Wednesday, March 27, 2013

New East India Company

There have been marauding bodies and tribes of trading corporatists, relatively independent of nations, since before the East India Company, before the Mongol hordes, before Eric the Red, before the first shipping companies, before the caravans of the Silk Road, before Abraham. These marauding companies have both enriched and vexed established communities and nations. To cohere, they have always had their extra-national codes and customs, leading eventually to the law of the sea and the law merchant. Such extra-national "law" has always been unreliable when great riches and power beckon for being easily pirated against immediate weak resistence. Thus, marauding corporations have time and again brought down established cultures and nations. One does not engage in "free and fair trade" with Vikings, privateers, or pirates --- even when they come as Janus faced lawyers and priests.
.
Human nature is such that "small government and open private trade" are simply not talismen for any self respecting culture that desires to sustain itself. A nation without foresight and means to protect itself against privateering insinuations of corporatists who do not share its values is little more than a child with an attractive lollipop. The sad thing is that foreign corporations tend so easily to recruit apologists and enablers from within the cultures and nations upon which they intend to prey.  Injecting that mindset into populations at large is the prelude to successful privateering.
.
Indeed, growing brains are easy to groom and groove to represent apologies for subjective self interest as if such apologies represented common objective truths. Just look at how easily Islam converts desire not to be beheaded into zealous defense of the faith. But this easy susceptibility of the brain is hardly confined to Islam. Rather, it permeates every field of human endeavor where skilled traders and trainers acquire financing and power over sheeple for the dispensation of bribes and threats and pleasures and pains.  The insidious root from which branches are springing forth for strangling the American ideal consists in the failure of the Founders to ensure adequate checks and balances against dangerous entanglements with foreign privateering corporatists.   Now, a shadow of the East India Company, the NWO, has returned with vengeance, to re-colonize and re-enserf America.  Meanwhile, the people at large are so divided and duped that most do not see that the Dim Party is merely the hireling of the establishment Rino Party.  Each thinks the solution to all its problems is to cut off the head of the other, never realizing that they are two heads of the same Beast.  And so we go, quarreling all the while we are being corralled.
.
*******
.
However faithful the geezering among middle class Americans, they will remain impotent to coordinate against their enemy until they are willing to raise fingers to identify their enemy. The enemy is not a mere abstraction. The enemy is the palpable evil that abides and expands in the nature of each of us. Among those who, by cutthroat competition, become major owners and directors of foreign corporations, how many are supposed to refrain from the cutthroat acquisition, division, and rule of the little people?
.
Should we blindly trust those who are raised on cutthroat competion, who have acquired oligarchic control over major media outlets, to make such outlets nurture society's views to become other than those views that are hedged to the owners' material advantage? What does the "open society" of the NWO look like? Does it not look like a society of largely open borders and easily manipulated or erased cultures? For the "open society" NWO of establishment corporatists, are not nations just precincts of convenience for the indoctrination and summoning of serfs and soldiers?
.
Until the American middle class commits to measures to tax or reduce the political grip of the new corporate mafia order, all talk about preserving America's national culture is idleness. Meanwhile, middle class Rinos and middle class Dinos are cheered to beat each other up, to the jolly entertainment of the new owners.
 

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

In soul, I want to be a WISO (white in soul only). In body, I want to be a HBS (horned black sheep, watching over the h'abyss).

Anonymous said...

People tend to project their worldviews onto God. People who want to be God begin by asserting they are God's messenger, infallible voice, or perfect interpretor. People who want to serve God understand their own humble imperfection and seek to respect the Golden Rule. Would you have others raise you up as a child to want to use force to reduce everyone else to cattle and to tolerate no deviance? That is the Islamic world. Or would you want to be of a society that facilitated equal opportunity for parents to pursue happiness and to converse about their understanding of God among themselves and with their children? We would be a better nation had we not so much banned the idea of a caring, inviting, superior, assimilating God from the public square. For a short time, that was part of America's world. There was nothing about that world that had to be interpreted as incompatible with science. As science increased our hold on the material world, many presumed to seek to reduce respect for God to science. The seed of great moral error was sown in that presumption. The primal potential of consciousness is irreducible to science because it is the source from which science is derived. Science cannot prove its source, and its source cannot be reduced to science. Rather, its source is to be experienced, intuited, honored, celebrated, humbly discussed, and appreciated. Dogma is a beginning point for understanding, not a truth in itself. To the best of my intuition, the only non-trivial truth in itself is God. When we turn from receptivity to that Guide, we soon make a wasteland.

Anonymous said...

Wannabe parents get married not just to have children, but to JOINTLY accept the legal responsibility they will have for the children of whom they become parents --- REGARDLESS of contract. Once we get to polygamous civil unions, legislators will struggle to make sensible rules that will limit the familial responsibilities of some of the late comers to the polygamous tribal union. People will become polygamous not out of sexual interest, but out of legal interest. If you think too many idiot lawyers are already making too many idiotic laws, you ain't seen nothing yet. Too many people regurgitate rote "answers" to justify their wannas, with very little visionary accompaniment. I feel I wanna and I was born to feel I wanna, therefore gaga gaga I am right grope grope. This is the thinking of the "civic minded" leftyweirder.

Anonymous said...

I suspect there will soon be people who want every so often to switch gender roles, and some will have the money to get operations to make physical changes, back and forth. No doubt, the children they have or adopt will also want to feel "normal." Is it really a good idea to trick a kid of an abnormal family into believing his situation is normal? Shouldn't the kid learn to face reality regarding what is normal, regardless of whatever family he was blessed with? Is the human psyche really "advanced" enough to be able to make foundational changes all across society such that nothing can be anchored to normality?

Anonymous said...

It seems beyond our power to conceptualize a standard model that reconciles linearity with circularity. If there is a Reconciler, He is beyond mortal. The question that haunts linearists is, What then? If the answer is a circle, More of the same, then why not now? Does time progress to an end point? Does all of time already exist, or does only the perpetual present exist? Does God participate with us in time, or does God stand wholly outside of time? Is time "itself" only a stubborn illusion? I lack the dogmatism to believe one standard model will ever fit all mortal needs. I suspect mortals must continue to vector in and out and phase back and forth among rationalizations and concepts, on an as needed basis. We won't comprehend God by a non-formula such as, We have free will, even though all our choices have already been determined. Nor will we unify science by formulizing that our universe is essentially a random bubble, except not really. Are we mere clockworks, or clockworks orange, or something else? It turns out there is a Chapter 21 to A Clockwork Orange, to which Americans were not much treated. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Anonymous said...

It seems beyond our power to conceptualize a standard model that reconciles linearity with circularity. If there is a Reconciler, He is beyond mortal. The question that haunts linearists is, What then? If the answer is a circle, More of the same, then why not now? Does time progress to an end point? Does all of time already exist, or does only the perpetual present exist? Does God participate with us in time, or does God stand wholly outside of time? Is time "itself" only a stubborn illusion? I lack the dogmatism to believe one standard model will ever fit all mortal needs. I suspect mortals must continue to vector in and out and phase back and forth among rationalizations and concepts, on an as needed basis. We won't comprehend God by a non-formula such as, We have free will, even though all our choices have already been determined. Nor will we unify science by formulizing that our universe is essentially a random bubble, except not really. Are we mere clockworks, or clockworks orange, or something else? It turns out there is a Chapter 21 to A Clockwork Orange, to which Americans were not much treated. I'm looking forward to reading it. Variations on these issues dog every 'Ism. Scratch an Ism, find within it that which it pretends to abhor. Much depends on receptivity to a Reconciler: Does one wish to serve God, or to replace (or scientifically reduce) God? (Islam seeks to replace God with a "perfect literalism" sent by a messenger and interpreted by elite Mullahs and Imams.)

Anonymous said...

The majority of mankind has banished respect for a caring and inviting God. A rush fills the vacuum. It comes from those who worship a hideous God who punishes for the joy of punishing. A rush comes also from those who want to advance their rank within chains of material power. Muslims and Communists, defilers of decency and spirituality. Those who are consolidating control over corporations, cultures and countries tend to be of a cheap and common character. Their talent is for spectacle that little values distinction between infamy and fame, prostitution and principle, or family and pimpery. The Big Giant Sheik Pimp Daddy. The test for each transaction is: "What difference does in make" ... in terms of advancing positions in the materialist heirarchy.


Until hell solidifies control over earth, there will always be disproportionate material opportunity for cronies bent on selling their souls. All that is required is unrelenting willingness to game exchanges of evil favors. A system that would inculcate respect for a caring and inviting God would faciliate human freedom and dignity. Under it, there would be trust, communication, and flux among classes. But what is facilitated under a system that ridicules such a God and that inculcates beliefs in predetermination and meaninglessness outside of matter? Under it, trust will tend to be based not on principle, but on pure perception of material motivation. What moral principles can a philosophy of pure materialism and predeterminism defend?


Thus devolves only two classes under the religion of predetermined materialism: a Ruling Class (or mutual admiration society) that is sufficiently talented and ruthless in deception; a Ruled Class that seems never to grow tired of pretending to believe (or never learns not to believe). Among both classes, most will live under fear that their true natures may be uncovered at any time.


Under the religion of materialism, there is little reason to promote decency beyond the formalisms of deception. Under the religion of materialism, skull and bones headhunters will always seek cannibal acolytes to promote. Applicants will be promoted depending on willingness to cheat the law, talent for deception while appearing sympathetic, skill in shell games for cupping kickbacks, connectedness among connivers of crisis, and knowledge for how to closet and de-closet skeletons. What gay, Nazi fun! Cronies opportunizing in springtime! Now playing on every channel and in every institution.

Anonymous said...

Libs like to say they're born that way. Some are born with tendencies. But it's a load to say all homosexuals are born that way. It is counter to common sense to say that many homosexuals are not conditioned or trained to be that way, or to say that the examples presented by their parents and social support systems are wholly without influence. Since social and familial influence is a factor in some families, then ask: Is it a moral question for parents to decide what sort of example they should present? Should subtle aspects in how they raise their children be applied to tend towards raising a straight, bi, homosexual, or trangendered children? Should that never be a moral issue? If not, should the example presented by parents simply be one of the parents' preferences, irrespective of the interests of the children? If that is the idea, then how is that kind of homosexual interest in a child to be considered as being all that different from the treatment of a child as a chattel, or a thing for the amusement of parents? Should parents raise their children to be exposed in equal measure to all influences and let either the children or random effects determine the course? Because no man is an island, I think the issue is a moral one. Indeed, even to choose to decide not to guide a child is to make a (moral) choice. In such cases, I don't see how homosexuals can assert that the moral thing is either to provide no guidance or to guide a child to be homosexual. I think the moral choice, all other factors being equal, is to guide a child to take a responsible place in society. I think lawmakers generally have a rational basis for enacting laws that tend to show general preferences for encouraging citizens to enter into straight relationships and families. Bedroom activities need not be regulated, but neither need we pretend that fairness requires that they must be considered equal. The worrisome thing is this: The Gay Police people seem hell bent to use government either to use schools to undermine parents or to directly regulate parenting by making it a hate crime to raise children to believe that, all other things being equal, the morally preferable thing is to raise up to be a straight citizen. When reason and history fail them, they fall back on some toddler formula, like a toddler saying to his parents, I'm embarassed for you. We are now awash in toddlers playing grownup and pretending that fundamentals of decency don't matter.

Anonymous said...

The Left fails to understand the point that they, especially their militant homosexuals, treat kids as chattel. Chattel is not far removed from sex toys. The worldwide trade among Lefties for using kids as sex toys is obvious. In conservative families, parents want to raise their kids to be functionally responsible adults, able to help sustain decent society. Libs think morality and decency are just alternative words for stroking wannas. The Left has no concept for how to raise kids to be independent of government, responsible enough to know how to curb inappropriate impulses. For the Left, kids tend to be mere property, to be bought, wound up, programmed with political correctness, and trained to crap all over every value that could be useful for preserving a republic that facilitates individual responsibility and liberty, free of excessive constraints of big government. The fundamental point of Leftist-fascists is that they WANT to be the property of their masters. They want to be owned agents for extending the treatment as property to their kids. In their state of fundamental confusion, they argue there is no difference in their treatment of kids as chattel versus the treatment of conservative parents of their kids as blessings from God, to be raised up to be independently responsible to God (not to government or crony owners of government). At a fundamental level, Leftists tend to be as stunted as toddlers in terms of spirituality, responsibility, and decency. There is no adult reasoning with toddlers because toddlers have no sense of superior reference by which to apprehend that they really do not know very much at all. A moral toddler who thinks he knowsitall cannot be reasoned with in terms of what is needed to facilitate a sustainable, decent society. There is little reason to take seriously the moral condemnation of an amoral toddler.

Dlanor said...

For Materialists, the only purpose of material bodies is to materially stroke their naughty bits.

Anonymous said...

These snippets about Wittgenstein from Wikipedia seem interesting:
.
"The later Wittgenstein rejected many of the assumptions of the Tractatus, arguing that the meaning of words is constituted by the function they perform within any given language game."
.
"He argues that philosophical problems are bewitchments that arise from philosophers' misguided attempts to consider the meaning of words independently of their context, usage, and grammar, what he called 'language gone on holiday'."
.
I would relate to those quotes from Wikipedia as follows: That there is no reality-in-itself-that-is-objectively-measurable-to-mortals. There is, however, a qualitative Source of truth. Thus, we can communicate meaningfully insofar as we communicate a kind of music (including preludes to the destructive creation of music on top of music). At any given locus, "meaning" depends on a chorus that unfolds in respect of (1) particular perspective, (2) field of context, and (3) subjective purposefulness. (What I would call the observer-appreciator-purpose effect.) On the flip side of the qualitative, our shared cosmos is the intersubjective connection that conserves and reconciles our communications. "God" is the medium by which we are connected, so that our forms of communication arise out of what otherwise would seem to be nothing more than chaos. That medium seems indeed to be of a quality that is "inherent." But it seems also to be beyond measurable comprehension. In that sense, of being "beyond," I take the medium to be transcendent. In respect of it, we are availed connections in transcendent subjectivity, i.e., "intersubjectivity." I of course cannot "know" whether the medium of chaos is itself "conscious" in any way that I experience consciousness. However, its conservational and reconciling nature seems apparent. And, insofar as it itself is not measurably material, yet avails means for communications among perspectives of consciousness, it does not seem unreasonable to intuit or believe that it is of a character of reconciling consciousness. (That belief probably occurs to many of us because we have had eerie experiences, beyond coincidence, as if a holism were taking us by the hand.) To my experience, it seems that nurturing such belief tends to conduce and inspire civilization that respects the dignity and liberty of individuals. At least, more so than suckling on Mother Earth. I don't take history as supporting the superiority of a political philosophy that is based on little more than arguing for the communal sharing of Mother Earth.
.
Whether Wittgenstein was "really" a transcendental idealist has been a subject of debate. See http://www.academia.edu/346978/Was_the_Later_Wittgenstein_a_Transcendental_Idealist

Anonymous said...

Corporations are collectives that are owned by persons who need not be their employees and that are organized to produce a profit or an agenda.

Republics are collectives that are not owned, not profit-producing, and not in pursuit of any agenda apart from that of those who hold the means to direct them. If those who hold the means to direct them are educated, skilled, loyal, and empathetic, they may use such means to establish and promote a decent society that facilitates reasonable human freedom and dignity.

Anonymous said...

Corporations are collectives that are owned by persons who need not be the employees, and that are organized as common conspiracies for pursuing profits or agendas.

Republics are collectives that are not owned, not profit-producing, and not in pursuit of any agenda apart from that of those who hold the means to direct them. If those who hold the means to direct them are educated, skilled, loyal, and empathetic, they may use such means to establish and promote a decent society that facilitates reasonable human freedom and dignity.

Such a republican collective is always in danger of being infested and overtaken by corporations that serve narrower interests and conspiracies that are foreign to those of the republic. It is mortally dangerous to a republic to allow foreign, disloyal, profit-seeking conspiracies essentially open, unchecked, and untaxed access for buying oligarchic influence over its educators, border-controllers, media, entertainers, regulators, governors, and candidates for political positions.

As things stand in America, there has been an end run around all checks against central usurpation over local governance, and there has been an end run around all checks against foreign, disloyal buying up of all significant influence over central command. If the syndicated agenda of those who have bought control is to open America and ravage its innards, as a springboard from which to open and harvest all other nations, then there is very little that remains in the Constitution or in any assimilation of educated, skilled, or spiritually inspired culture that is effective to check them.