
Last edited:
Richard said:
Unrestrained capitalism[...]

Has NEVER existed! NEVER ! Not in America or anywhere else!

Jerry Said:

But I can definitely see the potential here. If we get "Catcher in the Rye" banned from the high school curriculum, what will fill the vacuum? What better than Rulers of Evil to fill its place? Need to start campaigning now, otherwise we'll get "Fifty Shades", or maybe "Barbarian Days".

I nominate Atlas Shrugged, Capitalism The Unknown Ideal, The Virtue of Selfishness, or Philosophy: Who needs It? .......
Hello Ousia,

I'm not sure what we've said that would lead you to call us "collectivist" or "anti-capitalist" or even "anti-Western". Our analysis does point to problems with "capitalism" and "Western civilization" as they are currently practiced, but we do think that capitalism and Western Civilization both sound like good ideas. (Or anyhow I do, I should probably let Rick speak for himself.) As to capitalism, however, we would not want to see it "unrestrained", but would prefer to see a different set of constraints than those now existing.

Rick wrote an extended riff on the topic of Libertarianism, towards the end of this article on the Wordpress site:

Perhaps you could take a look at it and see if you see anything objectionable? It seems to me that your method of argument has been, not to quote what we actually say, but to put us in a category and then blame us for the antics of others who go by that label. Rick was doing some of that to you, I think, and I appreciate that you reject the false dichotomy that he was trying to thrust on you.

I didn't object to the label "neo-Marxist" because I would agree with a formulation that the class struggle (that is, the struggle of the great oligarchs vs. everyone else) is the most important real dynamic motivating history and current events. Aside from that, however, I wouldn't want you assuming automatically that I would agree with everything that's ever been said by every "New Left" shill.

As to constructivism, I guess I'm a constructivist poet and didn't even know it. Well, not really. In the passage you quoted, note that I referred to a false socially constructed reality. And as to "social constructivism" being subsumed under the more general category of "epistemological constructivism", I meant in terms of their logical relationship, I didn't mean to speak of chronological priority. Your links propose a huge conflict between "scientific realism" vs. constructivism, but I don't see it as such. I think that constructivism is just, well, a realistic attitude about our ability as humans to get at objectivist truth.

And when it comes to Frankfurt school, I have no particular objection to Horkheimer & Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment, but I haven't read any Marcuse, so I don't really feel qualified to speak to that.

If we can agree to set our ethical and political philosophical disagreements aside for a moment, I have something to bring to those who recognize the Flavian thesis, and how the same use of "prophecy" is being mined today, attention. (it involves a "prophecy" of assassination)

Shall we proceed? (according to the "prophets" we only have days to do so)

By all means please do, but consider creating a new thread. Or if you're talking about Shmita-related prophecies, we already have a thread going for that:
Hi ousia,

I see on your having partially awoken from your slumber that you've chosen to make a Randy reference to the Immaculate Conceptions of Jesus and Augustus among others. Very funny. And I notice that you have decided to take a different tack from your opening round of anonymous rapier insult (which BTW, is in violation of the Site Rules). This latter is what qualified you for my rant, because you showed nothing else.

I used to be a hard core libertarian anarchist spouting all the Zealot [sic] quasi-utopian (I know - you aren't asking for Utopia) rhetoric that you do. Then I grew up, and realized I had been sold a bad economics model that was propagandically (e.g. Ayn Rand) pandering to my (and now your) 'rugged individualist' vanity. And furthermore I realized how pathetic my approach was to all that in comparison to how different it was to how one might approach a difficult engineering problem. You have decided that the choice is all black and white (and you KNOW which one is correct), and I now say no, its either grey or gray.

As to 'unrestrained capitalism' you are in SERIOUS DENIAL. Since the elimination of Glass-Steagall why don't you check out what percentage of the American economy is now owned by the 6 or so largest (Too Big to Fail) banks? Ever watch Shark Tank (Jerry hasn't)? One of the first questions the rugged venture capitalists ask the entrepreneurs is where they are producing their product. "Why aren't you having the Communists produce this for you, they have much better control over labor and other costs?"

So go ahead and make yourself feel all better with your righteous labels and oracularly reading your labels into words "socially constructed reality" used in a sentence that from what I gather, even Saint Atwill wouldn't disagree with the context of their usage. In case you don't know, he discusses 'oligarchs' here. I don't give a crap about your labels, but I know enough about Postmodernism to know that I don't use their now institutionalized esoteric vernacular. However, I'm not even sure if their agenda is what they claim it is and not some elitist front like your Koch brother pals run on the far right.

I hope you're not going to attempt to steal my prophecy regarding the soon coming fake assassination of the pope speaking to Congress (framed by the two Roman fasces)? I'm guessing the patsy for this will be a radically Zealous American anarcho-nationalist, as a foil for the globalists. Just like in days or yore.
Hi Rick,

Sorry to be dense here, but I can't find Ousia's Randy Reference. Maybe it doesn't matter, but I hate feeling I've missed a joke.

There's a distinction I'd make, that "Wildly Out of Control, Neo Fascist Capitalism" (which is, IMO, what we are facing today) is different from "unrestrained capitalism." A big part of the success of Central Banking is the artificial constraints placed on their natural competitor, commodity based money and banking. And giant corporations in general couldn't be what they are today, without suppression of small business.