EC 458 GoveRment is an aLien
People
© Eso A.B.
The Mints of the Crumbling Cookie
© Translation Eso A.B.
My perspective is influenced by my spiritual inheritance, which comes through an old and labyrinthine line issuing from a long line of ancestors of which I can trace a) five generations through church records; b) another five generations or more through the analysis of my dna; and c) ten more generations through what I know of religious history, specifically as it effects eastern and western Christian theology. True, much of this ancestry is shrouded in fog and lacks detail, and such pathways as I have reconstructed are through pareidolia that comes naturally to a poetically inclined mind. The poet necessarily tests and plays with words—whether they be of grasses or trees or whether they be form clusters of thoughts—a practice which allows words and word clusters to combine in such ways as to provide the poet and his audience with new insights into the nature of things.
The word clusters that issue from the young MIT economic professor damn him as a representative example of a ‘priesthood’ of atheists that presumes to rule in our time in no less audacious manner than once upon a time the Dominicans and the Franciscans presumed to impose their rule through violence over 12th century Europe.*
Incidentally, the Franciscans named themselves after the Franks, who had settled in the Benelux after being forced to flee fromByzantium herders of reindeer,
while the Dominicans originate from the environs of the battle fields of a
crusade in Languedoc
As if to do professor Gruber’s arrogance one better, biologist Richard Dawkins, attacks the very nature of human beings who perceive their consciousness to be more than imprisonment in matter that makes up the materialist and behaviourist body politic and is limited to the brain mass in their heads. The discussion at the link is designed to project biologist Dawkin’s views, not to test or analyze the views of the participants or the presumptions of Dawkins himself. My view is that the discussion is at a third remove from the events that motivate their remembrance—if we give credence to the concerns that question the validity of the Catholic version of history, which arose from the priests of Western Christianity siding with governments which founded themselves on the repression of people through the imposition of taxation and removal of the 11th Commandment from the Bible. While there is no direct evidence that there ever was an 11th Commandment, we may deduce its existence through the fact that no one in the West of yesterday or the World of today questions taxation or doubts that it is an evolutionary by product of Nature once it is factored into the social fabric.
It is worth remembering that the form of government known as ‘democracy’ has no attraction for the majority of people (except perhaps at the time of the overthrow of a king explicitly opposed to his self-sacrificing predecessors). While today kings are no longer facts of life, we have massive state propaganda aimed against ‘communism’, which defines as common ownership of everything (or as: “a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state”. What is generally omitted from the last definition is the fact that elitist leadership has forced humankind from the wood into the desert and rubbish pile of the fort-castle-city, where the beneficiaries of the desert of concrete is the elite, while the commons is forced to abandoned the ‘gifts of nature’ which accompanied humanity as it rose to consciousness.
What differentiates Marx’s communism from Nature’s communism is “ownership of the means of production”. Production in our time is no longer in the hands of the bourgeois, but pseudo-state corporatism. It was clear from the beginning of the Industrial age that state corporatism was in no way equivalent to Nature’s communism. Today, we have additional proof of the non-equivalence between the production methods of nature and corporations in the exhaustion of natural resources and energy needed for their extraction—as the following podcast makes clear http://traffic.libsyn.com/kunstlercast/KunstlerCast_253.mp3.
The question that confronts us today is: How are we going to survive? The answer: not by ‘democracy’; but by the self-sacrifice of that God who affects our imagination.
© Eso A.B.
The Mints of the Crumbling Cookie
© Translation Eso A.B.
The following is a video of a young MIT economics professor-‘priest’
of the order of PhD being forced into a corner by a politician doing little
more than repeating back to the priest his own words http://www.infowars.com/mit-prof-gruber-just-trying-to-look-smart-by-calling-americans-stupid/
.
I am not known for looking favourably on that group of
men and women who presume themselves to step in between the individual and
his-her God (or Eternity) in order to enable yet another group of men in the
business of politics to become newly minted Gods as it were.
My perspective is influenced by my spiritual inheritance, which comes through an old and labyrinthine line issuing from a long line of ancestors of which I can trace a) five generations through church records; b) another five generations or more through the analysis of my dna; and c) ten more generations through what I know of religious history, specifically as it effects eastern and western Christian theology. True, much of this ancestry is shrouded in fog and lacks detail, and such pathways as I have reconstructed are through pareidolia that comes naturally to a poetically inclined mind. The poet necessarily tests and plays with words—whether they be of grasses or trees or whether they be form clusters of thoughts—a practice which allows words and word clusters to combine in such ways as to provide the poet and his audience with new insights into the nature of things.
The word clusters that issue from the young MIT economic professor damn him as a representative example of a ‘priesthood’ of atheists that presumes to rule in our time in no less audacious manner than once upon a time the Dominicans and the Franciscans presumed to impose their rule through violence over 12th century Europe.*
Incidentally, the Franciscans named themselves after the Franks, who had settled in the Benelux after being forced to flee from
As if to do professor Gruber’s arrogance one better, biologist Richard Dawkins, attacks the very nature of human beings who perceive their consciousness to be more than imprisonment in matter that makes up the materialist and behaviourist body politic and is limited to the brain mass in their heads. The discussion at the link is designed to project biologist Dawkin’s views, not to test or analyze the views of the participants or the presumptions of Dawkins himself. My view is that the discussion is at a third remove from the events that motivate their remembrance—if we give credence to the concerns that question the validity of the Catholic version of history, which arose from the priests of Western Christianity siding with governments which founded themselves on the repression of people through the imposition of taxation and removal of the 11th Commandment from the Bible. While there is no direct evidence that there ever was an 11th Commandment, we may deduce its existence through the fact that no one in the West of yesterday or the World of today questions taxation or doubts that it is an evolutionary by product of Nature once it is factored into the social fabric.
It is worth remembering that the form of government known as ‘democracy’ has no attraction for the majority of people (except perhaps at the time of the overthrow of a king explicitly opposed to his self-sacrificing predecessors). While today kings are no longer facts of life, we have massive state propaganda aimed against ‘communism’, which defines as common ownership of everything (or as: “a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state”. What is generally omitted from the last definition is the fact that elitist leadership has forced humankind from the wood into the desert and rubbish pile of the fort-castle-city, where the beneficiaries of the desert of concrete is the elite, while the commons is forced to abandoned the ‘gifts of nature’ which accompanied humanity as it rose to consciousness.
What differentiates Marx’s communism from Nature’s communism is “ownership of the means of production”. Production in our time is no longer in the hands of the bourgeois, but pseudo-state corporatism. It was clear from the beginning of the Industrial age that state corporatism was in no way equivalent to Nature’s communism. Today, we have additional proof of the non-equivalence between the production methods of nature and corporations in the exhaustion of natural resources and energy needed for their extraction—as the following podcast makes clear http://traffic.libsyn.com/kunstlercast/KunstlerCast_253.mp3.
The question that confronts us today is: How are we going to survive? The answer: not by ‘democracy’; but by the self-sacrifice of that God who affects our imagination.
*St. Dominic presumed Western Christianity to be
superior to Eastern Christianity, which prevailed in Albigensia (now part of
southern France
No comments:
Post a Comment