[ashvin]

Reverse Engineer post=3829 wrote: [quote=ashvin post=3809]
Where is it Written that you have to do “research” to elucidate the Truth? If I am sitting under a tree and an Apple plops on my head, do I need to do research to know that apples always fall down after disengaging from trees they grow on? They NEVER fall UP. I do of course need a math background to work up a symbolic representation of how fast they accelerate, but I don’t need to do a hell of a lot of research past that already contained in First Principles I already learned or figured out over time.

If there was a lot of variance in how Homo Sapiens behaves in conditions like we are working our way into here it would be problematic, but there isn’t much variance. That a Peaceful Solution with everyone Turning the Other Cheek is going to occur here is Unlikely in the EXTREMIS. Given that knowledge, then if you want to engineer a Good Outcome, you figure out how the Variables work in the Violent solutons that always ARE actually taken. Apples ALWAYS fall down Ashvin, and Homo Sapiens ALWAYS reacts violently when confronted with life threatening situations such as Starvation and violent oppression. You can’t make Apples fall up Ashvin.

RE

I don’t have much time right now, but let me just make two points in response really quickly here:

1) Gotta love when people reference the silly idea that deep thinkers like Newton discovered some form of Truth by having an apple fall on his head. It only seems that way in our post-scientific worldview when we look back hundreds of years… in reality, it takes a lot more mental effort and, yes, research/collaboration with others.

2) Do you not see the ass backwards logic you are using? On one hand, you claim that only very few people have actually been able to stick to true Christian principles over the years (something I would agree with), and the other hand you say that we therefore need to abandon those principles and keep doing the same shit we have been doing for thousands of years, which has ALWAYS resulted in bad outcomes and has brought us exactly to where we are today. You want to turn all of humanity into violent robots and, I’m very glad to break it you RE, but you are dead wrong about that.

[ashvin]

Surly1 post=3817 wrote:
RE and others mock the Bible and Christian tenets, which is their prerogative. Organized religion makes it easy; barely a week goes by without some loudmouth fundy making mock of what the Prince of Peace actually is attributed to have said. I am reminded of what Gandhi said about Christianity: “I like your Christ very much. Your Christians are not very much like your Christ.” Sez it all. I try to live and make moral choices in some nodding acquaintance with what Jesus said. And he did indeed say, “Give us THIS day our daily bread.”

Flies right in the face of the unlimited growth paradigm, from where I sit.

Yeah, and even the OT God as well. The Israelites were given/shown “manna” during their journey through the Desert, but were instructed only to take what they could consume in one day, because any surplus “bred worms and stank”. I think this can be taken literally and symbolically. With the latter, the surplus is being associated with the evil that breeds in humanity when they are tempted by materialist desires, above and beyond those necessary for physical survival. I don’t think it is a completely unavoidable outcome, since we ultimately have free will no matter what kind of surplus is present, but the Test of that will becomes exponentially greater.

Generally and unfortunately, we have failed these tests over and over again throughout history…

[ashvin]

pansceptic post=3816 wrote: I would sure support an Orkin Man who could take this segment of the population out of the gene pool; they are the ones who are drawn like moths to positions of economic, political, or religious power so they can do “what they always wanted to do”.

Well, I don’t want to “grind you” here, but what you are describing IS Eugenics and IS exactly one major fear that I have with any Orkin Man Master Plan that ends up coming onto the scene. It is relatively easy for a deceptive force to conjure up about false information/data about this “genetic predisposition” to evil and who or who may not have it.

If you can actually point me towards some legitimate scientific studies that have isolated psychopathic tendencies to parts of the human genome, then we have something to talk about. If not, then we are engaged in pure, baseless speculation and it is potentially very dangerous speculation at that.

What if the more frightening reality is that there’s really just a loose confederation of psychopaths, driven by individual greed, lust for power, and short-sighted decision making?

Regardless of how you want to label them, Illuminati or “loose confederation”, I think it is undeniable that there are relatively few people who have concentrated most of the world’s wealth and exercise a good deal of control over political, economic, cultural systems. I do not believe these people were destined to occupy this role because of their genetics, because the evidence for that simply isn’t there. If we want to general descriptive labels, I like the one “deceptive force”, because that’s what they ultimately do – deceive us for their own selfish goals. The U.S. MIC is no doubt a key part of this force.

[ashvin]

I’ll put my kids up against these folks anytime. No more pussy footing around with this stuff.

OK RE, I’ll go down this line of thinking with you a little bit.

Basically what you’ve been doing here in re: spirituality is what you vociferously accused me of doing in that one thread awhile ago – ridiculing someone for having “radical” ideas. Except, I actually did some research on Icke and his theories before I started ridiculing him.

Have you really looked into the details of Bible, in terms of historical descriptions, inter-Biblical consistency and, most importantly, theological messaging? We’re talking about a set of the most comprehensive and consistent (yet also complex) ancient documents ever written down, copied and transmitted. Parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the OT date all the way back to 380 BCE.

There are are plenty of Biblical Scholars out there who are not Christian or Jewish, RE. I’m sure they could provide you plenty of fodder for your critiques of the Bible and the Christian Faith, but you have to actually do the research before you are justified in ridicule (and none of them really end up “ridiculing” it anyway). And I guarantee that research will raise a lot more questions for you before they raise a lot more answers, but that’s just the nature of the beast.

I find it hilarious that so many “liberal progressive” types these days dismiss the Bible off-hand as looney tunes without bothering to study it in the least, but unconditionally accept other historical/philisophical accounts written by the Ancient Greeks and Romans during the SAME time period, ones that are less preserved and less consistent between copies. Hilarious, but also an unsurprising reflection of the lazy armchair-opinionated “scholarship” that passes for critical thinking these days.

Many of these people also claim to actually believe in some type of God or higher plane of existence, and adopt all kinds of Eastern spirituality into their “beliefs” in the process. So, in essence, they are claiming to have some generalized belief in all kinds of things derived from ancient spirituality, but refuse to commit to any specific beliefs that are actually found in the ancient texts in which that spirituality has been meticulously defined.

So there is no YHWH or Satan, but there is a higher power that influences all manner of human activities on Earth. There is no Vishnu or Bramha or Shiva, but there are some generalized Lords of Karma and a nearly infinite process of soul reincarnation. But when it comes to analyzing Earthly situations, those belief structures don’t have any applicability because they have been generalized and diluted to point of being meaningless, so they are not even really “beliefs” at all. It’s ridiculous and it makes no common sense.

[ashvin]

And Spiegel reports that Germany has very little interest in giving the Greeks “more time” to reach their commitments. It’s true – time has never been on their side, especially not now.

“But politicians from Angela Merkel’s conservatives have resisted the suggestion that Athens should be given more time. Now a key Merkel ally has rejected relaxing the terms of Greece’s bailout deal and called on Athens to increase the pace of reforms.

In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, Volker Kauder, 62, floor leader of the conservatives’ parliamentary group, rejected granting concessions to Athens, saying that the country has already wasted a lot of time due to the new elections. “In the case of Greece, time can mean a lot of money,” he said. “That’s why I can’t imagine that we could make changes in that regard.”

“It would be appropriate if the new (Greek) government were to say: Yes, we will try to make up for lost time,” Kauder said. The new government could, for example, try to speed up the pace of the privatization of state assets, he said.

Kauder implicitly criticized Westerwelle’s suggestion that the bailout terms could be relaxed. The German government shouldn’t “send any signal” that the agreed-upon austerity measures can be changed, he said.

The conservative politician also emphasized that all countries that have received EU-led bailouts should be treated the same. “The Irish and Portuguese can’t come and demand to renegotiate (the bailout deals) as well,” he said. “Agreements have to be adhered to.”

[ashvin]

Reverse Engineer post=3798 wrote: If David Rockefeller, Nathan Rothschild, Henry Kissinger, George Soros Bill Gates, et al; all the major Stockholders and Board of Directors of Monsanto, Dupont, IBM, GE et al do not get a summons from the Auto da Fe to appear in front of the Inquisition, it is a FAKE and not to be believed.

No shit, Sherlock…

The reality is that neither you nor I nor anyone else here will end up heading up a movement like OMMP. And, yeah, it will be painfully obvious to all of us when it actually happens that it is a deception, especially after we remember talking about that scenario in this thread…

You will be especially enraged when it all happens and I can see you yelling at the top of your lungs, “The Illuminati stole my idea to get rid of them!!” But no one will listen or care at that point. This scenario is a much more realistic outcome for OMMP than the Idealistic one you posit in your arguments, which is part of the reason why I think we need to be vigilant to defend against those who seek to advocate or pursue it.

[ashvin]

Reverse Engineer post=3797 wrote:

I don’t think I am being defensive. IMHO, I am taking the Philosophical Battle here to the Enemy. Ashvin is pretty much like every Bible Thumper I ever met, just a good deal smarter than most of them. Arguing with him takes constant creativity and being light on your feet.

Look, the fact is that these are philosophical/spiritual positions established LONG before you, I or Tao Jonesing were ever around. There are true Christians out there who think we are right now immersed in an ultimate battle of Good vs. Evil, just like you do, except the force they have on their side makes your rag tag group of wannabe Outlaw Josey Wales gunslingers look like little kids playing in a sandbox. Their battle spans the Heavens and the Earth and involves demons, angels, Satan, God, humans and everything else you can think of.

Now you obviously will want to write all of these spiritual folk off as nutjobs who believe in fairy tales, but they are just as smart as you are and have spent years studying the exact same issues you have studied. They know all about the NWO and the Illuminati and the GFC and peak oil. They know everything there is to know about the Bible’s alleged inconsistencies, contradictions, and flaws. None of that changes the underlying theological message and values conveyed, which in their eyes are infinitely more important than your Thought Experiments will ever be.

The exact same thing can probably be said of Jews, Hindus and others who have been at the business of figuring shit out through experience, logic, critical thinking and faith for thousands of years. You are not special, RE, and neither am I. We are just two people who have our spins on history and reality and the future and the human experience, just like a whole lot of other very smart people out there. And, yes, that includes the “Bible-thumping nut jobs”. Their ideas may offend your delicate materialist worldview, but that’s your issue to overcome, not theirs.

[ashvin]

Reverse Engineer post=3784 wrote: What’s the argument here? We mistaken believe the Bilderbergers are connected to the Illuminati? The BIS is just a front and has nothing to do with the control of the global monetary system? The Rockefellers and Rothschilds are actually innocent victims of a propaganda smear? It would be wrong to put BP and TEPCO Executives on trial for Crimes Against Humanity? What?
RE

Here’s the potential scenario:

Your reactionary Orkin (Wo)Man or Wo(men) are already waiting in the wings, prepped by the Illuminati and ready to go when given the green light, probably in some pretty influential positions within governments around the world, but by no means leaders yet. They will wait for some really bad stuff to go down, i.e. a monetary collapse, civil war, perhaps even international war, before these people will come to the rescue through force, probably a military coup led by a ” radical left-wing” political faction. He or she will be a peacemaker of sorts, after violently overthrowing the current establishment. Perhaps it will happen in many different countries at the same time.

The rhetoric and agenda will line up with what many people within both the “fringe” and mainstream populations already believe or are starting to believe (much of which will be at least partly true) – It will talk about corrupt central banks and evil Jewish bankers, corporate CEOs, Zionist war-mongers, vulture capitalists, etc. Basically pointing out how these people are responsible for the putrid state of socioeconomic affairs people find themselves in at that time. At this point the Illuminati will not hesitate to sacrifice a few scapegoats, like your Tepco or BP CEO or whoever is convenient, a few highly visible kleptocrats – just to prove to the rest of us that their motives are genuine.

All the while, though, this new series of reactionary governments across the world will be coordinating with each other and planting the seeds for a truly globalist regime, i.e. one world government, one world religion, one world monetary system, one world everything. The people will already respect them for creating temporary peace and some economic stability, as well as exacting some very satisfying vengeance. The Illuminati would have completely convinced the opposition of the deception. Whether any of this will happen or how exactly it will go down, I have no idea.

What I do know is that many of the psychological seeds for something like this have already been planted, through the memes present in the whole New Age Movement (which actually gets A LOT of mainstream attention), as well as your standard NWO crowd that often leans heavily towards anti-semitism. With regards to the former, their meme is that our ultimate salvation lies in some external force which will usher all of humanity into the “new age”, where everyone is connected to everyone else and can become Divine creatures, and that those who cannot manage to get with the “Utopian” plan must be against it, i.e. agents of the straw man Illuminati, or just not spiritually strong enough, and will need to be taken care of.

There is obviously a lot more going on with all of that stuff, but the basic agenda is straightforward. It’s really a pretty simple deception when you think about it.

[ashvin]

Basseterre Kitona post=3778 wrote: In a complex modern society, it seems inevitable that some of the aspects of power are going to consolidate themselves into the hands of the few. Exterminating those few might not really make a difference as their replacements may well succumb to the same temptations and abuses of power.

I think it’s more than that at this point, really. My #1 practical criticism of RE’s plan from the first time I heard about it was not that it sounds like Stalin or Pol Pot (that’s my #2 criticism), but that it sounds exactly like what THEY – TPTB, the NWO elites, the Illuminati, however you want to label them – would use to achieve their goals of global consolidation/control, unprecedented oppression and depopulation, right in front of the eyes of the ignorant masses. What better way than to convince the people that the NWO agenda is actually something that is constructed to destroy the NWO?? We will suddenly find out all of these “revealing” facts about the people who are supposedly at the highest levels of the Illuminati or whatever, and we will be made to think that anyone who is connected to them, via historical connections, belief structures, genealogy, genetics, whatever, must be dealt with as well. Because these will be the people who are “holding us back” from ridding humanity of the “evil forces” and evolving to some higher state of existence. It fit rights into RE’s timeline, too, because first they would need a lot of majorly bad events to go down and a lot of people ready and willing to believe anything they are told about who is responsible.

Kind of puts Mathew 7:15 quoted above in a whole new light. Something that should at least be considered anyway…

[ashvin]

riesterm post=3748 wrote: desert_planet: I did not mean to imply a reversal of Nicole’s opinion. Rather, I was checking to see if she still felt local institutions, particularly credit unions, were a “safe” haven for cash.

TheTrivium4TW appears not to think so.

I think these questions really come down to what level of risk are you willing to be exposed to and for how long, because there will always be numerous uncertainties involved over the upcoming years. Nothing is completely safe, and that includes your local credit union (and your TD account for that matter). But neither is stashing tens of thousands of dollars under your mattress, or even in a well-built safe. So you’re going to have to make some decisions that are based on guesstimates of the risks involved, which will depend on the macroeconomic situation as well as your personal circumstances (and, of course, any ethical issues you may have).

As long as the markets are fixated on the Eurozone, it is unlikely that people will be frozen out of their bank deposits over here. The fact that contagion from an event over there could potentially spread over here at a very rapid pace, though, makes it unwise to keep a lot of your cash wealth in TBTSTD (too big to save the depositor) banks. And that applies to allegedly “allocated” gold accounts just as much. Beyond that, one has to make a judgment call about how best to distribute surplus cash resources (above and beyond what’s required for weekly/monthly spending) between local banking institutions, your home and physical assets.

But, no, there are no truly safe “safe havens”.

[ashvin]

Otto Matic post=3752 wrote: It’s interesting to see the ‘flight to safety’, long predicted by TAE, supporting the U.S. dollar and the TBTF U.S. banks. They knew this all along and baked it into the ‘collapse cake’. The whole Eurozone is the ‘periphery’ of the U.S. and will be cannibalized accordingly with capital flight which will be overtly AND covertly encouraged, added and abetted by the US government and their banking syndicate Owners. A few more Happy Days bought for the Zombie ‘citizens’ of the U.S.! The frogs ain’t boiled yet!

Yes indeed, slaughter-house finance is alive and well:

And that’s where we return to the IMF’s little “hint” in its report from last week. The financial elites do not need anyone to buy ALL of the bonds, only those that are most important to maintaining their wealth extraction operations. The weak players? Well, they can all fight over the scraps and devour themselves in the financial marketplace. The truly significant capital will be transported towards a few central locations by natural forces and by human design, like lambs to the inevitable slaughter. Of these locations, the most critical are surely the U.S. Treasury market, which can be used to support major U.S. banks, and the U.S. currency market.

What are the chances that the majority of people who find themselves invested in U.S. government bonds and the dollar will get anything close to a return on their investment over 10, 20 or 30 years? The answer to that is probably a massively negative percentage, because the psychological pain of holding on for that long will be even worse than the total wipe out itself. However, the herd typically doesn’t figure out how close they were to the edge of the cliff until after they are tumbling down the other side.

Stoneleigh at The Automatic Earth has repeatedly pointed out that people in such fearful environments tend to discount the future by an increasing rate, which means they care less and less about what will happen several decades, years or even months from the present time. The discount situation of financial elites is similar because they know how precarious the dollar-based financial markets are, so their concern is over whether they can corral all of the lambs into one or two places over a relatively short time period. So far, most of the evidence says that not only is it possible, but the process is already well under way.

…

The cities of Greece continue to erupt in violence as its citizens are forced to bail out European banks, and, meanwhile, Americans continue to mistake their own reflections in the global mirror. Earlier this year, Standard & Poor’s rating agency downgraded the outlook for the triple-A rated status of Treasury bonds (from “stable” to “negative”), in what was nothing less than an act of aiding and abetting the politicians, bankers and major corporate executives who strive for the imposition of austerity on everyone but themselves. The only difference between Greece and the U.S. is that the latter is not a “weak player” in the eyes of elite institutions, such as the IMF. Which means that, while the Greek taxpayers may soon be put out of their misery, we will die a much slower death, choking on our own debt for years to come.

[ashvin]

Reverse Engineer post=3744 wrote: Done in my last 2 posts. The confusion lies in the fact you obfuscate what I write and leave out many important details. You have the objective to spin this here toward the viewpoint you hold true, you explicitly told me so in the Diner.

[quote=Ashvin]
There is no way in Hell I would ever post something that comes off as pro-Inquisition or even Inquisition-neutral… it would just be very irresponsible of me in my role as a steward of I&S’ blog, and it would also offend my personal morality.

So it is up to the readers here to go over to the Diner to read the original material free of your spin. I have faith that those really interested in debating the issue with full knowledge of what was written will do so.

RE

If you’re going to resort to such misleading tactics to make your case, then I am forced to respond. Right after I made that comment, you said this…

I have no problem with how you packaged it Ashvin, I’m just making the observation that packaged as is it won’t get a whole lot of commentary.

But your first comment to me on TAE, quoted above, would imply that you DO have a problem with my packaging… so you were obviously trying to express a false sense of frustration here. Nice try. The reason why you would not be justified in having any problem with my packaging is because, when asking permission to re-post the material, I made it explicitly conditional on my packaging it the way I did. Surly agreed and so did YOU.

Your real problem here, of course, is that we HAVE gotten a good deal of commentary, and most of it has come down harshly against you and your argument. You didn’t even respond to agelbert, who presented a very interesting alternative to your Orkin Man approach that doesn’t involve mass killings. What can I say… people here are smart and wise enough to sort through the issues for themselves and resist your attempts to bully them into a corner.

[ashvin]

Reverse Engineer post=3745 wrote: [quote=ashvin post=3743]
I NEVER said the Man with No Name will wipe out ONLY the Bad Guys. I have EXPLICITLY stated on numerous occassions that you “Cannot Make an Omelette without Breaking a Few Eggs”. The collateral damage here is going to be ENORMOUS, beyond any scale ever in all of Recorded History.

This is sadly IMHO the last and final Battle for ALL THE MARBLES. Good versus Evil in the Showdown at the OK Corral. Get the Modified Winchesters ready boys and girls, you’re gonna need them.

I know you never said that, so stop using that BS meme as some kind of mixer for the hard spirits you’re selling us. You do it again right below – “good versus evil in the showdown at the OK corral”… uh, no, the self-proclaimed righteous versus anyone and anything that doesn’t fall in the same camp, including innocent men, women and children, in the entrenched warfare across the world. The innocent will die at the hands of both the Elite and the OMMP – the meme fails to reflect this fact at all. I guess you can keep using it, RE, but no one’s buying it.

About nobody BESIDES Surly really grasps how I do Thought Experiments. I suppose because he saw so many of them play out on TBP and had patience to figure them out.

You CANNOT understand Human and Social Dynamics if you are not willing to play out in your mind how people actually do react to given situations. Religion does not explain this stuff. Surly is absolutely the ONLY person I ever met who really grasps this fact (despite the fact we do not draw the same conclusions).

Of course it’s a thought experiment (it hasn’t happened yet)… about how you would go about making a call to action when the time presents itself during phases of collapse, and what that “action” would actually entail. Now even if you are just playing Devil’s Advocate here, there is no reason for us not to treat your arguments as if you actually believe them 100% and are committed to them. So that’s what I’m doing… but my understanding is that this is much more than Advocate for the Devil with you.

When you say religion, I’m assuming you mean any form of spirituality, rather than organized religion. In which case, it is plainly absurd to say that spirituality will not affect human and social dynamics when reacting to tough physical situations. History is replete with examples of people doing just that; a guy named Jesus comes to mind… But many others before and after him as well.

Your problem here in this argument is that you are simply assuming that various forms of spirituality, and the ethical/moral realities stemming from them, are FALSE and act as window dressing or comforters for most people in good times, and therefore assuming that they will no longer apply in bad times. That is circular reasoning at its finest. Believe it or not, there are people who take their spirituality very seriously, good times and bad alike. People who are no more willing to stampede with your OMMP than they are with the Gestapo of the current order. Perhaps because they can see through the false framework of utilitarian morality that you have defined for them.

You say there numbers will be few, I say, maybe or maybe not (we can’t be certain), but it doesn’t matter either way. The principles of their morality are relevant to this discussion no matter how you try to circumvent or marginalize them. Because this debate ultimately boils down to the best ways for us, as individuals, to react in very precarious and oppressive times when confronted with herd animals running in all manner of directions, and we all have the free will to decide for ourselves according to our beliefs.

Precisely Ashvin, one way or the other, this is coming down the pipe here. Its the SAME dynamic that has played itself out many times over now through history, just this time on a way bigger scale. You think this one will be DIFFERENT? On what basis?

The issue for me isn’t whether it will come down the pipeline this time or not. I am willing to accept something resembling the OMMP as a very like outcome, and I not using morality as a reason for why it will be stopped. The morality of all this comes in when you say “Well… innocent people are going to die if I do nothing, so that means I am justified in killing innocent people as a part of a plan to save others”. This is a position that is ubiquitously admonished in various faiths, and for very good reason, both spiritual and PRACTICAL. And we are not even really talking about faiths that are fundamentally against capital punishment… we are talking about thousands of years of historical development in which certain observers, some more wise than others, have come to the conclusion that what you are advocating is a horrible path to go down, no matter how bad the alternative is, and recent history has proven their concerns justified.

[ashvin]

Ah, there you are RE, right on cue.

Reverse Engineer post=3741 wrote:
Imagine YOURSELF watching the shit get kicked out of little children, or murdered in cold blood. Imagine YOURSELF being beaten to a bloody pulp here. How would YOU react to that? This is happening in Greece and Syria now AS WE SPEAK. How many kids were murdered in the latest Syrian “atrocity”? Who REALLY is responsible for that? Are you going to let them GET AWAY with that kind of shit? Not if you got an ounce of COURAGE you are not. Not IMHO anyhow.

This is the biggest piece of propaganda wrapped up in the OMMP, as should be expected. RE himself admits it is being framed in pop culture terms, where the OMMP involves tough, courageous Orkin Men going around saving innocent children and women from being raped and murdered. Or perhaps you are simply defending yourself from being beaten to death…

When we think about it intellectually, though, this whole pop culture meme falls apart. What he is really describing here is a SYSTEM of people responsible for “managing death”, perhaps at the global scale which was first advocated (now it seems like more of a decentralized, localized thing for RE), which is by definition far removed from any form of immediate self-defense or defense of others. Wherever this system occurs and at whatever scale, we are talking about forcing all manner of people to abide by certain RULES of the Inquisition or be stricken down.

This could be the CEO of Goldman Sachs who is doing anything to avoid justice for his crimes against humanity or the poor guy who finds the whole thing morally repulsive. Or perhaps the innocent women and children who are forced to evacuate certain areas that are no longer suitable for them to live, according to the Inquisition’s deciders. And maybe they’re right, but they will ultimately be responsible for all those deaths. We’re talking about innocent people that will get caught up in this thing one way or the other – obviously a fact that RE likes to marginalize.

Because as soon as we accept that reality, the whole meme of courageous Clint Eastwood riding into town to wipe out the bad guys, and ONLY the bad guys, falls apart. That’s just not how it works in the real world at anything above the smallest scales of operation – never has, never will.

[ashvin]

agelbert post=3738 wrote: As to the OMMP, correct me if I am wrong, but when you speak about minimizing the death of innocents even though a lot of death is now baked in the collapsing environment ‘pie’, you are advocating a type of triage system like doctors developed on battlefields. In ER’s view, the ‘triage’ would entail dispensing with the most incorrigible members of society that fed this collapse (the 1%). In medical triage, the most severely injured are the last to be attended. In the OMMP, the comparison to triage breaks down because the poor (i.e. the innocents) will be the very ones starving, rioting and killing for resources first so they will be those dying the most. I really don’t know how that sad and unjust outcome during the upheaval can be prevented. I leave it to people like you, ER and surly1 as well as others here like El Gallinazo to come up with some workable framework on this issue. Take me, for example. I have a pacemaker with about 4 years left until I stop being a modern version of the Eveready bunny. Somehow I don’t see Medtronic and the EP (electro physiologist doctor that puts in new batteries or a new pacemaker) medical network being available to me when my battery dies. My concern is more for my wife because there are no survivor benefits on my pension. It’s hard for me to think about it so I concentrate on broader issues.

I am sorry to hear that… but hopefully we aren’t that far gone 4 years from now. Perhaps that’s a leap of faith, though.

I am not advocating for OMMP at all – I think it’s a really bad idea for many reasons. I’ve been over the practical problems with him many times, and most of that stuff is captured by Surly’s Pol Pot analysis in the article. Even the best laid plans…

There is probably some confusion about what the OMMP actually entails for those not already familiar with RE’s writings on the idea. I think of it literally like a modern Spanish Inquisition after the “conduits”, or the monetary/energy mechanisms of elite control, have broken down. But I’ll leave it to RE to come here and explain it in more detail if he wants to.

As for Paul the Apostle, I think he was a great man who was genuinely converted by Jesus Christ Himself on the road to Damascus. I don’t have a beef with him justifying the turning away of the Jews as all part of God’s plan for the gentiles to be saved but the a remnant of the Jews would get with the program at the end of the days. I don’t have any problems with salvation by faith. I agree with Paul that the commandments of the Old Testament were impossible to keep and they were given to prove that works didn’t translate to salvation. It’s when he got into the nitpicking about hairstyles and obedience and who could teach and who couldn’t that he got too “Ten Commandments new version” (i.e. Jewish Pharisee legalistic crap) for me. He went off the legalistic deep end and none of that stuff should be in the New Testament. As a matter of fact, he himself says in one or two of his epistles that he doesn’t claim Holy Spirit inspiration on this or that but the Catholic Church ate that authoritarian pariarchal stuff up and plastered Pauls writings all over the place.

Paul’s writings have their place but not in a book that is all inclusive of humanity. Paul was way too legalistic. His beautiful writings about the gifts of the Holy Spirit and also how anything done without Love isn’t worth a hill of beans are in conflct with his rather obsessive control of who he allowed to accompany him and who he passed judgement on as to fitness for effective evangelism.

Right, I think we pretty much agree here. It’s interesting because apparently Paul is from the Tribe of Benjamin (son of Jacob) of the OT, who was quite the conflicted character. Perhaps that was “prefiguring” the life and teachings of Paul much later? Either way, we can definitely agree that the legalistic Church stuff is mostly bogus and that Paul’s doctrines, the conflicted character that he was, were ripe for being abused by the Catholic Church. Personally, I don’t even think the Pope should exist, as matter of the absence of any Biblical justifications.

[ashvin]

Golden Oxen post=3722 wrote: It is indeed offensive, an embarrassment, and a complete waste of time.

If you could take a time machine back to 1960s Cambodia with some computer technology and the knowledge to set it all up so they can communicate with each other, and then they start talking about Mao’s “cultural revolution” in China and its potential implications for their own country and population in upcoming years, would you tell them that it’s a waste of time to do so? That this guy Pol Pot and his hardline Maoist proposals should be ignored and written off as a waste of time to even consider for more than 5 seconds?

Perhaps you would, because it is such an offensive/uncomfortable topic to entertain, but I wouldn’t. Because when PP comes to power, and I’m safely back to the future, those Cambodians will still be stuck there with no clue how they have ended up in this situation and no meaningful way of organizing/responding to at least make an attempt at preventing 25% of their numbers from being eventually wiped out. That history will soon rhyme here in the 21st century, except now we actually have the luxury of mass communication/discussion via modern technology.

What I am seeking here above all else is to understand and confront reality, all blemishes exposed, and to be honest with myself, even when it is uncomfortable. There is nothing at all embarrassing about this discussion… it must be had. Those who don’t have this discussion (along with others), IMO, will be the ones most susceptible to either becoming helpless victims of predictable history or becoming the hapless accomplices of monsters throughout this whole process we call “collapse”.

[ashvin]

agelbert,

Excellent post. You have really hit the nail on the head, IMO, at least when it comes to your general line of thinking. If we are going to venture into ways to “deal with” the malicious elite, ways that are necessarily Idealistic at this point in time, then we must be willing to expand our minds and consider things that fall well short of genocide, but also rely on a system of punishment/coercion of the relevant offenders. Your proposal is an interesting one – plenty of flaws to be sure, but something to consider.

One of the biggest (and perhaps only) problems with OMMP, when it really comes down to it, is that Innocent people will be killed in the process of its implementation. What the elites like to call “collateral damage”. Every historical attempt at some kind of OMMP has proven that this is true and practically unavoidable. So any compromise stricken must put that issue in front and find ways to make sure it doesn’t happen. That may sound impossible, but I would propose that any compromise worth considering is only possible in so far as the goal of avoiding innocent casualties is possible.

Regarding modern the modern Judeo-Christian framework as defined by the establishment, I completely agree. And regarding our stewardship of God’s Earth as He would maintain it Himself, according to the TRUE principles of Biblical theology, I also think you are absolutely right. That’s what we must strive to do – God would not destroy the environment for short-term pleasure to the point where it became uninhabitable to any of His creatures.

Only one point of potential disagreement here:

One can say that as soon as ‘saint’ Paul started reinterpreting the Gospels, the corruption of real Christianity began but that’s another subject.

Another subject, indeed… but, if not here, then where??

I believe you are referring to the idea that Paul manipulated the records of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in his own writings to conform to his anti-Jewish and Christian view that the Law, as received by Moses, was not really relevant at all to salvation and that only faith in God was required. Frankly, I think those types of claims are over-exaggerated and mostly wrong. Most of Paul’s teachings can be shown to be quite consistent with that of Jesus as recorded by his disciples. To believe otherwise also leads down a dangerous road for Christians, in which all manner of stuff in the NT comes into question, because they have been written or influenced by the “deceitful” Paul. To be sure, he is an interesting character from those times, but in the end I think he was truly a devout follower of Jesus and therefore a Christian.

[ashvin]

ashvin post=3678 wrote: [quote=YesMaybe post=3677]It certainly didn’t benefit the Greek communists, but neither did it benefit the German communists. Anyway, that’s beside the point.

What in the world are we even arguing about here? What is your issue with Ilargi’s characterization, that it paints the West in too negative a light??

Very little that came out of the post-WWII U.S.-centric global paradigm that benefited ANYONE but a minority group of elites, when viewing that paradigm from our vantage point in 2012. NATO, Breton Woods, Marshall Plan – all of that crap was about warding off Soviet influence/power so that the Western elites could concentrate all the wealth/power for themselves. The Cold War provided the Squid with the necessary mindset and justifications it needed to spread its tentacles all over the world. The middle class populations in some parts of the developed world may have materially benefited in the short-term for a few decades at most, but that’s about it. Everyone else has been suffering throughout the whole period, and now most of Europe is right back where it started, and no one else is too far behind. Look at the state of the world right now, and tell me I’m wrong.

[ashvin]

YesMaybe post=3677 wrote: It certainly didn’t benefit the Greek communists, but neither did it benefit the German communists. Anyway, that’s beside the point.

What in the world are we even arguing about here? What is your issue with Ilargi’s characterization, that it paints the West in too negative a light??

Very little that came out of the post-WWII U.S.-centric global paradigm that benefited ANYONE but a minority group of elites, when viewing that paradigm from our vantage point in 2012. NATO, Breton Woods, Marshall Plan, all of that crap was about warding off Soviet influence/power so that the Western elites could concentrate all the wealth/power for themselves. The Cold War provided the Squid with the necessary mindset and justifications it needed to spread its tentacles all over the world. The middle class populations in some parts of the developed world may have materially benefited in the short-term for a few decades at most, but that’s about it. Everyone else has been suffering throughout the whole period, and now most of Europe is right back where it started, and no one else is really too far behind. Look at the state of the world right now, and tell me I’m wrong.

[ashvin]

Golden Oxen post=3638 wrote: @ pipefit Thanks for pointing out that gold doesn’t move, it is the currencies it is quoted in that move. Most people are incapable of thinking about gold that way, and thus we have the constant quarreling and ludicrous arguments. Would also like to point out that as quoted in all fiat currencies gold has been in a bull market for about four thousand years, a trend unlikely to be broken.

I think it is clear that what RE is talking about simply takes your logic a level further. You think it is ridiculous to use fiat currencies as a measuring stick for something much more tangible and useful over time, like gold. But why use gold as the measuring stick either? Why not use NET ENERGY, which is basically the definition of useful in the materialist sense. You can really do that in terms of oil or, if you prefer, food calories. People like me and RE want to use net energy to ultimately measure gold’s worth, but that’s something that most gold bugs, whether they support Freegold or gold-backed money, do not consider at all.

When Ashvin,RE,FOFOA etc discuss gold it is my opinion that they are actually discussing something else. Peak Oll, current economic situation, grocery stores and retailers having no goods if it goes ballistic, all sorts of unrelated jibberish which does nothing but muddy the waters and is nonsensical.

You call it “muddying the waters”, we call it being realistic and taking a big picture, comprehensive perspective. There is no point analyzing gold or anything else in a vacuum, because we don’t live in a vacuum.

[ashvin]

skipbreakfast post=3627 wrote: As I predicted in a comment a month or so ago, this weekend’s election could well see a return of one of the more “mainstream” parties controlling a Greek coalition government. In fact, I’m not convinced that the difference between New Democracy and Syriza is actually all that radical. Certainly, one or the other does not really ensure much radical change for Greece’s future, despite what we’ve been led to believe.

If Syriza were insisting that their win would mark Greece’s exit from the Euro, then it might be radical, but that has never been what they want. Syriza is not pro-“exit”. It’s pro-Euro and pro-“re-negotiate the bail-out”. Frankly, if Pasok or New Democracy wins, they’ll be trying to tweak the bailout too, if without so much grandstanding.

I agree with you that Syriza victory will not mean an immediate exit from the EZ. But what it does mean is that the ECB, IMF, EU and Germany have been made to look like huge fools, getting shoved around by tiny little Greece, and the ball will be back in their possession. It will be their turn on offense, with very unhappy fans (taxpaying populations) in the stands. Those fans will rightly believe that they are not getting what they paid for at all in this game of Greek bailout/austerity ponzi.

So what will the ECB, EU and Germany do? They really only have two choices in my mind – 1) somehow coerce Syriza into backtracking and going along with most of the austerity commitments previously outlined, or 2) effectively force Greece out of the EZ, cut their losses, and try to make an example out of it, while also setting up contagion “firewalls”. I don’t think the last two things will work out too well for them, but I also don’t think that realization will stop them from trying to do it anyway.

My bet is still on another country leaving the Euro before Greece does, no matter what the election outcome turns out to be. Greece’s election results may only change the timing of the exit by a month this way or that. Meanwhile, markets and the populace will be somehow re-assured that the election results are a good thing for Europe. New Democracy’s win will be seen as a return of order. And even a Syriza win will be positioned as a reluctant push to start re-negotiating the terms of a bailout that everyone now admits was too “heavy-handed”. Talk about extend and pretend!

That is certainly a possibility, but unlikely IMO. The Greek economy is so far in the pits right now, I don’t think any symbolic “re-negotiations” will make a difference. If anything, it will just be used as an opportunity for more people to pull their money out of the country and cut off trade/business connections. They are right in the midst of full-fledged debt deflation that is progressing rapidly, with all of the economic and sociopolitical consequences that entails. The only other country that even comes close is Spain, and the Eurocrats will be much more obsessed with keeping it in the EZ rather than Greece. They can either extend or pretend right now, but not really both. Extend Greek’s lifeline, and give the various stakeholders a little more time to GTFO and mitigate their losses from the inevitable exit, or let Greek default/exit, and pretend it isn’t such a bad thing for the rest of the EZ (as long as they stick together).

[ashvin]

Patrick post=3613 wrote: There is considerable evidence that we are driven more by short term emotion and appetite than by rational thought. Our admittedly wonderful accomplishments in science persuade us that we are the “rational animal.” While the wars, economic catastrophes, profound injustices–the list goes on–suggest otherwise.

Perhaps confusion arises from the fact that some people do act rationally. Some of us advocate for peace and the environment, surely rational approaches. Yet what prevails? You know as well as I and much of this blog is occupied with it.

My belief is that as the scale and complexity of human society increases, the short-term “emotions and appetites” of humans come to the foreground and are also reinforced by centralized institutions. However, I disagree that this is the fundamental “nature” of human beings – that we are no different from any other animal.

When you think about it, that is exactly what one would expect. Higher degrees of social complexity are inherently associated with the concepts of expansion, production, consumption, i.e. materialism. Out of this form of materialism, constantly self-reinforced by societal institutions, grows our destructive thought processes and addictions.

Yet, it is WE who make up the system, and our equally powerful tools of free will, logical/analytical thinking, emotional maturity, etc. are never lost through the increasing scales of complexity. They are still there, laying dormant in many (to varying degrees), but ready to be unleashed at any moment. My faith is in the fact that those tools will always exist and, when used properly (I know, a murky term), will more often than not lead us to the truth… “and the truth will make you free”.

The carrying capacity of the planet is realistically no more than 2 billion people but we’ve degraded even that. Plus, we would most likely dip well below that in a die-off.

Let me be brutal. In the next 50 to 100 years if not sooner–here I’ll be gentle–at least 3.5 to 4 billion people are going to die and not of old age. That is if we don’t annihilate each other totally first, or suffer some other catastrophic collapse as have been mentioned above.

I disagree with the idea of a strict carrying capacity limit, but this is really a marginal point of disagreement for our discussion here. Regardless of what the carrying capacity has now become, the question is whether humanity was destined to arrive at this point and/or whether we are destined to repeat the ecological overshoot if we should survive a planetary collapse this time around. Based on the available evidence I have seen, I would answer NO.

[ashvin]

kito post=3586 wrote: no ashvin, you are too generous.

Nope, not me.

I think large-scale banking systems should be eliminated, and, more than that, they WILL be. No amount of debt restructurings and/or “capital” injections will retain confidence in them – they will be crushed by the ensuing spiral of debt deflation. The only question is how the populations and the central authorities of the rapidly growing police states will respond to all of this. No doubt the globalists will try to use it all to their advantage, but the complex dynamics and speed of collapse could overwhelm them.

[ashvin]

fuzzykoala post=3588 wrote: The only other solution I’ve been able to think of so far is to get enough people to really understand this, making them freely choose to limit the power they compete for and to act as a normative force whenever someone takes more than they should.

Yes, I think you are on the right track here. Steve from VA makes a good point when he says this:

That we haven’t blown ourselves up with nuclear weapons indicates we can act outside the dynamics imposed upon us by our systems. It isn’t up for discussion whether we can or cannot adjust our behavior, we have done so and continue to do so right up to this minute.

The key thing to understand is that we all have the tools necessary to change, and to free ourselves from our material desires and addictions, constantly reinforced by the system. That does not mean selling everything you own and going off into the woods somewhere. It doesn’t even mean refraining from buying things in the future. It is as simple as changing your mind about what how you want your life to be, and making an honest commitment to not slip away, even when it becomes painful not to. You most likely will slip back or away, but you also have the capacity to re-orient yourself, push through and eventually defeat the addiction. If any one heroine addict can do it, then so can we.

Again, this is a logical conclusion we can reach based on all of the evidence we have before us. And that is from where I derive my faith in humanity’s ability to survive and, ultimately, escape its vicious cycle of destructive expansion/enslavement and collapse. Yes, this iteration could very well be the one that does us in for good, our last chance so to speak, but I think there are good reasons to believe that humanity’s most trying times could produce its most passionate push for personal freedom and love towards one another.

[ashvin]

Reverse Engineer post=3587 wrote: Hopefully this clarifies and resolves our dispute on this point.
RE

OK, yeah, that does make it a lot more understandable for me.

Obviously, those of the Christian faith would still take issue, because they do not believe Revelations was written by some random sci-fi author, but a prophet who was literally inspired by the Word of God. If you don’t believe that, then there is more room for you to think that he was simply borrowing stuff from past accounts to come up with random prophecy.

Still… it is odd to rely on Revelations 17 at all for your argument with GO about how PMs will fare in the future. If John was just making shit up about what will happen in the future, that hurts your argument. If you think it is good because it sounds like the account of money collapse in historical Babylon, then why not just use the latter as your support? We all agree (me, you, GO) that the current monetary system will eventually collapse, but it’s unlikely Biblical John would know anything about our present troubles 2000 years ago (unless he was, in fact, inspired by an all-knowing God). So why rely on the passages written by a “good science fiction writer” instead of historical accounts of Babylon? I guess just because they sound cooler!

[ashvin]

Patrick wrote: At the risk of insulting anyone; faith is simply silly. As we understand it, faith is that which transcends reason. It is something we prefer to believe rather than what evidence-based reason compels one to believe.

…

The answer lies within evolution and how through that we came out thinking we were not part of the animal world.

But why do “we” understand it that way? As Triv suggested, perhaps it’s because that is how mainstream currents of our society/culture have defined it for us.

I believe faith is just as much a rational/logical process as anything else. You must look at all the evidence you can find and, if you don’t understand it at first, you must reflect on it for awhile, and if you still don’t reach an understanding or you still can’t break bad habits, you must buckle down, try harder and reflect some more. That is having faith in your own cognitive and emotional abilities and your own capacity for free will and your own dedication to change your mindset. The fact is that humans ARE different than the rest of the animal world in that way, even though it is very difficult to see that in our current state of nearly helpless materialistic dependency.

[ashvin]

Reverse Engineer post=3574 wrote: I am sure for every argument you put up there is some Jesuit or some Seventh Day Adventist who could cite another 1000 texts to refute an argument you cut and paste from somebody else. I am supposed to spend the rest of my days walking the earth sifting through this swamp of conflicting interpretations to make my decision on WTF has it RIGHT here?

It won’t necessarily take you that long, but, yeah, if you want to be straightforward and accurate about what you’re telling people, you need to first figure out what’s correct or what’s most likely to be correct. Sometimes it takes 5 minutes to weed out the BS and sometimes it will take much longer. The Papal (Apostolic) tradition of the Catholic Church is pretty easy to debunk as being a meaning contained within the Bible, but other views like the pre-tribulationist Rapture belief might be more difficult. As I stated in the other post, this is my faith:

“As you may have guessed, my version is not the EASY one to follow. It is not even the one I practice in most aspects of my own life, because I find it much too difficult. Yet, it is still what I believe to be true. Faith is not about a care-free attitude or an unquestioning, dogmatic belief in certain laws or truths. It is about time, effort, logic, critical examination, emotional stability, and, ultimately, free will.”

I’m still looking for an argument in there which refutes the idea that the Babylonian Collapse of the Mesopotamian Era was a Monetary System Collapse. When I either find one on my own or you point me toward such an argument, I’ll read it in its entirety. What you did point me toward was just more of the same kind of bullshit I have read many times before, and I really did not need to go through all the pages to figure that one out.

This is simple, RE. You asked me what evidence I have to suggest the passage you quoted was not about the Babylonian civilizational collapse of the past, but rather about a specific future event in Jerusalem. Besides the obvious fact that it is contained in the Book of Revelations… I directed you to a detailed argument on the matter. You largely ignored it and now call it BS. No one said anything about Babylon not suffering from a monetary collapse (of course it did)… but WTF God’s wrath on the unfaithful inhabitants of Jerusalem, as described in Revelations, has to do with your monetary collapse arguments against GO is beyond me. You don’t even believe that specific event will happen, but you still use it as support. That was my issue all along, and it ended up with you saying it doesn’t matter what other texts actually mean, because anyone’s interpretation of them is just as valid as anyone elses’ and can be used accordingly. I said that’s nonsense.

[ashvin]

Reverse Engineer post=3567 wrote: I went about 10 pages deep before I puked.

…

You cannot pin down both velocity and position at the same time, and you cannot pin down meaning between the text and the reader’s interpretation either.

…

You keep SAYING I have it wrong, but you never show why it is wrong. All you do is point me toward Experts who have a different opinion than I do. That proves nothing Ashvin, sorry.

…

I didn’t say “We cannot know the meaning of Plato’s Republic, or of Marx’s Das Capital, or Hitler’s Mein Kampf or anything else?”, I SAID that any reader can take away from any of those texts what from the perspective of the reader is the meaning of it.

…

I’ll decide for myself what it means, regardless of whether some Ph.D. spent his entire life in the stacks of Low Library coming up with his theory of the Meaning of the Bible.

RE, I think I have figured you out with your general view of the Bible and these latest statements above. They betray your true identity… you are Buddy Jesus…

A.K.A. the Lazy Man’s Deity that wants to look COOL and distance himself from stuffy academic teachings. You do not want to do any academic research into anything that you have not already done. Presumably, because you have already spent so much time over the years learning/teaching theories and perspectives based on faulty AND sound principles/research, that you have now become fed up with it all. That’s understandable.

But you have gone from being the reasonable skeptic of academic “experts” to the other extreme of completely arrogant, self-involved, condescending dismisser of all people who have academic expertise acquired over lifetimes. That’s why you can’t make it more than a few pages into a well-researched argument that thoroughly debunks your erroneous interpretation of Biblical passages, which you are now defending by appealing to some nonsense about quantum uncertainty that clearly doesn’t apply here.

Face the facts man – all centralized institutions are hell bent on spreading your Buddy Jesus, lazy man’s credo to the masses, because that means no one will ever take the TIME and EFFORT to realize that their propaganda, interpretations, false teachings and spin are WRONG. They are objectively and discernibly wrong by the plain meaning of the texts they use for support – whether we are talking about the Bible or the Federal Reserve Act or the US Constitution or Keynes’ General Theory. Pope Ratzinger could use a subjective preacher such as yourself by his side right now.

You asked for an argument explaining why the Revelations passage you quoted was referring to Jerusalem instead of Babylon. I linked you to a series of audio and video. You gave some excuse about bandwidth, so I linked you to a written PDF. You read a couple pages and then said, “screw it, I don’t care what this guy’s argument is, because I have already determined my own meaning, and that’s all I care about”. That’s some Buddy Jesus shit right there.

Fine with me… but next time I see you quoting a Biblical passage out context and ascribing an erroneous meaning to it in order to support one of your arguments, even one that I agree with, I will debunk the crap out of it for all to see. We already have enough FALSE TEACHERS in this world – just about every religious figurehead, political leader, media mogul, central banking official, new age guru, etc. – all of them asking us to believe in their subjective conceptions of reality because they are just as good as anyone elses’, and they can save you the time/effort required to discover the objective truth on your own. We really don’t need any more right now.

[ashvin]

Reverse Engineer post=3560 wrote: You make no sense to me, as my ideas seem Odd and Weird to you I suppose.

As Hawkeye said of the Europeans in “Last of the Mohicans”, “They are a Breed Apart, and they make no sense.”

Yes, we finally agree in this Biblical debate! Because I have no damn clue what you are talking about anymore. Your argument has become so silly as to render me shocked, STUNNED, that it is coming from someone as intelligent and informed and, I’ll even say it – WISE – as you.

Chris says:”2. Some suggest it is the actual city of Babylon in Iraq. In this scenario, they say Babylon will be rebuilt in the future.”

So Chris admits there are other interpretations, and that one is that we are talking about actual Babylon. However, this is all in the predictive sense rather than what had already occurred. We know from History that Babylon was the center of commerce for the Mesopotamian empire. We also know that empire didn’t last. To me, I see an extrapolation on past events here in Revelation, but that is of course just my interpretation and Chris White probably would not agree and neither would you.

Did you bother to read past that point at all? Chris goes on to debunk that interpretation, as well the interpretations that it refers to Rome, the Vatican, New York/London, or some type of human system. When I say “debunk”, I mean he presents a lot of solid linguistic, contextual and logical evidence for why those interpretations are flawed, and why the last city of Jerusalem is a much better fit.

Please don’t tell me that you have now stopped caring about objective evidence entirely and prefer to stick with whatever interpretation seems “right” to you and your worldview.

I’m not talking about Interpretation that is Bullshit Ashvin, I am talking about stuff IN the Bible that is likely complete and utter Bullshit. Like Jesus Walking on Water, Methuselah living 900 years and Moses Parting the Red Sea. Any Book which contains this level of Bullshit cannot be trusted to be 100% correct on everything.

So what if it is BS (a claim I would never make without studying the issue much further)? Are you denying that the Bible’s writers are claiming that Jesus walked on water? Are you saying that you will go to any lengths, and ignore any evidence to the contrary, in order to twist what they actually said into what you WANT THEM TO SAY, so that it all fits in nicely with your worldview? That is ridiculous beyond words…

How do you know what Goebbels or Bernays really meant to do when they designed Propaganda? You can’t know the intentions behind this stuff Ashvin, and the Bible maybe claiming one thing to be true which is really false and another to be false which is actually true. What the writer MEANT to say or meant to do was simply to mislead you. You have to look at it critically and buying the whole ball of wax is a mistake, IMHO.

Wow, so now you are saying that we cannot ever figure out the meaning of any text, because the writers are always trying to mislead us about what they mean. Is everything written down “propaganda”, or is it only the texts that you don’t like, or the ones you want to manipulate so they become convenient for your arguments, such as the Bible? We cannot know the meaning of Plato’s Republic, or of Marx’s Das Capital, or Hitler’s Mein Kampf or anything else? It doesn’t matter if it’s propaganda – we can still figure out what it means. You really came up with this craziness out of nowhere.

In my experience walking the halls of Academia for so many years, most Scholars are Jackasses, particularly in the Social “Sciences” where every last one of them drops his or her own spin on whatever it is they are expert in. Yes, I do have to rely on the Translators or Google to translate nowadays :), so I unless a text was originally written in English I’m immediately getting some warping, but hopefully not too much just from a straight translation. Its when some Jackass starts telling me what it all MEANS that I sign off on the Appeals to Authority. I’ll figure it out for myself, thanks.

OK, great, figure it out for yourself. I imagine you’ll have a very difficult time without understanding Hebrew or Greek, but, hey, it’s your time. All I know is that you have ALREADY gotten a few of the meanings wrong. Yes, contrary to your now ridonkulous argument, your off-the-cuff interpretations of texts, especially ancient ones, are not always right, and are often wrong.

“Reverse Straw Man”. I like that.

IOW what you are saying here is only EXPERTS can construct meanings for texts! I’m not allowed to do that because I am not “expert” enough. In order to construct meanings that YOU accept as valid, an Expert has to have 50 citations in the Bibliography and been Peer Reviewed for accuracy by 50 other Jackass Academicians in the field. Forget it Ashvin, I don’t buy this at all. I am free to figure out the meaning of any text all by my lonesome. If I am confronted by the actual WRITER of some text who says, “No asshole, that is NOT what I meant”, then I am wrong and need to apologize for misconstruing the meaning, unless of course the writer’s prose was confusing and it’s his fault. In the case of writers long dead, they are not showing up here so everything else with respect to meaning is left to each reader to figure out.

This is exactly the type of thinking the oppressive institutions of our times and centuries past have used to oppress the masses and keep them ignorant and enslaved. The Catholic Church is a great example, as it somehow conjured up all kinds of traditions/practices/teachings that are not found in the NT Bible AT ALL, yet people still believe that BS today. The fascist US government is another great and more modern example, as the SCOTUS has conjured up all sorts of meanings from the US Constitution that are clearly not there. But, hey, that’s all OK because to each reader his own, right?

Modern technology has given the masses the GIFT of being able to look at the original documents involved and figure out the REAL meanings, in collaboration with other decentralized groups, without relying on institutional authorities who clearly have a deceitful agenda. Your mindset here is playing right into the latter’s hands, even though you spin it as some sort of freedom from academic oppression. Thousands if not millions of brilliant minds have devoted their lives over many years, sometimes out of complete selflessness, to studying and understanding the meanings of these things – my advice to you is to use the gift they have given you and call out the FALSE teachers of these texts.

[ashvin]

Candace and Bot Blogger,

I am taking the liberty of moving your comments from that thread over here. Hope you don’t mind.

[ashvin]

Bot Blogger post=3545 wrote: This debate over the true meaning of the bible is the same one that defines the debate around the questions of “What and where is Art?”

Does it exist in the creator’s intentions from the moment it is unveiled?
Does it exist in the words/music/paint/metal/stone that constitutes its structure?
Does it exist in the person who interprets it?

These are questions about the philosophy of interpretation… not just of ancient texts or Art, but about EVERYTHING stated, written, recorded, communicated in some manner. They are legitimate questions and, for example, are very prevalent in debates over interpretations of the US Constitution.

If we are going to adopt a very broad philosophy of interpretation, though, we should apply it fairly and consistently to all works of expression. I don’t think we can say that the Bible derives its meaning from the interpretations of the reader, but the articles of, let’s say, Stoneleigh or Ilargi actually mean what the writers intended them to mean, or what the written words suggest they mean.

As for the original writers of the bible we don’t have them around to consult as to their intentions and what we do have is a history of other people imposing their intentions on the writings.

We have the words they wrote, the context in which they were written, and the records of other people who had direct access to them at the time. We have our own cognitive/logical abilities to examine the evidence, rule out certain meanings and accept others. When you read a book by a modern non-fiction writer, do you usually feel it necessary to consult that person directly in order to figure out what they meant? Perhaps sometimes you do, but it is not usually very necessary.

But If the bible is supposed to be the word of God, why do I need to consult it or worry about what the correct interpretation is? God being all powerful and knowing, can let his/her intentions known with merely the smallest effort on my part. I just have to pay attention.

This is mostly a theological question, rather than one of interpretation. I am not claiming that the Biblical God exists, so it is irrelevant to the argument over meaning. But, regardless, the Bible is pretty clear on how God makes His theological truths known, if he were to actually exist. He has required a high level of commitment and faith from humans throughout history, and I don’t think that can be met by sitting back and waiting for Him to appear and tell you what the various prophets of His word really meant. According to the Bible, He caused the prophets to write the Biblical texts so that we could voluntarily read them, understand them and follow them, both as descriptions of historical events and theological teachings. The idea that we can get that understanding by circumventing the Inspired texts and using the “smallest effort” is a bit contradictory to those goals, don’t you think?

[ashvin]

First off, RE, you are wrong on this point here (incidentally, for the same reason you were wrong when quoting Matthew as potential justification for OMMP on that thread). This is not a matter of style, it is a matter of fact – right and wrong. Hunter S. Thompson would be just as wrong as you are if he used the same arguments – I don’t care how good of a writer or clever a thinker he was.

Reverse Engineer post=3542 wrote: Well, first off I am on a slow connection that is metered for bandwidth usage, so I am not going to listen/watch an Audio/Video series here. If you have a text based reference I can read that establishes why this specifically refers to Jerusalem rather than Babylon, I will be happy to read it though.

https://chriswhiteministries.com/MysteryBabylon/Mystery%20Babylon%20-%20The%20Eschatological%20City%20of%20Jerusalem3.pdf

The entire Range goes from unquestionable to very solid? There is nothing that might be considered questionable in there or maybe even complete and utter BULLSHIT? :S

I am not talking about determining the truth of the Bible’s meaning, but the MEANING of what the Bible is saying. You are right, though, that there do exist many interpretations that are complete and utter BS – the popular Dan Brown and Zeitgest interpretations are good examples. But
these types of BS interpretations come almost exclusively from people who are not Biblical scholars, or even ancient historians.

Beyond that, you make the case here that nobody except a Biblical Scholar is knowledgeable enough to interpret Biblical passages, so we gotta rely on them to interpret the Truth written therein.

Again, not the Truth of what it claims to be true, but the truth of what it is actually claiming – i.e. what does the Bible mean when it says this or that?

OF COURSE we have to rely on scholars in the field. How can you even determine the meaning of any ancient text in the first instance without relying on translators familiar with the language, unless you already know the language itself? And when you figure out what the words mean, how can you figure out what the sentences mean without considering them in a broad linguistic and historical context? This is true of Plato and Socrates just as it is of the Bible. We can all potentially become Biblical scholars, but most of us are not and do not have the time, so we rely on them and the coherence of their arguments.

Man, if I read anything from Machiavelli to Hunter S. Thompson, from the Bhagavit Gita to Spiderman Comics and from the Bible to the the Lord of the Rings, I read it all with a critical mind, sythesize it and then take out of it what is congruent with my perception of reality as I gather it through my 5 senses. It’s NOT Differential Equations Ashvin, there are not mathematical proofs based on pure logic that work in social and historical texts.

That is not a critical mind you described, it is a biased and goal-seeked mind. If you want to go around re-writing ancient religious texts in your mind to suit your already established “perception of reality”, that’s fine, but don’t expect others not to call you out for it. What you’re doing is best described as “reverse straw man” – constructing meanings for texts written by OTHER PEOPLE without any evidence and then using those meanings as support for your argument.

This is your OPINION Ashvin. You don’t justify it by any other means than an Appeal to Authority argument. If you think it’s erroneous, you have to show me in more precise arguments here exactly WHY it is erroneous.

I have now given you the relevant links. Besides that, I am not here on TAE to do your Biblical research for you. I never said that the Jerusalem interpretation is the ONLY plausible one out there, but there is only ONE true meaning of what was written. We have to use critical thinking and, yes, authorities in the field to determine what the best (most probable) interpretation is.

Weird AND Odd! How about adding in here Looney Tunes also? Look Ashvin, I never claimed to be a mainstream conventional thinker, I am WAY outside the box so of COURSE what I write seems odd and weird to you. You are a Button Down Academic with VERY conventional thought process, it suffuses all your writing. I call it as I see it. It’s not the LEAST bit “Odd” to me at all. If you just name call it as weird and odd, you prove nothing. You have to deconstruct it, and I challenge you as always to do that. I PROMISE you I will come right back atchya every time. TAKE ME ON! 😉

I didn’t say you are weird or odd… I said your way of using the Bible as support for your arguments is odd. The funny thing is you would agree with me 100% if I was taking a passage from the book of a contemporary author, quoting it out of context, ascribing my own meaning to it and then using it as support for another argument. Hell, you would probably be the first person to “napalm” me for doing so… but, since it’s the Bible, and it was written sooo long ago, I guess the normal rules of critical examination don’t apply.

[ashvin]

Reverse Engineer post=3539 wrote: [quote=ashvin post=3534]What establishes that this is not literally the City of Babylon itself being described here, but rather a metaphorical reference to Jerusalem? I thought you said we should take the Bible as literal truth?

Obviously the Bible uses parables, metaphors, etc. in some parts, but there is NO attempt to hide those things or make them unclear as to what they are referring to. People who study the passages in historical/theological/linguistic context can develop arguments for what they mean ranging from unquestionable to very solid. Based on all of the evidence, it is very likely that the “mystery babylon” passages of Revelation constitute specific prophecy about what will happen to Jerusalem in the future.

Like I have said before, we can’t take descriptions of such specific events and pretend they are justifying all sorts of things that are not really at issue. If we accept that the passage is referring to a specific event in a specific city (see link below), then we must respect that meaning when attempting to use it as support. Here, you want to use the passage as support for your views of monetary collapse in society and how PMs will fare, but I think that’s an erroneous, and, frankly, weird thing to do.

It’s like taking a description from Homer’s Odyssey and using it as support for an argument about how your journey home across the waters will end up today. But it’s even much different, because the Bible is talking about a specific event that will happen in the future, but you are applying it to whatever event you feel that it should apply to. It just seems very… ODD to me.

For more about the meaning of these “mystery babylon” passages, I recommend this great audio/video series by Chris White – https://conspiracyclothes.com/nowheretorun/mystery-babylon-study-chris-white/

[ashvin]

RE,

The Revelation passages you quote are describing the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, which is often referred to as a philanderous woman named Babylon. I believe the prophecy is that she will “cheat” on God yet again, this time with the Antichrist and his kingdom – the ultimate betrayal – and will be destroyed because of it, along with all of the Earthly riches that it possesses and that the sinners crave. It will indeed be a fast demise, but it is just talking about a single city. Although, it will probably happen in the context of general mayhem across the globe.

[ashvin]

Here is nice little video on the matter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHWVWw9gJT8

[ashvin]

OK, here are some popular, yet erroneous MYTHS about the Bible:

-The New Testament is composed of books that were hand-picked by Roman authorities much after Jesus died.

-Modern versions of the Biblical books such as those in KJB are significantly different than the original texts.

-NT books in other languages have been significantly altered in meaning through translation errors, like a game of telephone. (in reality, there is only one translation from Greek to the other language)

-The “Gnostic gospels” originated before or at the same time as the other ones that are officially a part of the NT (in reality, they came many generations after Jesus and the Apostles)

People, this stuff is so easy to verify with modern technology, such as the INTERNET and computer software, it’s not even remotely acceptable to keep believing the myths (the first three especially). They are kind of like the Fed’s “dual mandate” and the idea that it’s a government agency accountable to the people. The fact that they are still so popular and accepted is a testament to the sheer persistence of those who have planted them over the centuries and continue to water them to this day (basically everyone in the New Age Movement).

Frank,

I am not going to claim that I am familiar with the Septaugint issue that you refer to. BUT, wouldn’t it be easy enough to compare versions of the OT not based on that translation with the KJV and see if there are significant differences in meaning?

[ashvin]

SB,

I believe RE is correct about the article cross-posting issue. There is no reason to keep the valuable information/insights of RE, Surly or Peter from TAE just because someone else is posting very questionable assertions on their site, such as El G.

I have also promised that I will not moderate ANY forum comments due to substance, but only if they are unsubstantive malicious attacks against TAE or forms of spam. I can imagine an exception for some particularly horrendous arguments, such as an outright racist diatribe, but nothing like that has come close to happening so far.

Part of the reason is because I believe it is better to confront these arguments, such as the one in El G’s article, from time to time rather than hide from them and pretend they don’t exist. They do exist and, like you said, they are becoming more widespread. Your response was a great one, and I think that is the best way of dealing with this stuff. The only way to deal with this growing force is to CALL IT OUT when we see it and critique it out in the open.

I don’t think El G is anti-semitic, but I also don’t think he realizes how his ideas are being planted in his head for a REASON, and one that fits in extremely well into the plans of those who want to target mass groups of people for detainment, imprisonment, execution. El G is deeply into the New Age versions of NWO conspiracy theory, and all of those are heavily corrupted and dangerous. They must be called out for what they are – pure, unadulterated nonsense.

There may very well be genetic traits that help magnify psychopathic tendencies, and I wouldn’t be surprised if elites have attempted a sort of “reverse eugenics program” in that regard, but psychopathy is by and large an environmental phenomenon. We see that with the average German soldier who committed absolute horrendous acts during wartime that lacked any empathy whatsoever for other human beings – most of them were not “genetic psychopaths”. For that reason among others, it is unlikely any program to breed a psychopathic race or group was successful. When the elites and their supporters in the general population CHOOSE to carry out harmful and murderous acts, it has been and will be because they are doing so of their own free will, rather than some genetic dictum.

karpatok,

I highly doubt anyone is moderating your comments here. Certainly not me, since this is the first time I have been online in a few days. None of your comments are in the spam box, and obviously your IP has not been banned. If your “session expired”, it’s probably because you were away from the computer/site for awhile and were automatically logged out of TAE in the meantime.

El G left for a lot of different reasons stated in his “off the reservation” article, but none of them had to do with private emails with me. He said the straw that broke his back was a comment I made to him in the forum about the Constitution, conspiratorial meta-narratives and zero point energy technology. A bit ironic, because I think RE has the exact same views as I do about the US Constitution and ZPE tech.

Anyway, it had absolutely nothing to do with my censorship of anyone. It is up to Ilargi to choose what can ultimately be published on the front page, and he doesn’t approve of El G’s ideas. I published a few of his commentaries before he left (each one he emailed to me), but I probably wouldn’t have published his latest writings because I simply don’t agree with them at all, and they don’t incorporate any economics/finance. But, like I said before, anyone can post any argument/idea they want in the Forum.

[ashvin]

TheTrivium4TW post=3423 wrote: That’s what Ash doesn’t get. This isn’t mechanics any more. The mechanics will be changed whenever it suits BFC. Period. Of course, the current mechanics suit BFC just fine, so they won’t change it – that’s why they set it up this way in the first place.

This is like saying our energy flow issues aren’t about the mechanics of producing energy anymore, but instead are only about the interests of the people who produce/control most of the world’s energy flows. They may have set up the current fossil fuel system, but they cannot deny the reality of its physical, thermodynamic constraints.

Granted, debt-driven economics may be more attuned to their control since it is also tied up with political/legal issues, but there are still constraints that the system imposes – yes, even for THEM, the people who set up the system.

It used to be that you couldn’t lie on your balance sheet – then the “mechanics” changed and criminal fraud is now legalized for the BFC front corporations (but not their competition, see…).

It never really used to be anything fundamentally different. The only thing that changes is that financial speculation, fraud, misrepresentation, embezzlement, etc. became more common because the system NECESSITATED those things. We should actually view these developments as a form of desperation on the part of the elites who are trying to maintain the current system, at least until they are ready with something completely new (and a million times more oppressive). If they did not change/undermine the existing regulations/laws, generate more credit/debt and concentrate more wealth among fewer and fewer corporate powers, the financial capitalist system would have broken down a long time ago.

[ashvin]

The 2008 top lasted for what? 10 seconds, lol. From 1979 to 2001, 22 full years, the USA economy went into recession every time the price of crude exceeded $30/bbl. Then, they decided they would try a work around. The workaround is still in progress, but getting a bit played out.

No, the US economy went into recession every time it accumulated too much PRIVATE debt relative to its ability of servicing that debt. That’s something your conservative neoclassical gold bug classes didn’t teach you.

The mailing of ss checks, combined with their other spending, is contributing to consumer price inflation, currently about 6%/yr, per shadowstats.com. As the federal deficit widens going forward, inflation will increase.

The trillions they give to AIG and JPM were never going to be spent on consumer goods, so therefore they have no effect on inflation. They are merely accounting entries. Any simpleton can see that.

SS checks, on the other hand, buy gasoline, food, etc. Why don’t you take a class on economics, perhaps econ 101, lol?

I took a bunch of econ courses and they were all neoclassical hogwash. If you want a real econ schooling, read Dr. Steve Keen’s “Debunking Economics”, which in your case could be called “Debunking a Naive Gold Bug’s HI Fantasies”.

Like Triv said, you fail to understand the system is saturated with DEBT. The question isn’t what SS checks will buy people lucky enough to retire, but how much additional demand it will provide to offset the cratering demand due to deleveraging, debt servicing and unemployment. Maybe you live in some rich community where people blow every extra dollar they get on food/gas, but most people have to find ways to save and cut back.

You also don’t understand the difference between HI and inflation. HI is NOT inflation on steroids… it is a complete loss of confidence in the currency’s value storing function. Weimar didn’t happen because the Germans went buck wild with SS checks and medical payments. But, then again, that’s not something they will teach you in Econ 101. You have a lot of catching up to do, my friend.

[ashvin]

pipefit post=3411 wrote: Hi Ash—If you have to cherry picks entry points to make your argument, you are conceding that you don’t have a strong one. Over the last decade plus a few years, or the entire life of the Euro, the exchange rate to the dollar has bounced around a lot. I don’t know what the average exchange rate is, but probably about where we are now.

I wasn’t cherry picking anything, but rather pointing out the absurdity of your argument that the $ is failing because the euro is still 25% above parity. That is an absurd argument… those short term FX fluctuations really have nothing to do with general confidence in global currencies as stores of value.

Our refineries have so much extra gasoline capacity that they have to export some of it, even with no new refineries built here in 35 years. Yet gasoline prices are up 200% from a decade ago.

So you notice that energy demand has plummeted, yet oil prices have remained elevated (still more than 50% down from 2008 peak), and your conclusion is that people don’t have faith in the dollar anymore?? Keeping dollars cheap for big financial speculators to bet on oil does not equal HI any more than betting on RE prices did.

Ash said, “Exactly, a cliff – meaning, many of those payments won’t be made. Defaults on obligations = hyperinflation? I think not.”

Sorry, sir, but that is absolutely preposterous. The entire edifice (including the dollar) will fail before they stop sending out social security checks. If you don’t understand that, you don’t grasp the very basics of American politics. I suppose you could argue that there will be a military coup, and a suspension of the constitution, , but in that case they won’t need dollars to pay the workers in the concentration camps.

Who said they will stop sending out checks? American politics right now is no different than Greek politics, except the non-stop propaganda and mind games are at a larger scale and drawn out over a longer time. They will reneg on promises, rejigger the rules and bleed the people dry until they can no longer take it anymore, and then they will bleed them some more… and THEN comes the martial law.

[Author]

Posts