Saturday, April 24, 2010

End the Fed

END THE FED RALLY IN PHILADELPHIA TODAY

Some of the signs:

~Arm Yourself with Knowledge
~ Federal Reserve - World Bank - Unconstitutional
~The Fed is Fraud
~End the Fed - Barter
~ Can I (picture of "eye") Print M$ney too?
~Buy gold - Silver - Seeds
~Audit the Fed - Accountable to No One
~Welcome to the Machine
~The Fed Has Waged Economic Warfare on America
~"Google "The MoneyMasters!" (shouted)
~Yo Dawg the Fed Be Unconstitutional
~We are fed up with the Fed
~Show me the money
~What's the difference? (Picture of $1 and a collection of Monopoly money)
~Uphold the Constitution
~Support HR 1207 (Audit the Fed)
~Using My Taxes to Kill
~Where is the transparency we were promised
~Ron Paul was Right
~Main Stream Media: State Propaganda
~The Fed is the Mother of all Ponzi Schemes
~Legalize the Constitution
~The Fed is a banking cartel
~A fellow with a ball and chain - wearing a Federal Reserve tee-shirt
~The Symphony of Destruction: Federal Reserve, Military-industrial complex, Oil reserves
~Fiat Money
~End the Fed B4 USA = Weimar
~"We are bankrupt!" (called out)
~Repeal the inflation tax!
~We put the "con" in "economy"
~Grand Theft of America
~Most Wanted Financial Terrorists: [pictures of] Bernanke, Geithner, Greenspan, Paulsen
~"Dollar is dead/blame the Fed" (chanted on the march to the Constitution Center)

I think my favorite was a tee-shirt printed: "Tyranny Response Team"
Some people, at least, are beginning to get it.

Tuesday, April 06, 2010

The Tacit and the Explicit

Illustration: Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955)

Today I want to talk about language – the “tacit” and the “explicit.”

“Tacit” means “understood without being clearly expressed.” Other synonyms include -- unspoken, implied, unsaid, implicit, indicated, unvoiced. The dictionary says that we use the word in the sense of “implied or indicated, as by an act or by silence, but not actually expressed, as e.g. a ‘tacit consent’ or ‘tacit admission of guilt.’”

Tacit derives from the Latin tacitus, silent; Old High German, dagēn, to be silent. It is odd to think that the “tacit” forms a very large part of what we understand as speech – or at least it seems odd until we begin to realize that speaking (communicating or saying) is primarily gesture or usage. The cognitive act is, so to speak, post-gestural; it comes after the placement of the act in real space. [1]

This is Ortega y Gasset’s argument about the nature of language in his book, Man and People, where he says, “Silence constantly acts on language and is the cause of many of its forms.”

He points out that: “…in proportion as conversation treats of more important, more human, more ‘real’ subjects…its vagueness, clumsiness, and confusion steadily increase…The stupendous reality that is language cannot be understood unless we begin by observing that speech consists above all in silences.”

I was thinking of the word tacit in connection with a blog entry from the writer known as Xymphora. He was writing about the pedophile scandals in the church. It was only after I re-read the piece today that I realized that Xymphora did not actually use the word ‘tacit’ and that I had, as it were, interpolated it. Here is what he wrote yesterday: “It is obvious that the Catholic Church had a deal with World Jewry. The Jews would use their control of the media to help the Church cover up its kiddy diddling. In return the Vatican would completely abdicate its responsibility to look after the interests of Christians in the Holy Land. I don't know why the Jews reneged on the deal. Probably just arrogance, the realization that the Vatican can't do anything now having failed to do anything for so many years… I wonder if we will now see some faint bleatings from Catholic officials about the outrages being committed by Jews against others in Greater Palestine.”

True? How would we go about verifying it? Xymphora is arguing that the Church had a tacit understanding with the owners of the world media. And yet it is this very “tacit understanding” that makes it so difficult to prove wrongdoing, or even to discuss conspiracy theories. Perhaps in this sense conspiracy theories are an unnecessary distraction. Thus Ortega’s point, that a large part of language consists of silences. But what happens when, as Paul Craig Roberts has said in his final piece (linked in a post a few days ago) that there is nothing left but “propaganda”? How do lies and propaganda impact on language and silence, on tacit understandings? What if there came about a society so utterly impregnated with falsehood and lies that a truthful statement would just appear – as e.g., as mushrooms after a rain, and nobody would remark it?

This seems to me to be the category in which to place General Stanley McCrystal’s recent statement concerning the war in Afghanistan: "We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat."

McCrystal’s statement signifies a new stage of history, one described by Baudrillard -- "... [Evil] … has become fluid, liquid, interstitial, viral… It … shows through in all things when they lose their image, their mirror, their reflection, their shadow, when they no longer offer any substance, distance or resistance, when they become both immanent and elusive … So long as Evil was opaque, obscene, oblique, obscure, there was still a transcendence of Evil and it could be held at a distance. It has now become immanent and interstitial….. a phase of definitive dissemination..”[2]

Maybe in losing the "silence," the invisible backing of language, we have lost the good itself, or at least the idea of the good -- that truth matters.


[1] From “The Power of Great Poetry to Shape the Character and Build the Nation: Dante, Humboldt, and Helen Keller,” by Muriel Murak Weissback, Fidelio, Summer, 1996: “Helen Keller wrote a little poem to describe how it was before she had the power of language. She wrote:
It was not night--it was not day,
But vacancy absorbing space,
And fixedness without a place;
There was no stars--no earth--no time--
No check--no change--no good--no crime.”

(Thanks to Lewis Smith for sending me this article.) I find the poem very interesting in its ‘geographic’ sense for language. It is quite possible that Helen Keller was able to read Milton’s Paradise Lost in later life, and captured some of the ‘darkness’ visible’ of Milton’s description of Hell in her poem about pre-linguistic state. Nevertheless, her poem does convey the idea that meaning is first of all a gesture, a sense of bearings - an incarnation, an idea of 'mattering.'

[2] Jean Baudrillard, The Illusion of the End, Stanford, 1994.

Sunday, April 04, 2010

The "fury against religion"


”…Why is there such a fury against religion now? Because religion is the one reliable force that stands in the way of the power of the strong over the weak. The one reliable force that forms the foundation of the concept of the rule of law. The one reliable force that restrains the hand of the man of power. In an age of power-worship, the Christian religion has become the principal obstacle to the desire of earthly utopians for absolute power…”
11 March 2010 1:52 PM
From: "How I found God and peace with my atheist brother" by Peter Hitchens, Mail Online

__________________________________________________


My comments: Peter Hitchens' article is very good. Well worth reading and thinking about. The differences between Peter and his brother Christopher on the subject of religion take on a sort of archetypal quality, a kind of revised Cain and Abel for this age of information, gossip, celebrity and instant "philosophizing." It was touching to read in Peter's article that when he married his wife in a church, it was the "first adult act he ever did." Why is that? Because consecration is the source of the dignity of objects, acts, and lives. Without the act of consecration we lose our grip on life and the sacred dimensions of our humanity. I believe that "losing this grip" is the real souce of the notion of Hell - the outer darkness, the garbage dump, the infernal [infer-ior] region. This banishment to the realm of the garbage dump, the smoking ruin, the "utter destruction" (and these words from Deuteronomy are significant) is what our politics has become today.


cf. Joseph de Maistre: "Human reason left to its own resources is completely incapable not only of creating but also of conserving any religious or political association, because it can only give rise to disputes and because, to conduct himself well, man needs beliefs, not problems." [For further reading, see my Book Notes on Joseph de Maistre in the Bookmanas website.]


Nevertheless, I would just add a couple of glosses to Peter Hitchens' article - and of course, no one can say everything. It was published just a few weeks shy of the the latest wave of pedophile scandals rocking the Church, the publication of which gives much glee and rejoicing no doubt to the enemies of the Church. The smell of blood is thick upon the waters. But it must also be said that the Church has brought these woes upon itself, upon herself -- and that every further pronouncement from the Vatican only makes matters go from bad to worse. It is utter nonsense - but also a tribute to how much the Judaic mindset has penetrated the thinking of even the elites in the Church -- to say that the attacks against the Pope are analogous to "antisemitism." This kind of hapless posturing is beneath contempt. Irresponsibility has poisoned the springs of all of our institutions today, and the fact that such a fad has now lodged within the Vatican is a symptom of decay at the top - in the sense in which a fish rots from the head. I say nothing against the ranks of the faithful Catholics, who are truly bewildered and upset by these developments. The leaders of the Catholic faithful appear to be running like heads with their chickens cut off - in S.J. Perelman's delicious phrase.


So, it is not enough to say, as Peter Hitchens says, that "...the Christian religion has become the principal obstacle to the desire of earthly utopians for absolute power." To a very great extent, as far as I can see, the Christian religion has become a tool of the Jews. First it was the Christian Zionists. Now the Catholics seem to be lining up to get a piece of the Jewish mindset, which has proven to be so effective in the political campaigns of our age. Convince everyone that you are a victim, and pouf! - you can bend them to your will like Silly Putty!


I was not impressed, for instance, when Pope Benedict XVI came to the United States and spent his time here apologizing left, right, and center. [1] I entered the Catholic Church at about the time Benedict became Pope, and at first I had great hopes for him. But his speech at Regensburg began his downward trajectory in my eyes. Despite the very good things he said about Reason and Logos, the speech seemed to me a gratuitous insult against the Islamic world. Anything that adds fuel to the flames of neoconservatism, the lust for empire and dominion, is to me ipso facto, an irremediable evil. I have believed for some time that the election of Cardinal Ratzinger to the papacy was a grievous misstep on behalf of the Catholic Church. It would have done better to cast off the baggage of Europe with its Judaic barnacles clinging to a shipwrecking craft, and start afresh with an African or South American Pope. However, the people in charge did not consult me!

Anyway, to return to the subject of Peter Hitchens: It is in actuality the Islamic religion which now forms "the principal obstacle to the desire of earthly utopians for absolute power." It should accordingly be no surprise to learn of the relentless attack against Muslims fomented in all of our so-called leading journals, nor of the incessant threats against Iran carried on for the past decade. The more the truths come out - as, for example, the recent revelations of our military's knowledge of how the Israeli Mossad orchestrated 9/11 - the more the anti-Islamic fervor increases in venom. Truly these are criminal dealings.


This is the thesis of Israel Shamir, a Russian Jewish convert to Orthodoxy who lives in Israel. He writes that Islam is the Last Katechon (a term of St. Paul's) holding against the Neo-Mammonist regime:


"... Islam is the last great reservoir of spirit, tradition and solidarity, and the Neo-Jews fight it with all firepower at their disposal. Islam has to be crushed if the Neo-Jewish Temple is to be erected on the site of al Aqsa. . . Thus the war on Islam is a stage of the last war, the War on Christ.. . On a deeper, metaphysical level, there is a struggle between two tendencies: a power that draws Heaven and Earth together and re-sacralises the world; and a power that tries to separate Heaven and Earth - to profane the world. The uniting power is represented as Christ in the arms of Our Lady. The dividing power, the Great Profaner, is greater than the Jews; but they eagerly support him for in their view the world outside Israel... should be profane and godless. Thus the actions of the Neo-Jews eventually lead to the profanation of the world..."

[1] I seem to be contradicting myself. The Pope was apologizing for a previous round of child abuse scandals. It was pitiful to see. The Catholic Church has a great tradition of social teachings on international law, finance, economy, just war theory, social justice - any one of which, if raised with seriousness and intent, would challenge the empire-mongers. Instead, he went skulking around as if he represented an organization with nothing to say and nothing to teach. This is what happens in the Outer Darkness - the failure of leaders to lead. A bit of balls - plain old fighting manly spirit, is what is needed! But have all the men been banished! And isn't this - irony of ironies! - what the scandal is all about!