Thursday, 28 July 2016
The film Cube released in 1997 contains much esoteric lore. The cube itself is the ancient symbol of the dark cult of the god Saturn/Chronos (quite literally: the Lord of the Rings, given Saturn's ring) - which many believe links up with Satanism - and related deities such as Dionysus, Hercules or the Egyptian goddess Isis, Saturn's eldest daughter. Cubes are ubiquitous in corporate and popular symbolism.
A glance at this element of the occult and its ubiquitous symbolism is usefully provided here: http://www.nicholson1968.com/nicholson1968s-post/saturn-worshipthe-black-cube
As if to drive the point home, the sequel to the film is subtitled Hypercube, which symbol I briefly covered in my blog post Graduates & Cops. The hypercube signifies encaged consciousness just like the giant cube structure in the film the characters are trying to flee from.
Within the script there is also a passing reference to the occult tradition of Tarot. Issues of government conspiracy and the strategy of compartmentalisation (the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing) also come to the fore within the dialogue, as well as questions pertaining to the human condition which the cube can be seen as representing. The question is: how did we get there? One character's answer is: we did it to ourselves, nobody's in charge.
Spoilers: it is no accident in my estimation that the character who turns bad is the cop. Occultists have a low opinion of law enforcers as can be seen on their uniform regalia (again see aforementioned blog post Graduates & Cops) because not only are they unenlightened but they impose their lack of enlightenment on others by bringing liberty destroying measures into physical manifestation.
The film can ultimately be seen as an allegory for and reflection on the human condition trapped in low consciousness, which is what the hypercube partly symbolises. No wonder does the plot turn sour due to what one character terms 'the groundless stupidity of humans.'
The one character who survives the ordeal and ascends to the light (the Sun, the good, as opposed to Saturn, symbolised by the cube, the 'dark' planet furthest away from the Sun, Pluto being excluded as a planet in ancient astronomy) happens to be a mentally disabled person (with a knack for factoring numbers) as he is in some sense the least warped character with no side, and possibly the closest approximation to innocent goodness among the group, as a genuine Child of God/Christ.
Thus as humans we start out in a cube, i.e. a prison, of our own making and through collaboration - the characters put their skills together in the movie for their own survival - we journey through the cube only to find that the exit was in the first room all along before we set out on the journey in the first place. It took the long journey, however, and meeting new people along the way with special input to offer to know that.
This plot point can be seen as an allusion to technical and historical development, realising that so-called progress is a regression from the original state of nature, the first room in which we began, which is closer to the real world and the sun's light. We need to come full circle after travelling most of the giant cube to realise staying put in our original state was the better idea, but now we are equipped with that knowledge thanks to our journey, unlike in our primal state of awareness.
At the end of the cube the rays of the sun beam - enlightenment - and provided we don't kill each other before reaching the light - as they do in the film, particularly because of the unenlightened law enforcer - we may ascend to a higher plane of consciousness that is not a prison but freedom.
The mentally handicapped character is the only one to make it that far despite being threatened with being abandoned earlier due to his disability, only to find that his special skill, factoring numbers, was the key to the puzzle; only he reaches enlightenment, despite his atypical neurology.
The film therefore reflects the occult in its very premise, the occult always placing emphasis on individual stages of ascending enlightenment with many perils along the way. Mark Passio calls it climbing the Mountain of Enlightenment (see Ascending the Mountain of Enlightenment) but beware, the view from above over the valley is not pretty.
Conclusion: While films may vary in their level of esotericism and their level of explicitness, their allegorical and suggestive power points to elements of reality mostly ignored by the majority and dismissed as mere fiction. If only this majority knew how much truth is contained in many, even mass market, features, provided one has the mental tools to decode their hints and riddles, they too would grow in enlightenment.
Wednesday, 27 July 2016
What people need to wrap their heads around if they haven't done due diligence as I have in the field of political truth is that the vast majority of political and economic crises are engineered to impose new rules, what researcher David Icke calls the problem-reaction-solution strategy of power (along with the totalitarian tip-toe) and what Mark Passio more ominously calls chaos-confusion-opportunity or simply chaos sorcery (sorcery being the art and science of influencing change to occur in accordance with selfish will).
In both cases a predetermined plan is brought about by engineering a crisis, such as a terror attack, this crisis is then blamed on some patsy group (like ISIS/Al Qaida in the West) or phenomenon (cyberattacks) that is in fact extraneous to the engineered crisis, with the intended effect of causing a reaction of confusion and fear in people who turn to their government for a solution to keep them secure and safe, a solution so-called authorities duly bring about (such as liberty destroying anti-terror laws and a controlled, surveilled internet) and which constitutes the predetermined plan that was behind the fabricated crisis all along.
To think for oneself is the beginning of self-responsibility. Thoughtless people cannot be responsible because their lack of thinking stops them from considering the consequences of their actions on both a micro and a macro scale.
To think for oneself is to look past the oft-dubious nature of conventional, mainstream 'wisdom' and start accounting for one's own thoughts, emotions and actions, seeing them in the light of the whole and considering their harmony with truth and Natural Law.
Hannah Arendt's observation that Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann's lack of thoughtfulness, his over-use of linguistic clichés and stock wisdom, his empty soul led her to an insight into what she called the banality of evil, i.e. the realisation that evil stems not just from knowing malice, but also from unconscious conformity.
Equally, blind obedience and unquestioning order following also result in evil, since morality is to do what is right regardless of what you're told and obedience is to do what you're told regardless of what is right; the case of police and military generally who are by nature immoral order followers who do not question or think about their role in the world and the morality of their actions.
Thinking is an individualising activity which stops our responsibility being subsumed and destroyed by the collective allowing us to do wrong as we please because we are not yet self-owning individuals who consider the consequences of our actions on the rights of others.
The limitation of the banality of evil concept is that, of course, there is plenty of knowing evil, such as that which stems from psychopathic individuals in positions of power, but it is true to say that thoughtlessness gives these psychopathic individuals much more leeway for causing harm because to refuse to think is to fail to even begin to resist these psychopathic realities.
In an early post on this blog How to Become Master of the World I made the point that man is only really man as opposed to being animal when he thinks his habituation. Our habits, i.e. our actions, are intrinsically a matter of ethics and indeed the word ethics (as well as our word ethos) shares a root with the Greek word for habit, character, custom, i.e. habituation generally (often used by Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics): ἦθος.
In conclusion to be thoughtful is to be mindful of both the world and our actions in the world.
Tuesday, 26 July 2016
The human population like the natural world showcases much diversity; diversity in individuals, diversity in body types and facial features, diversity in cultures and customs, diversity in occupations and socio-economic roles, diversity in beliefs and opinions, diversity in personality preferences and basic psychological make-up, diversity in physical and intellectual ability, diversity in lifestyles and habits and so on.
As Mark Passio rightly observes, more diversity is a sign of evolution advancing survival whereas growing uniformity is a sign of involution advancing extinction, much again like the natural world whose key to success is biological diversity which, when harmed, causes negative consequences for Mother Γαῖα. Darwin himself saw diversity as a key aspect of his evolutionary theory.
When it comes to the contentious realm of politics which concerns the organisation of power in society a great diversity of views is also apparent, often fighting each other for the final say so and not without violence. Researcher Mark Passio argues that this conflict-ridden reality is essentially the fruit of engineered divide and conquer strategies of mass mind control and that the most pertinent difference that lies between individuals is the level of mind control they're under.
My response to that is a quote from Nietzsche
"He is a thinker - he knows how to make things simpler than they are."The point I am making is that perhaps diversity of political viewpoints like natural diversity is a healthy phenomenon despite appearances to the contrary. It forces us to consider different viewpoints and grow in our understanding, if we are not already closed off to rational debate. As philosopher Heidegger put it, struggle is the first law of Being and this struggle can be seen as a healthy if unpleasant part of what advances survival, to use Passio's wording.
With this in mind, political thinker Hannah Arendt was sensitive to the importance of political diversity because for her truth only appeared in the interplay and exchange of diverse political stands within a public realm. This is contrary the philosophy of her one time professor and lover, the same Heidegger, who was more interested in the individual's innermost singular essence as a mortal being and had little time for public discourse and the diversity of political opinions.
Theirs is a difference between private, individual truth and public, group truth. Our liberal societies in the West pride themselves on their pluralism - one of the foremost features of democratic society as noticed by Plato in his Republic - which is always under threat from various authoritarian quarters but still applies to the general public. Left-wingers may hate right-wingers, anarchists may hate statists, but it could be argued that this interplay and exchange, however contentious and fraught, is itself reflective of healthy diversity rather than vulnerable division.
Mark Passio may be right in saying that the universe gives priority to unity consciousness as opposed to divided consciousness, but what is typically seen as division could be re-interpreted more positively as really being pluralist diversity, in itself a healthy aspect of the human condition and Mother Nature herself. People from the right may have legitimate gripes with cultural marxism and people from the left may have legitimate gripes too with corporate fascism, but the truth may be that both phenomena exist despite denials from either side.
A problem arises however: where does one draw the line? When does accepting diversity of political opinion become problematic, say for example when minority activists have people banned from public speaking and white supremacists justify their ill-treatment of ethnic minorities? Must we give way to these discourses and actions on the ground of allowing diversity and pluralistic ideals?
The answer lies in Natural Law theory. One may speak and act as one wishes as long as it does not violate the rights of others. Those rights can be defined only apophatically, i.e. in the negative, in the sense of the right not to be thieved, raped or physically harmed, all natural rights ultimately being property rights. When a political person or group violates these rights of others then, and only then, must they be stopped and prevented from spreading their deeds and words for reasons of self-defence against violence.
Thus, in conclusion, diversity of any kind is a good thing provided it does not lead to violent division and if it does, Natural Law is the bulwark standard by which we must fight that violence to defend our freedom from being harmed and our natural rights from being violated.
Addendum - Having reflected on it, I think Mark Passio's insight is right; apparent political diversity is in fact division born of people undergoing unconscious mind control for it is clear that those who are more politically and historically aware will tend to fall into the no government, no elections, no State, no centralised control camp, i.e. the anarchist one or, as Mark Passio puts it, the an-archonist one (ἄρχων meaning master in Ancient Greek).
That's not to say all anarchists and even less so libertarians and those who subscribe to the freedom movement generally are enlightened. Many are just rebelling against perceived encroachments on their freedom and care not for the exploitation and degradation of other nations, socio-economic groups and individuals, nor do they contribute to actual, realisable freedom by raising consciousness and human empathy.
I think it was the German sociologist Max Weber, one of the founders of the discipline along with Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx, who popularised the specious notion that the State, in point of fact sociological reality, has a monopoly on legitimate violence.
The reason this notion is specious is that it is the philosophical equivalent of saying the circle is square or that rape is consensual. Violence is never legitimate because violence means nothing more or nothing less than the immoral, i.e. illegitimate, initiation of the use of force, force itself being moral, especially as self-defence against violence.
The monopoly on legitimate violence fallacy is typical of statist double-think where you consider yourself moral while making allowance for State immorality at the same time.
Monday, 25 July 2016
The problem with conspiracy culture - and I myself am well-versed in and partial to many conspiracies - may be summed up in one question: where does it end?
Conspiratorial thinking as a lens with which to view the world is, for all intents and purposes, a combination of fact gathering and political motivation suffering as it can do from confirmation bias, i.e. seeking out information that confirms rather than disproves one's worldview.
Taking myself as an example, I regard myself as an anarchist of sorts in that I distrust the system of political representation and would wish to see people becoming their own government rather than ruled from on high. Does this mean that I am more likely to accept conspiracies in government and supranational institutions?
Put differently, fact searching - facts being the raw stuff of political truth as I noted in my post Factual Truth - be it historical or contemporary politics, tends to have a political impetus and a political motivation. As Liam Neeson laconically tells a young Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace
"Your focus determines your reality."Moreover, how facts are selected and cohered into a narrative also tends to be subject to political temperament, preferences, colourings, interpretations, understandings, perhaps even maliciousness and agenda building.
Further still, facts may turn out to be false, either fabricated or genuine errors, so that what makes a fact a fact, i.e. its occurring as a historical event, is itself up for grabs and requires careful examination.
A good example of this is the spurious fact that J.F.K. initiated an Executive Order that brought upon him the ire of the Federal Reserve which duly had him killed; careful examination has shown that there was no such Executive Order, i.e. the Executive Order's contents were in no way inimical to the Federal Reserve's supremacy.
A living proof that nature as will to power - and human thought is nature working through us - is
"that which overcomes itself again and again"- to use Nietzsche's expression - are the following revisionist examples that question all the received wisdom on the events and ethics of the Second World War:
- Was Hitler a German messiah as the 'documentary' Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told claims he was, a messiah thwarted by perfidious English and Zionist interests? Is his bad standing in posterity's view the fruit of a historical cover up by those who defeated him?
- Were the Jews really exterminated en masse by the National Socialists or was there a conspiracy to exaggerate the holocaust after the war ended to suit these same so-called zionist and Anglo-American agendas?
- But wait! Was the Reichstag building being burnt down not itself a conspiracy by the National Socialists to discredit and shame the communists? Or is that conspiracy fact itself a conspiracy and therefore not a fact?
Conspiratorial thinking à outrance leads to ridiculous results. David Icke, for example, renowned for his theorising on reptilian shape-shifters dominating planet earth in human form, claims in one of his works that Mesopotamian researcher Zacharia Sitchin was such a shape shifting reptilian, even though Sitchin was one of the foremost voices in favour of non-terrestrial intervention theory in human origins, which would à priori support alien co-existence claims by David Icke.
Yet David Icke too is the subject of conspiratorial thinking. Several YouTube videos make the case - based on shoddy televised footage - that David Icke is himself a reptilian shape-shifter!
Similarly conspiracy overlord Alex Jones of Infowars fame is accused by some of being in the pay of the C.I.A. and representing, at best, an example of controlled opposition, at worst, a shill to misinform a certain demographic.
It would seem that conspiratorial thinking has come full circle painting two figures who've made their living from conspiracy theorising as being conspirators in league with the global conspiracy!
As Mark Passio states in his podcast series, the key skill that prevents bad Natural Law consequences is the ability to discern truth from falsehood. But there are no short cuts in order to achieve this skill.
One has to not only train one's mind to think critically, just like building a body muscle at the gym, but one must then use that critical thinking to evaluate competing and often discordant sources of information which one has done the due diligence to absorb and integrate.
A solution in this light was perhaps best put by Aristotle
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without immediately accepting (or rejecting) it."Thus, suspending judgement might help the life-long task of discerning truth from falsehood, until such a time when a balanced, well and consciously informed judgement is possible, rooted as it should be in active research of alternate and competing sources of information combined with critical evaluation.
Few are those who are prepared to carry out such a task systematically and indeed we are but human, all too human. We cannot at all times exercise caution and discrimination, we often need to accept things at face value trusting our intuition, our reason and our experience.
Thus, to conclude, conspiratorial thought, like most human phenomena and modes of discourse, is not un-negotiable - despite its attacking the institutions and discourses of power - and needs to be critically evaluated like all other forms of discourse including those that belong to philosophy, science and cultural criticism.
Person: what do you do?
Me: I'm not into the whole work thing, thank you very much.
Person: how do you live?
Me: With money.
Person: Where do you get your money from?
Me: Her Majesty's Government.
Person: You mean you're on benefits?
Me: Yes. Now crucify my arse.
Calvin and Hobbes is my favourite comic strip series not only for its fine, soulful, humorous, expertly traced artwork but also for the magic it captures of a happy childhood with Calvin's imagination and childish, yet to be conventionalised, wisdom capturing all one needs to know about the rotten, enslaved, conformist world of adults as compared to the active freedom and anarchic self-expressions of the titular characters with whom many identify.
All this delivered and presented in such a way as to bring laughs, smiles and awe at the wonder that is a human child's imagination, imagination being the key to life and death in the Mystery Tradition of Alchemy, the genuine philosopher's stone otherwise known, including in Harry Potter, as the elixir of life (see The Philosopher's Stone).
The three thinkers of the French Revolution's philosophical reality encapsulating a three-part dialectic may be named as follows:
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau as the thesis, the work and spirit of whom animated the French Revolution's soul as well as its most classic representative Maximilien de Robespierre
- Edmund Burke as the anti-thesis, whose Reflections on the Revolution in France were a typical English jibe at their French continental neighbours' idealistic politicising, giving a voice to the Conservative tradition in the United Kingdom which has so often defined itself against the French example
- Thomas Paine as the synthesis highlighting the limitations of Burke's conservatism and Rousseau's tyrannical passion by cooly explaining and understanding Natural Law principles that are an intrinsic moral compass to the human condition in his treatise Rights of Man.
As Manly P. Hall argues in his classic work on the occult, The Secret Teachings of All Ages, Christianity owes much of its symbolic lore to the ancient Mystery Traditions of the world, so much so that the Bible can be read as a code highlighting in a tangential way old traditions of esoteric wisdom that long preceded it.
One thought that occurred to me in passing was the significance of the numbers 3 and 12. In Christianity there is of course the Holy Trinity consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and the twelves apostles, correlating in number with the months of the year, the signs of the Zodiac, the hours in a half day and the number of solar system planets (according to Ancient Sumerian ways of counting these), not to mention the 12 god pantheons of Greece, Rome and Scandinavia and the 12 labours of Hercules.
The point I wish to make is that 12 and 3 are identical in numerology because 12 equates to 1 + 2 = 3. This is of course a most cursory insight into the occult elements of Christianity but it appears to escape many people's notice.
And indeed the Greek word for truth, ἀ-λήθεια, means nothing other than what does not escape one's notice the α being privative a bit like our word a-symetrical. Truth-telling in its originary sense is therefore to take out of hiddenness, which is quite literally the task of modern day de-occultists (like Mark Passio) because they bring into the open what has been hidden from the great majority of people, occult meaning hidden in its etymological Latin sense (occultare, to conceal).
Saturday, 23 July 2016
Tat and bellies
It's all about monies
As made-up tarts
Play alluring part
Of red colouring
That mire the view
For the poetic few.
No culture here
Just plenty of beer
To drown out the fear
Of what's most near:
The cycle of need
Yoked by greed
- An insufficient feed
For snobs like me.
Tuesday, 19 July 2016
"a system of economics in which production is based on profit for those who control the capital." - Carroll QuigleyAs Quigley notes, those who control the capital aren't necessarily the owners since in large scale enterprise with widely dispersed stock ownership management is more important than ownership. Accordingly, profits are not the same as dividends and, in fact, dividends become objectionable to management, since they take profits out of their control.
In addition capitalism per se does not equate with free markets. You can have free market capitalism but you can also have dictatorial capitalism as occurred under the Nazi regime in Germany. Strict free markets may indeed foster prosperity and political freedom but in practice the term 'free market' is lip service paid to what is in fact a rigged, controlled and crony-ist control of wealth and production in a few hands, with heavy governmental input in bed with established profit-driven corporate entities.
Selling State owned assets to private hands, often at a loss to the taxpayer, is part and parcel of dictatorial capitalism since it is a practice that assumes governmental impetus and governmental oversight. Hitler engaged in this practice - as well as the destruction of labour rights and the labour movement - which puts paid to the notion that he was a socialist completely at odds with the policies of, say, a Margaret Thatcher.
Although the ugly concept of 'economics' comes from the Greek root for household, οἶκος, an origin which makes me think that the 'science' of economics is at bottom one of household management, of its incomes and outgoings, of its production and consumption, particular to our era of radical technological domestication, the ancient Greeks themselves had no use for a science of economics, and I think they were better for it.
True enough Xenophon did publish a treatise, known as Oeconomicus, on household management and agriculture as did the Roman Cato the Elder who was very explicit as how to best exploit the labour of one's slaves. But mainstream economic theory, which does not question the creation of money as a debt through centralised banking procedures in league with governmental say so, and prostitutes itself to political agendas of mass control and enslavement, is, simply put, a very bad joke.
Friday, 15 July 2016
Wednesday, 13 July 2016
If you're employed you are in someone's employ in return for a compensatory emolument.
In effect, they can use you as they wish, in a moral or immoral manner, government regulation (not)withstanding.
If you are self-employed you use only yourself, excepting the possibility of having others under your employ whom you can also use at will.
If you are unemployed you are in no one's employ including your own, therefore not useable or used by yourself or someone else, whereas an employee is someone who is in some other's employ and is useable and used by that other.
To be employed thus means being used within a certain professional context and to be unemployed means to be unused.
Moreover, to say that someone is employable means that they are useable professionally, and to say someone is unemployable means that they are not useable professionally.
It follows that employers are users.
In recent months I have found myself lying or bending the truth to protect myself from negative repercussions. The main motivator for my lying - which I hate doing - is my own cowardice, i.e. the fear of people getting upset or turning against me if they know the truth, because the truth is socially unacceptable.
It is cowardice that made me pretend to colleagues in my voluntary jobs as well as a medical professional that I am still undergoing university study when I lucidly and voluntarily opted out. It is cowardice that has made me make up false reasons why I was unable to attend certain commitments. I have also made exaggerations to external parties for monetary reasons.
Lying does feel wrong in my soul in that I'm violating the right of others to know the truth. It is purely done out of fear of consequences and a psychological prediction that were I to tell the truth it would lead to discomfort for me and others. In that sense I am still very much in the prison of what people think and the actions they may take based on those thoughts.
What I have noticed, however, is lying itself has caused me to have to make more lies to cover the original lies. There is some truth in the statement that
"telling the truth affects the present. Telling lies affects the future"although telling the truth can also affect the future as well as the present depending on how people react to it. Is lying justified when it's done to avoid (perceived) harm such as friction with people whom I'm not comfortable to be myself with on account of possible prejudice?
Ultimately if they find out that I have been lying won't the repercussions of what they think of me be even more negative than if I'd told them the truth to start with? Is deceiving your enemies, such as the government, immoral when done for reasons of self-preservation?
As I wrote elsewhere (The Habit of Justification), to justify is to invent a law or right that is not in keeping with moral, natural law. Even self-preservation does not, in my view, justify immoral action but I do it regardless, accepting as I must whatever negative consequences this has on my future.
It was Kant I think who said lying to others (as opposed to oneself) is immoral because it devalues language as a vehicle for the expression of truth, and prevents others from making informed judgements and decisions, whether based on your person or not. Of course in contract law, misrepresentation is something that makes a contract voidable.
Anyway the effect of my lies have been to create a distance between myself and others and isolating me from people who are kind-hearted but not, I feel, in a position to understand where I'm coming from, and even though this is a supposition, this supposition is informed by both experience and gut instinct.
An example of this is when I'm asked 'What do you do for a living?'. This is a loaded question for someone like me who is out of work and claims on the State for his living. I could tell the truth but I know I would often be chastised and the object of disapproval which my psychology is too fragile to deal with in situ, depending on whom I'm talking to.
It does appear that lying creates negative consequences in Natural Law and should be avoided but can also help avoid bad consequence as well. It is fear of what other people think and the actions they may take based on those thoughts as well as, much more rarely, the motivation for gain (such as underplaying my relationship with someone to possibly have a relationship with another) that have ultimately made me lie in the past and in the present.
I must conclude that not only am I a coward but that in lying I am human, all too human. Yet in admitting that I'm a liar, I am in some way beginning to tell the truth.
Addendum - Perhaps lying is less immoral when done to avoid harm to self and is more immoral when done to do harm to others. Yet the distinction between the two is not as watertight as it may at first seem, as one can do harm to others in order to prevent harm to oneself.
And as a friend of mine pointed out, a system - such as Stalinism - that forces you to lie merely so as to stay alive is itself immoral. On a cruder note, another friend simply said
"Lying is justified because people are dicks."In other words, not everyone is deserving of the truth and there is no good reason to open yourself up to people who will predictably and necessarily use your truth-telling against you, either by judging you or for purposes of manipulation.
Tuesday, 12 July 2016
Recent exchanges with someone who subscribes to anarcho-capitalist ideology has helped me clarify my own thinking on the issue of money.
This individual appears to think that money is a thing that has no consciousness and only rules the minds of imbalanced individuals. Seeing the benefits of money as a unit of exchange and the material benefits that can and do occur through free trade and free markets, he believes that capitalism, i.e. the system that runs on capital, is a force for good.
I, on the other hand, do not think money exists as an objective thing. Rather I know that it is a quantity that exists only in consciousness and therefore the mind control aspect of money cannot be divorced from its practical uses. Money has for only value what we decide to give to it through our care and attention on a collective scale.
The British Isles used to use tally sticks as their measure for exchange which are no doubt objective things but the value they had in people's minds existed only in their consciousness. Tally sticks, much like gold, have no objective value: you can't eat them, can't use them to protect yourself against the elements, can't use them to build, can't use them as a weapon of self-defence.
I agree with thinker Mark Passio (whatonearthishappening.com) that it spells danger to allow proxy currency, even as mere unit of exchange, to determine the value of the fruit of our labour and nature's resources. The result will always be to divert people's energy away from themselves to suit whatever nefarious elite agenda of the day - money having always been centrally controlled - and encourage the totalitarian quantification of all that is under the sun, such as Conservative ministers in the UK valuing in pound sterling the entirety of Britain's public forests, whose value are simply not quantifiable for those who are not perverted and closed hearted enough to think like that.
if care and attention is what it takes to produce goods and services, why the need for a unit of exchange when these fruits can be based on mutual aid as well as a critical mass insight into the benefits of collective cooperation without coercive control?
As I've written before true money is mon-eye (see Money and Mon-eye), spiritual vision located in the third eye chakra of the pineal gland, and that the only (bank) accounts that matter is what we're ultimately account-able for in terms of our life's thoughts, emotions and actions. If these accounts don't shape up and stand in the negative then we are bankrupt in the true, non financial sense of the word (see Accounts and Accountability).
Carroll Quigley's understanding of European identities is demonstrably profound in his great work Tragedy and Hope. To neatly sum up his understanding we may say that
- The British are the most socialised of Europeans
- The French the most civilised
- The Italians the most gregarious
- The Spanish the most individualistic
- The Germans the most outwardly disciplined
Of course each nationality contains all of these traits but I find that this generalisation has some worth, particularly if read in the context of the book.
Monday, 11 July 2016
Words can be seen as consciousness vibrations, some beneficial, some harmful.
Symbols, colours and images also work as consciousness vibrations and, of course, sounds.
Be mindful of what you look at and listen to, as well as what you eat and drink.
The quality of your consciousness and body depend on it.
Free education isn't the slightest bit 'free' when it's coercive, authority-based and centralised, regardless of the money issue.
In a very early post Truthfulness and Money I pinpointed how the monetary hold on things infects the meaning of words, so that all words revert back to a pecuniary sense.
"What is spoken is never, and in no language, what is said." - Martin HeideggerWhen a politician talks about free education we immediately know that he means monetary freedom - at taxpayer's expense of course - rather than true freedom of learning and un-coerced personal flourishing through open minded guidance, semination (seminars contain the French word semer which means to sew) , and creative inspiration.
The words community and communion come from the assembly of two Latin words; the prefix com which, like con, means 'together' and the verb munio, to build, to fortify.
As such community and communion mean to fortify, to build together.
Contrast with the word network which, in its morphology, means to work within a net, like the inter-net.
Sunday, 10 July 2016
The food you eat doesn't just affect your body, it affects the quality of your consciousness.
By poisoning the food (and water) supply, social engineers disrupt the mind body complex which, once unified, alone enables the coming to prominence of spirit, which is the force that animates all beings under creation, nay, creation itself.
One reason I have a taste for conspiracy and the occult is that my temperament leans towards the forbidden as opposed to the given, the margins as opposed to the conventional, the banks as opposed to the current, the corners as opposed to the centre.
It was a Nietzsche who saw a taste for the forbidden as a pre-requisite for truth-seeking.
Applying due diligence in order to get to grips with one's political thinking is a bit like doing one's bank accounts. It's unpleasant, drawn out, divisive, you rarely win but is unavoidable to find one's place in the quagmire of varying human perception and rapports de force just as keeping a tab on one's outgoings is unavoidable to stay afloat in the quagmire of monetary society and commercial predation.
Saturday, 9 July 2016
Twitter is in large part a platform for the phenomenon of word warfare, including invective, between competing and discordant understandings.
Indeed, λόγος πόλεμος ἐστιν, the word is strife, especially in the realm of political discourse.
If we all agreed on everything, perhaps language itself would disappear as we would always fall in line with the thoughts of others, needing no verbal exchange.
That said by forbidding drawn out exchanges and forcing soundbite assertions in the paltry character limit that is Twitter's, the platform is one of superficial jousting and ephemeral alliances.
Friday, 8 July 2016
Puppet Gary Johnston's speech in the movie Team America: World Police is priceless. Here it is in full.
We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!This is politicking at its crudest level.
Left-wing 'pussies' who want a nurturing government and negatively react to social justice offences hate the right-wing 'dicks' who want a government that polices and punishes. These dicks troll said social justice people, because, as Gary Johnston points out, dicks love to fuck pussies. But while the dicks are fucking the pussies, engendering in turn more pussies and dicks through their procreative intercourse, psychopathic 'arseholes' shit on both left-wing pussies and right-wing dicks who are so busy fucking each other they don't realise they're being covered in shit by the political system of controlled opposition which is owned by arseholes (essentially bankers and dark occultists) who, to quote Gary, "just want to shit on everything."
To be sure, the point Gary is making is that right-wing dicks are the only ones capable of fucking arseholes as left-wing pussies can be so full of shit in their righteous indignation they turn into arseholes themselves. Unfortunately right-wing dicks rarely fuck arseholes at the top because you need balls to fuck arseholes and being right-wing usually means having no balls and fucking those pariah groups who aren't really shitting on the dicks which is the preserve of arseholes. As Gary says, dicks fuck when it isn't appropriate and it takes a pussy, e.g. someone with social justice concerns, to show them that.
Ultimately we all have dick and pussy within us, some being more dick than pussy and some more pussy than dick, but it takes the anarchist finger to point the pussies and dicks at both the shit they're covered in and the arseholes responsible.
Addendum - It's an error, I think, to subscribe to the view that pussies are weaker than dicks. Dicks like to fuck pussies, sure, but are also afraid of them, i.e. their power. Put differently, pussies get fucked by dicks but can turn dicks down for sex, whence dicks being pussy-teased and pussy-whipped. And babies come from pussies, not dicks. In that sense pussies rule the world even though they occasionally get fucked by dicks when it suits them (rape withstanding). Moreover, some people think they're dicks when they're pussies and vice-versa. Perhaps it is best to embrace both the dick and pussy within us and use our finger to point at and screw the arseholes.
Addendum 2 - For a later, more developed, take on the concept of 'pussy' see later post Who are the "Pussies"?.
Anarcho-capitalists protest no end against government but rarely question public and private sector slavery in the form of jobs culture.
Anarchy means no hierarchy, i.e. no ruler. Yet most jobs involve having a boss who tells you it's my way or the highway, destroy all your free time, force you to tasks that often contribute nothing to the welfare of society (often the reverse), invade your private life, make you exhausted and irritable, harm your physical and mental health and so on.
These same anarchists then argue that you are free not to take a job offer or to quit a job you already have.
Yet not having a job, under strict capitalism, means being out of money's reach, meaning you are de facto barred from interaction with monetary society, where all goods are priced, i.e. accessible only via money's purchase.
Most people aren't free to quit or turn down jobs because the monetary system is so entrenched and living without money would require giving up on all the amenities that are subject to pricing.
They could of course become self-employed, like James Corbett of the corbettreport.com, and that is a free-er option, but even James Corbett is a slave to money for his survival, let alone his output.
I applaud attempts at freeing up the monetary system, where different currencies are in usage and money is not created as a debt from the start designed to enslave working populations.
Money can be a useful tool although currently is not just a tool but an end in itself. The whole of financial capitalism, which brings no real wealth to the table in terms of goods or services as opposed to commercial or industrial capitalism, is premised on money as a value in itself, not as a value of exchange.
More to the point money is a social technology, an artificial resource, and depending on how technology is used - in the case of money it is far from being a moral usage - technology can either enslave of liberate.
And indeed the majority of workers hate their jobs according to worldwide polls but are forced to work them to survive. Where's the anarchic freedom in that?
Essentially, in our centralised, monopolistic monetary system, if you have money you have freedom to live and consume but that is a very narrow, reductive understanding of freedom, since it is basically ruled by the necessity of self-preservation.
Hannah Arendt saw freedom as the opposite of necessity; where there is necessity, the need to sustain bare, biological life, there is no freedom and where there is freedom, the protection of the world manifested in the public realm, there is no necessity.
This is why the Ancients, she argues, had slaves; to be free from the necessities of life preservation to be able to dedicate themselves to the freedom of the public realm where being 'a speaker of great words, and a doer of great deeds', like Achilles in Homer, is preserved beyond one's mortal lifespan for all posterity to re-member.
Jobs by contrast, which belong to the techno-social realm, are, in theory at least, about the preservation of biological life, the task of slaves in the Ancient World.
Of course, modern technological jobs hardly ever aim directly at the preservation of life as opposed to the making of money (usually for shareholders/CEOs in return for a pay cheque), with monstrous results (e.g. Monsanto destroying food ecosystems, necessary for human survival, for profit).
The rise of the techno-social realm means that necessity, bare life considerations and its offshoots of 'entertainment' (distraction), consumption, base-pleasure seeking, which are all animal drives, have turned human being into domestic cattle.
[A propos, as I've written elsewhere in Economics as Domestication, the rise to prominence of the economic worldview is possibly linked with the domestication of mankind into jobholding householders with the State being the giant household overseeing all the others, economics of course coming from the Greek οἷκος meaning household.]
As Mark Passio from whatonearthishappening.com states, we have been reduced to animals in a pen. And the way we treat other non-human sentient beings in factory farms speaks volumes about the level of our collective consciousness as a species.
To conclude this post I will quote anarchist philosopher Kropotkin:
"There is no civil liberty as long as you are an economic slave."
Social media are called social media, not public media. This is because in the Modern World, as Hannah Arendt exposes in her wonderful philosophical treatise The Human Condition, the public-private divide inherited from the Ancient World has been all but obliterated.
The social sphere is a nebulous zone that blurs the public, political realm with the private, individual realm. This is is one of the phenomena, Arendt argues, that contributes to the coming to prominence of totalitarian regimes which have the atomised mass-ification of human beings as their basis.
Philosopher Giorgio Agamben has elaborated on this thesis, namely that the bare, naked life of labouring self-sustainment, what the Greeks called ζωή, whether through jobholding or its converse, consuming, is one that allows for a large margin of control and manipulation.
On the other hand, dignified, purposeful, free life, i.e. unbound by the necessity of self-preservation, what the Greeks called βίος, such as the βίος πολιτικός (life as a free citizen of the πόλις) or the βίος θεωρητικός (life of the contemplative philosopher), is not so easily controllable.
National sovereignty (natio, in Latin, meaning birth) or governmental power is essentially founded upon ζωή, naked life which gives rise to the phenomenon of biopolitics, the control and manipulation of the life process itself and the human body as vehicle for that process, as evidenced in the gathering of biometric data, genetic interference, production of GMO foods, and other technocratic methods of control.
Social media also contribute to the mass gathering of data for the powers that (should not) be and are reflective more, I would argue, of naked life than dignified life in that they belong to the nebulous social sphere where the private invades the public. The reason social media do not count as public media in my books is that they fail to provide a physical space, distinct from the realm of the social, for the exchange of deeds and words, i.e. the apparition of freedom, the end of politics being freedom, not management, in Arendt's thinking.
In other words social media are social rather than public media in that they encourage and sustain the invasion of the public sphere by the private sphere, although this is more the case of Facebook than platforms like Twitter (which is very political) or the fairly artistically driven Tumblr. It is only in the public sphere, Arendt argues, that the world, that which binds us and separates us at the same time, comes to manifestation.