Exegesis Hermeneutics Flux Capacitor of Truthiness
A note on Neo Liberal Manias. actualité in Political Journalism (sic) Escape the Neo Liberal May-Trix. #GrubStreetJournal #TheThreePamphlateers @financialeyes @Wiki_Ballot @JoeBlob20 #IABATO #COGBrexit #BrexitElection2019 #PaedoBRINO #PoliticalPantomime
Queen’s Brian May went on to ask what he should do tomorrow when he wakes up to help the cause. ‘It’s a long term strategy of the re-centralisation of the power under the co-ordination of vital institutions and vital services fully autonomous collectives that collaborate to preserve the rights of the individual and the rights to pursue spiritually whatever direction we want to with the prioritisation of the ecological preservation of the planet,’ was Brand’s confusing reply.
Judging by Brand’s answer, he is most effective with his views when edited. Watch the film, but if it leaves you looking for a left-wing champion to lead the revolution, you may want to look to Ed.
Fairytale, allegorical1. Collective ignorance of an obvious fact, or deception, despite undeniable evidence.
World-famous British comedian and activist Russell Brand joins forces with acclaimed director Michael Winterbottom on a polemical documentary about the financial crisis and gross inequality we currently face. Starting with the genesis of today’s economic policies, with the arrival of Milton Friedman’s school of thought in Reagan’s leadership and Thatcher’s UK, the film explores how these policies have come to dominate the western world. The rich have got richer; where a CEO of a major British company used to earn 10 times the average wage of his workers, now they earn 200 times. According to Oxfam, the richest 80 people in the world own as much as the poorest 3.5 billion. It would now take 300 years for the average cleaner, cleaning the offices of his senior boss, to earn the same salary taken home by the same boss last year.
Milton Friedman once said that every crisis was an opportunity. The financial crisis of 2008 should have been a chance to reform the system for the benefit of everyone. But instead, austerity for everyone throughout Britain and Europe was the price to be paid for supporting the financial sector, with £131 billion spent by UK tax payers to keep the financial system afloat, while $30 trillion in support and subsidies went to Wall Street in the US.
Using a mixture of documentary, interviews, archive footage and comedy, Russell Brand takes us from his hometown Grays in Essex, to the heart of London ‘City’ and on to the Big Apple. This daring film will shake up the world by revealing the bewildering truth about how the people at the bottom are paying for the luxuries of those at the top.
Things can change…things do change.
With the Snap June 8th General Election we Voters are getting rather practised at listening to the familiar narratives. There has been an unbroken onslaught since the 2010 election and in each what is singularly clear is that none of the political narratives has adequately dealt with the 2008 Crisis and subsequent Austerity fix, which all political parties seemingly have Bought into. Certainly, the media has sold those Austerity lies enthusiastically. Brands film the emperor’s new clothes did not get a general Cinema release and is still hard to find online to stream, the link on the trailer of the distributors youtube channel does not work, as with many accurate and useful documentaries the material has been memory holed, hiding in plain site as any needle in any haystack is not hidden from view just difficult to find, you understand. Brexit is a Mania peculiar to a narrow band of Europhile apparatchiks and an assorted bunch of faux sophisticates that profess a preference for coffee over tea at breakfast and who prefer they say a Continental Breakfast to a Full English. As any true gastronome would admit no one prefers a continental breakfast over a ´´full English´´, just as no vegetarian would remain morally superior on the matter of truth-telling, by their own lights, if they denied the alluring and mouth watering delicacy of the smell of bacon frying in butter. Brexit is a peculiar lens to view Globalism through, Brexit in Prime Minister Mays Ideology or Ultra Neo-Liberal Ideology is rather a parochial regional quarrel. Globalism based upon Petro/Carbon Dollar debt based Hegemony would naturally support Brexit as it damages the EURO currency unit and Strengthens the Stirling Dollar or ´´Cable´´Axis. The Global Oligarchy must be centred on the United States and is founded in doctrines of American Exceptionalism, there you see Trump and his faction 0f the Oligarchy which arguably includes Murdoch or the Faction containing Murdoch is Aligned to the Trump faction, or if you prefer has captured or subverted Trump and the #MAGA movement to its own ends. All controls do now seem set and committed to the infamous Project for a new American Century and spelt out in that General wesley Clarke Video on Democracy Now.
I did a Blog with some Geo-Economics analysis linking to some very interesting papers and articles regarding SDR´s, the World Bank and the Balance of Economic Power, as exercised through the accounting of trade balances.
If you click the link or search subsidiarity in the search bar at the top of the page you will find references to Subsidiarity on this blog all of them in a democratic context as to the Brexit debate in some shape or form.
The primary causes of the schism were disputes over conflicting claims of jurisdiction, in particular over papal authority—Pope Leo IX claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs— and over the insertion of the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed by the Western patriarch in 1014. Eastern Orthodox today state that Council of Chalcedon canon 28 explicitly proclaimed the equality of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople and that it established the highest court of ecclesiastical appeal in Constantinople. Council of Ephesus canon 7 declared:
It is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa. But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized
Eastern Orthodox today state that this canon of the Council of Ephesus explicitly prohibited modification of the Nicene Creed drawn up by the first Ecumenical Council in 325, the wording of which, it is claimed, but not the substance, had been modified by the second Ecumenical Council, making additions such as “who proceeds from the Father”.
Eastern Orthodox argue that First Council of Ephesus canon 7 explicitly prohibited modification of the Nicene Creed by any man (not by ecumenical church council) drawn up by the first Ecumenical Council in 325. In reality, the Council made no exception for an ecumenical council or any other body of bishops, and the Greeks participating in the Council of Florence emphatically denied that even an ecumenical council had the power to add anything to the creed. The creed quoted in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus of 431 (the third ecumenical council) is that of the first ecumenical council, that of Nicaea (325), without the modifications that the second ecumenical council, held in Constantinople in 381, is understood to have made to it, such as the addition of “who proceeds from the Father”. Eastern Orthodox theologians state this change of the wording of the churches’ original creed, was done to address various teachings outside of the church in specific the Macedonius I of Constantinople teaching which the council claimed was a distortion of the church’s teaching on the Holy Spirit. This was not a change of the orthodoxy of the churches’ original creed. Thus the word ἑτέραν in the seventh canon of the later Council of Ephesus is understood as meaning “different” or “contradictory” and not “another” in the sense of mere explanatory additions to the already existing creed. Some scholars hold that the additions attributed to the First Council of Constantinople were adopted only with the 451 Council of Chalcedon, 20 years after that of Ephesus, and even that the Council of Ephesus, in which Alexandrian influence was dominant, was by this canon excluding the Constantinopolitan Creed, which eventually annexed the name and fame of the creed adopted at Nicaea.
The idea came about because of the political and ecclesiastical prominence of these five sees, but the concept of their universal and exclusive authority was firmly tied to the administrative structure of the Roman Empire. The pentarchy was first tangibly expressed in the laws of Emperor Justinian I (527–565), particularly in Novella 131. The Quinisext Council of 692 gave it formal recognition and ranked the sees in order of preeminence. Especially following Quinisext, the pentarchy was at least philosophically accepted in Eastern Christianity, but generally not in the West, which rejected the Council, and the concept of the pentarchy.
The greater authority of these sees in relation to others was tied to their political and ecclesiastical prominence; all were located in important cities and regions of the Roman Empire and were important centers of the Christian Church. Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were prominent from the time of early Christianity, while Constantinople came to the fore upon becoming the imperial residence in the 4th century. Thereafter it was consistently ranked just after Rome. Jerusalem received a ceremonial place due to the city’s importance in the early days of Christianity. Justinian and the Quinisext Council excluded from their pentarchical arrangement churches outside the empire, such as the then-flourishing Church of the East in SassanidPersia, which they saw as heretical. Within the empire they recognized only the Chalcedonian (or Melchite) incumbents, regarding as illegitimate the non-Chalcedonian claimants of Alexandria and Antioch.
Infighting among the sees, and particularly the rivalry between Rome (which considered itself preeminent over all the church) and Constantinople (which came to hold sway over the other Eastern sees and which saw itself as equal to Rome, with Rome “first among equals“), prevented the pentarchy from ever becoming a functioning administrative reality. The Islamic conquests of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch in the 7th century left Constantinople the only practical authority in the East, and afterward the concept of a “pentarchy” retained little more than symbolic significance.
Years ago, when I was scanning through a pile of Western newspa-
pers in Novosti’s Moscow headquarters, 1 came across a column
written by a Canadian writer, Gregory Clark in the “Toronto Star”.
Here it is in full. 1 have saved it for my files;
“If 1 were a Communist agent in America with millions of dol-
lars to spend annually I would not waste it in bribing pubic
servants to give away state secrets. But 1 would lavish and en-
courage the sleazy tune-smiths of that region to turn out more
and more garbage ‘culture’ . . . Gaggled-headed and obscure
musicians would be helped to prominence. I would seek out the
more questionable publishers of the dirtier paperbacks and slip
them a few hundred thousand so they could set up more respec-
table head offices. Wherever trend shows towards the beat
generation I would offer it a helping hand. Anything that
prompted the insubordination of teenagers, anything that con-
tributes to the confusion and exasperation of parents would be
most liberally endowed. The basic intention of my spending
would be to break down the discipline, encourage relaxation of
authority of every kind so as to build up, in as short time as
possible, an adult generation that could easily go out of con-
America would look desperately around for any kind of
discipline to rescue them and THERE — pretty as a picture,
would be Communism, the most iron-fisted discipline since
Sparta. The victory would be bloodless . . . Except of course in
concentration camps, torture, prisons, and few things like that.
But nobody would know about that because of censorship of
the press.” „ ■
This was written in 1959! The accuracy of this description oi OUR
activity stunned me. We had just completed ‘helping a gaggle-head-
ed’ Communist entertainer, Yves Montand to ‘prominence’ in
Moscow and were halfway through with publicly elevating ‘obscure’
Indian filmmaker — Raj Kapoor to ‘fame’. The editorial offices of
Novosti were teaming with ‘sleazy’ foreign singers, poets, writers,
artists, musicians and ‘intellectuals’ coming to my country for sup-
port in their ‘progressive struggle’against their own ‘decadent capita-
list’ societies …
There is not much 1 can add to that statement of a wise Canadian
columnist today. Yes, KGB encourages DEMORALIZATION of
America through the ‘mass culture’ by relying upon the help of the
“useful idiots” of the entertainment business. No, the Beatles, Punks
and Michael Jackson are not on the KGB payroll. They are on
YOUR payroll. All the KGB had to do is to slowly and gradually
CHANGE YOUR ATTITUDES and kill your RESISTANCE to
the demoralizing addiction your kids call ‘music’, make it acceptable,
NORMAL; make it a part of ‘American culture’ where it does not
belong and never did.
One can take Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov (Russian: Юрий Александрович Безменов, also known as Tomas David Schuman; 1939 – 1993) as you read him in his own words or you can accept the construction placed upon his words and lectures by the John Birchers like Edward G Griffin. Yuuri himself points out the Sun Tzu writing two and a half thousand years ago was aware of the same methods of influencing the populations of state to the will of emperors against the will of princelings and of course generally their own best interests. Lipmann and Bernays did the same things to the Us population this sort of thing did not start with or end with the Cold War or the Dualist fairy tale of East versus West or Communism against Capitalism.
Stage 1 — Demoralization
The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already, for the last twenty-five years, actually it’s over-fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success, most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to access true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I showered him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures — even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him a concentration camp — he will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom. When a military boot crashes his butt, then he will understand, but not before that. That’s the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.
Stage 2 — Destabilization
The next stage is destabilization. This time the subverter does not care about your ideas and the patterns of your consumption, whether you eat junk food and get fat and flabby doesn’t matter anymore. This time — and it takes only from two to five years to destabilize a nation — what matters is essentials. Economy, foreign relations, defense systems. And you can see quite clearly that in some areas, in such sensitive areas as defense and economy, the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideas in the United States is absolutely fantastic. I could never believe it fourteen years ago when I landed in this part of the world that the process would go that fast.
Stage 3 — Crisis
The next stage of course is crisis, it may take only up to six weeks to bring a country to the verge of crisis, you can see it in Central America now. And after crisis, with a violent change of power, structure, and economy, you have a so-called period of normalization. It may last indefinitely.
Stage 4 — Normalization
Normalization is a cynical expression, borrowed from Soviet propaganda, when the Soviet tanks moved into Czechoslovakia in 1968, Comrade Brezhnev said, “Now the situation in brotherly Czechoslovakia is normalized.”
This is what will happen in the United States if you allow all the schmucks to bring the country to crisis. To promise people all kinds of goodies and a paradise on Earth. To destabilize your economy. To eliminate the principle of free market competition and to put a Big Brother government in Washington DC with benevolent dictators like Walter Mondale who will promise lots of things, never mind whether the promises are fulfilled or not. He will go to Moscow to kiss the bottoms of a new generation of Soviet assassins, never mind, he will create false illusions that the situation is under control.
The situation is not under control. The situation is disgustingly out of control. Most of the American politicians, media, and educational system, trains another generation of people who think they are living at the peace time. False. The United States is in a state of war. Undeclared total war against the basic principles and the foundations of this system. And the initiator of this war is not Comrade Andropov of course, it’s the system — however ridiculous it may sound — the world Communist system, or the world Communist conspiracy. Whether I scare some people or not I don’t give a hoot. If you are not scared by now, nothing can scare you.
I am indebted to Caroline Lucas MP, newly elected co-Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales for making the connection between Turnouts and Mandates, with this speech to the Debate on The so called Neverendum Petition.
I would also like to Thank Gerraint Davies MP for asking this question of Theresa May the Prime minister regarding Ceta, ISDS and TTIP .In questions following her G20 briefing to the House of Commons. It restored my faith that not all Labour MP´s are lost in what Paulo Frieere says is the tendency of some on ´´ the Left to ”almost always (be)tempted by a “quick return to power,”(&) forgets the necessity of joining with the oppressed to forge an organization, and strays into an impossible “dialogue” with the dominant elites. It ends by being manipulated by these elites, and not infrequently itself falls in an elitist game, which it calls “realism.”
Notes for the Poems Figures and Themes.
Voter Turn Out, What is a mandate and Electoral Reform.
An exclusive look into mainstream media bias and the techniques they use to influence the independence debate.
‘The Bigger The Lie’ focuses on the significant research of Professor John Robertson into media bias during the Scottish Independence Referendum. The film covers Professor Robertson’s meticulous approach to the research and the subsequent suppression by the mainstream media of his findings. Overall, the findings did uncover general evidence of bias and particularly repetition of ‘bad news’. The techniques used such as sequencing of stories, reliance on sources such as the Treasury, OBR and IFS, demonisation of First Minister Alex Salmond and use of ‘experts’ were all more telling. This film might just change the way you look at the BBC’s coverage of Scotland’s most important political event.
MADE BY PHANTOM POWER FILMS – NOTHING TO DO WITH GA PONSONBY
Professor Robertson promotes the idea of greater political transparency of those offering media opinion on the debate. As the filmmaker of this work, I have never been very political in the past. I am a former Labour and SNP voter who will be deciding on Yes because I believe this is a great opportunity to achieve a more equal, wealthier and, above all, democratic Scottish nation.
Director of BBC Scotland Ken MacQuarrie, Head of News and Current Affairs John Boothman, the Head of Commonwealth Games 2014 Bruce Malcolm and the Editor of the Referendum Unit John Mullin giving evidence to the Education and Culture Committee.
The session includes response to Prof Robertson’s research, complaints from the public and some unusual staffing arrangements for coverage of the referendum that included making 35 regular members of staff redundant. http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/sc…
Filmed on 06/08/14 HD1920x1080p Running Time 13.40
Abstract: This paper explores the articulation of resistance to neoliberal globalization in Alejandro González Iñárritu’s Amores Perros, Alejandro Springall’s Santitos and Maria Novaro’s El Jardín del Edén. I argue that this resistance is enunciated within what Homi Bhabha terms ‘Third Space’, the in-between space of cultural translation and negotiation where notions of an essential national identity are destroyed and a contingent and indeterminate hybrid identity is constructed. Speaking from this hybrid space, these films employ Western cinematic conventions to construct narratives of the disjunctive experience of postcolonial time and space that disrupt the dominant temporality and imaginative geography of Western grand narratives of historical progress and global economic development, while at the same time deterritorializing the space and time of national imagining.
[Keywords: resistance, globalization, postcolonial, Amores Perros, Santitos, El Jardín del Edén]
The passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994 marked what, given the collapse of the communist bloc and thus the last substantial barricade to global capitalist expansion with the end of the Cold War, seemed the inevitable penetration of Western capital and neoliberal ideology into the core of Mexico’s social, economic, and political spheres. While NAFTA was surely only the toppling blast in a liberalizing onslaught that had been in progress for some time, it nevertheless seemed to represent the greatest affront to a collective vision for social change. The impact of NAFTA was most heavily felt by the indigenous population and agricultural workers and the most vehement reaction to its exploitative and destructive effects likewise were generated from these sectors; however, the effects of neoliberal globalization have undoubtedly reached beyond these populations to have a transformative effect on the entire social and economic reality of Mexican society. The struggle with this new reality has played out noticeably in Mexican cultural production and particularly in cinematic production. In the three films discussed here – Amores Perros, Santitos, and El Jardín del Edén – this struggle is clear as the effects of globalization, whether the increasing commonality of transnational migration, the shifting socio-economic structures of urban life, or the cultural syncretism of border spaces, play a noticeable role in the films’ narratives and in the lives of the films’ characters. For Mexico, as for most of the nations on the global periphery, the effects of globalization have been ambivalent, an ambivalence that Hardt and Negri note as the ‘two faces’ of globalization.
HYBRIDISATION OF ELITES
Hybridity, Resistance and Transnational Cinema Hybridity has become a particularly significant, if loaded, term in social and cultural theory. Employed equally by postcolonial theorists interested in the uneven and syncretic cultural exchange between (neo)colonizer and (neo)colonized and postmodernists proclaiming the end of the division between high and popular cultural forms, the term is often invoked to challenge binary understandings that reproduce Manichean worldviews or elitist power structures. In its postcolonial intonation, hybridity emphasizes the impossibility of returning to any notion of essential national or cultural identity after the colonial encounter, particularly in the present context of social, economic, and cultural globalization. Although the term is often used uncritically to denote a balanced and innocuous mixing of cultures, the process of hybridization is never an even exchange and is always necessarily power-laden, lived, as Robert Stam suggests, as “deeply entangled with colonial violence…alive as a painful, visceral memory” (33). Hybridization in no way erases conflicts between central and periphery nations and cultures. Rather, as Néstor García Canclini argues, it places these conflicts “in a different register, one that is multifocal and more tolerant, and the autonomy of each culture is rethought – sometimes – with smaller fundamental risks” (241). It is this shifting of registers, then, that opens up a new space within which new identities can be constructed and new forms of political resistance articulated.
Of all my own enquiries recently the most revelatory insight I stumbled across was the concept of Hybridity introduced in this paper on the nature of Islamaphobia in Sweden. http://inhouse.lau.edu.lb/bima/papers/Jonas_Otterbeck.pdf´´ According to the historian Åsa Karlsson, who cites among others Peter Burke, the upper classes of an emerging (Western) Europe came to distance themselves more and more from both the other classes of their own societies and from other cultures. At the same time there was an urge for knowledge about the others that they had distanced themselves from.(16) This change of attitude towards other ethnic groups, classes, and religions has also been discussed by other Swedish scholars.(17)16. Å. Karlsson 1998:84ff.17.Larsson cited in Å Karlsson 1998:84; Ambjörnsson 1994:33ff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybridity
In Many ways Chris Hedges frustration and pessimism set out in thius article asks a question of which path leads to liberation? This Blog by Toby Russel posits the ruling Elite, Hybridised Oligarchy call it what you will as a Danistocracy borrowed from Popp and Albrecht, http://thdrussell.blogspot.se/2011/12/from-here-to-there.html The medias role as the fourth Estate is brought center stage in this analysis with the Political Theater relegated to a role subservient to or co-mingled with the Main Stream media.
ALLOGARY OF THE CAVE PLATO
Skype telephone number +46406931188
Portfolio of on line Profiles( Go on be Nosy ) CLICK HERE PLEASE