On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 03:58:17PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 18:54:41 +1000 Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

As in, what does he care whether his fiat is printed by the Reserve Bank, or whether it happens to be an "old style fiat" or some fangled new "digital fiat"?

Joe Bloggs does not care one way or the other - he really does, not, care.

and that's the result of 'education' at the hands of his parents, the 'religious' 'authorities' and the state.

...

Mr Bloggs must first identify that his self sufficiency ("vertical integration" at the household and/or community level) is in his interests.

problem being, 'adults' who have been mass-producded by the current SCIENTIFIC system are mostly hopeless.

...

And to do this he must completely cast out the Marxist lies which lull him into any sense of entitlement or envy.

and now you've discredited your own reasoning by being a stupid partisan. So a couple of points :

that's non sensical

1) by naming the piece of joo shit, herr marks, you're just promoting 'marxism'. You could refer to him as merck for instance. Or better yet, completely ignore him.

your allusion that my words "Marxist lies", supposedly means I'm "just promoting 'marxism'", is not logical HOWEVER, it could be granted that even naming "herr Marx" at all, even "Marxist lies", actually 'gives reality to' those "Marxist lies". A possible problem with subscribing too heavily to any principle that we "should not name Marx, nor use Marxist terminology, is that our language is made poorer/ less succinct. Impoverishing our language, is a fundamentally "Marxist" tool/ tactic/ intention. Perhaps it could be unwise to "submit" to such 'language impoverishment'? The "positive" intention to 'not promote Marx' is logically a good intention which is easy to support. Fwiw, I think in this instance that the use of this 2-word conjunction "Marxist lies", sufficiently conveys that "Marxism" is not being used 'in a positive light' so to speak - but thanks for the heads up, it is often wise to double check our language to make sure we mean what we think we are saying (or trying to say).

2) central banks are a quintessential RIGHT WING, MONARCHICAL, CONSERVATIVE 'invention'. Look up "bank of sweden' and "bank of england" for starters. Merckists want to control central banks (see merck's 'manifesto') simply because central banks are a key 'institution' in totalitarian social systems. And yes of course right wingers 'invented' central banks to serve their totalitarian ends.

Well yes, it does seem that "Jewish forefathers" were the ultimate right wingers :) "Our" kings und queens of yore were led/ enticed/ blackmailed into usurious banking, "central" or otherwise. Apparently in direct opposition to the clear and unambiguous injunction from this one "temple money-table flipping", enigmatic in ways, rebel anarchist (afaict) named Jesus Christ. No point highlighting "he had to have been a Hebrew" since that only emphasizes the significance that the "Hebrews" hung him on a cross to die. No "system boy" that Jesus lad, no sir-ee.

...

The truth that "plain old" central banking fiats are more than sufficient (and a hell of a lot more energy efficient, not that Mr Bloggs cares anyway), is a truth which the average techno-anarchist seems strangely oblivious to - "he cannot see what his 'livelihood' depends on his not knowing" perhaps?

yes, government 'money' is more efficient in a few ways, and cash is more anonymous than most or even all 'cryptocurrencies'. The only distinct advantage that something like BTC has is that the supply isn't directly controlled by govcorp.

seems so, yes

...

Once again we appear inescapably drawn to that fundamental - except that a man contributes directly, at least in some small way to his own survival (i.e. unless he cultivates such an intention within himself), then he shall remain enslaved.

however, division of labor doesn't directly imply slavery. Division of labor does have drawbacks but it can work in a decent fashion given the propper cultural/political outlook.

true, division of labor doesn't directly imply slavery it seems we could collectively use better educated "fellow humans"... similar to technology - not "bad", merely a tool, except that most tech ends up used against us... I got a sneaky suspicion that usurious banking has a bit to do with this problem, but that our (collectively speaking) primary opposition or problem is "other humans generally", thus "education", "inculcation of better/clearer thinking"... Word Of The Week: inculcate

...

And "morally" we can say that this is not only the _natural_ way of things, but how they _should_ be (but note that we do not need the moral argument, where the natural or observed pattern of reality suffices as sufficient explanation.

So where does this leave us?

1) Fostering self sufficiency.

2) Educating others.

(And when we say "educating" others, we mean "inculcating those intentions which bring about the better/desired result - as in, awareness of the dependency/slavery dichotomy, and its antidote.)

Unpacking modern Marxism, for those who've ever felt "done over" and/or would like to get a handle on some tools to turn the tables: Exposing The Challenge Of Marxism Yoram Hazony via Quillette.com, https://quillette.com/2020/08/16/the-challenge-of-marxism/ https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/exposing-challenge-marxism … IV. The flaws that make Marxism fatal … while Marxism proposes an empirical investigation of the power relations among classes or groups, it simply assumes that wherever one discovers a relationship between a more powerful group and a weaker one, that relation will be one of oppressor and oppressed. This makes it seem as if every hierarchical relationship is just another version of the horrific exploitation of black slaves by Virginia plantation owners before the Civil War. But in most cases, hierarchical relationships are not enslavement. Thus, while it is true that kings have normally been more powerful than their subjects, employers more powerful than their employees, and parents more powerful than their children, these have not necessarily been straightforward relations of oppressor and oppressed. Much more common are mixed relationships, in which both the stronger and the weaker receive certain benefits, and in which both can also point to hardships that must be endured in order to maintain it. The fact that the Marxist framework presupposes a relationship of oppressor and oppressed leads to the second great difficulty, which is the assumption that every society is so exploitative that it must be heading toward the overthrow of the dominant class or group. But if it is possible for weaker groups to benefit from their position, and not just to be oppressed by it, then we have arrived at the possibility of a conservative society: One in which there is a dominant class or loyalty group (or coalition of groups), which seeks to balance the benefits and the burdens of the existing order so as to avoid actual oppression. In such a case, the overthrow and destruction of the dominant group may not be necessary. Indeed, when considering the likely consequences of a revolutionary reconstitution of society—often including not only civil war, but foreign invasion as the political order collapses—most groups in a conservative society may well prefer to preserve the existing order, or to largely preserve it, rather than to endure Marx’s alternative. This brings us to the third failing of the Marxist framework. This is the notorious absence of a clear view as to what the underclass, having overthrown its oppressors and seized the state, is supposed to do with its newfound power. Marx is emphatic that once they have control of the state, the oppressed classes will be able to end oppression. But these claims appear to be unfounded. After all, we’ve said that the strength of the Marxist framework lies in its willingness to recognize that power relations do exist among classes and groups in every society, and that these can be oppressive and exploitative in every society. And if this is an empirical fact—as indeed it seems to be—then how will the Marxists who have overthrown liberalism be able use the state to obtain the total abolition of class antagonisms? At this point, Marx’s empiricist posture evaporates, and his framework becomes completely utopian. When liberals and conservatives talk about Marxism being “nothing but a big lie,” this is what they mean. The Marxist goal of seizing the state and using it to eliminate all oppression is an empty promise. Marx did not know how the state could actually bring this about, and neither have any of his followers. In fact, we now have many historical cases in which Marxists have seized the state: In Russia and Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, and Cambodia, Cuba and Venezuela. But nowhere has the Marxists’ attempt at a “revolutionary reconstitution of society” by the state been anything other than a parade of horrors. In every case, the Marxists themselves form a new class or group, using the power of the state to exploit and oppress other classes in the most extreme ways—up to and including repeated recourse to murdering millions of their own people. Yet for all this, utopia never comes and oppression never ends. Marxist society, like all other societies, consists of classes and groups arranged in a hierarchical order. But the aim of reconstituting society and the assertion that the state is responsible for achieving this feat makes the Marxist state much more aggressive, and more willing to resort to coercion and bloodshed, than the liberal regime it seeks to replace. ...

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 02:42:33PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 22:26:39 +1000 Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

Unpacking modern Marxism,

Oh, I see that you ignored my comments on all your jew-kristian fascist garbage and started to hysterically whine about 'marxism' yet again...just to divert attention from your jew-kristian fascist garbage, go figure. Hey, you're a 'modern' 'marxist'.

You can't debate the principles of faith with logic - well of course you can, but after a very short while it becomes utterly pointless - I'm sure you don't want to waste your time on a pointless debate? And in any case I don't want to waste our time on a pointless debate... To remove any doubt here, your "existential"/ logical positions which you take in relation to "all things faith related", is always going to be the "winning" position. And further, when you receive "no response" to a position, it is normally assumed that you "won" that particular point or that part of the argument. I assume this, and those who don't think, tend to subconsciously make the same assumption. Regarding acknowledgements, on most logical/ fact based positions you take, when you lay down a winning point, it is nice to get an acknowledgement from your "opponent". But when a faith position is taken, the acknowledgement can only really be "this is oil and water, or incompatible debating positions" - such incompatible positions are at a stalemate.

"Marxist framework presupposes a relationship of oppressor and oppressed "

that's not marxism, that's reality.

Yes and no, and that simplistic position is the root cause of a lotta problems today. The point is, that if that's the _only_ view of reality that you "permit" in your "debate", then you can be rightly classified as a "Marxist loonatic" or "Marxist despot". It would be stupid to deny that there are those who are oppressed and oppressors, and that's not being attempted here. The "BUT" is this: a hierarchy of humans does not always/ have to mean "someone's getting oppressed" (which is the sole position modern Marxists take, and which they use to oppress all alternative positions).

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 12:36:08AM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 12:50:00 +1000 Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

You can't debate the principles of faith with logic - well of course you can, but after a very short while it becomes utterly pointless

the jesus literary character never existed. That's a matter of history, not faith.

That's a nominally a fair point, but I'll raise you one Jesus scroll :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Scroll The Jesus Scroll is a best-selling book[1] first published in 1972 and written by Australian author Donovan Joyce. A forerunner to some of the ideas later investigated in The Da Vinci Code,[2][3] Joyce's book made the claim that Jesus of Nazareth may have actually died aged 80 at Masada[4] near the Dead Sea, site of the last stand made by Jewish zealot rebels against the Roman Empire, after the Fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple. Joyce, an Australian journalist, claimed to have seen a scroll stolen from the Masada excavations. He wrote that it was one of fifteen scrolls discovered during the dig there. His book states that the stolen autobiographical scroll was signed Yeshua ben Ya’akob ben Gennesareth, who described himself as eighty years old and added that he was the last of the rightful kings of Israel. The name when translated into English became Jesus of Gennesareth, son of Jacob.[5] Joyce identifies the author as Jesus of Nazareth. Joyce's book further suggests that Jesus may have survived the crucifixion, was present during the Roman siege of Masada during the Jewish Revolt of 66-74 AD, and that he had married Mary Magdalene and fathered a child with her. Joyce claimed that he attempted to visit Masada in 1964 during the archaeological excavation but was prevented by Yigael Yadin. Joyce further claimed that an anonymous and corrupt archaeologist, "Dr. Grosset", asked him to help smuggle the 'Jesus Scroll' out of Israel that had been discovered during that dig.[6] Joyce says in his book that the scroll was sneaked aboard an airplane by Dr. Grosset, who then most likely took it to Russia to strike a deal with Soviet leaders.[6] Joyce proposed controversial theories concerning the historicity of Jesus that caused outrage among many Christians, and for which he received numerous death threats.[1] [Just the first chapter has the goods on this one, I hope to scan it in one day.] AND he was written about circa A.D. 161: https://www.mesacc.edu/~thoqh49081/handouts/suetonius.html Suetonius, another Roman historian, lived A.D. 75-160. It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) to be a Roman rebel active in the days of Claudius, who reigned A.D. 41-54 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1] Notwithstanding, your modern "historical reporting standards will never be properly met, and you get to choose the standard, so for me this is a loosing battle, thus "pointless".

As to the political nature of the totalitarian jew-kristianty theocracy...well, that's politics, not faith. So 'faith' (whatever you mean by it) never entered the picture.

Faith did enter the picture, the very moment I began to speak in relation to faith ("the Hebrews hung him on a cross to die").

anyway, look up "banking in babylon" and learn the fact that so called 'fractional reserve banking' is one of the oldest scams in history

Indeed.

On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 03:10:04 -0400 grarpamp wrote:

...

hey, what about hayek and pinochet?

Corruption tends to invalidate and take over well before even most or minor attempts claiming to foray into any particular purist experiments regardless what they are.

the hell is that supposed to mean. Anyway here's some actual information on hayek and pinochet. https://crookedtimber.org/2013/06/25/the-hayek-pinochet-connection-a-second-reply-to-my-critics/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter disregard the parts that try to present lefties as the good guys and focus on the fact that fake 'libertarians' like hayek are actually fascists.