Neo Feudalism Skating on Thin Ice. Compromat, Compromise and Contradiction. #Sraffa

From Giant Sucking sound to a sharp Intake of breath, All our April Fools Come at once. 3 Degreees Of Seperation Digital Gulag divide and rule.

Sysyphus pushed his boulder,

The path smoothe both ways

The same incline repeated

Paramenides like determination.

Prometheus chained over the hill

Willing that sysyphus may succeed

panta re alike to his own flame.

Both legends for deaf ears.

Heraclitus his ebb and flow

Crying metaphors to deaf masses

Sobbing similes to Blind tyranny

Calvary the summit to that bluff.

Miamonides saw each contradiction

Each species of deafness, Loud

Each species of blindness, Dark

All no less perplexed than the next.

Yet another Sysyphus rolls

Yet another Prometheus reveals

Yet another Heraclitus crys

Yet another Miamonides interpts

Ancient and modern queing

Missed cues and repeated lines

A dialogue of the divine comedy

Stockaded in linguistic prison walls.

Roger G Lewis  PUBLISHED DATE:JULY 24, 2022

Bank consolidation continues: Standard Chartered quits The Gambia

You may recall that the week before last, I noted as follows: ‘The Slog tried today to get some information on opening a foreign currency account with Standard Chartered in Gambia. It’s a bank that claims it can “leverage on its global footprint” to quickly provide all the information a customer needs. It also lets you transfer funds into their account with you without charging you, which I must say sounds jolly decent of them. The website led me round in circles for over twenty minutes without providing an iota of information, but it was useful in that they fell off the shortlist immediately and thus made my task somewhat easier.’

Bank consolidation continues: Standard Chartered quits The Gambia

The Slogs post this morning and Lord Desai’s letter to the FT? sent to me by Ranjan(RB) on What’s app earlier, tie together some themes which are emerging around Central Bank Digital Currencies, On Line Identity, Austerity and the Party Line that we are all poorer its our fault and we must get on with it.

Who’s s on who’s side is something that Peter Oborne’s article on the Coronation Tackles, with my own proviso that If The new King pursued Environmental causes and not the Short Hand “Climate Crisis” Narrative we would have a better idea if he is not #TheWrongKindofGreen as well as the #WrongKindofMonarch. The Wrong Kind of Monarch is an Absolute, Devine right of Kings Monarch, as opposed to a Constitutional Monarch counterbalancing Robber Baron Power. Oborne would I think agree his arguments, as are mine rely heavily on #ChestertonsFence an unrequited point I made to the Fully Automated Luxury “Literal” Communist Ash Sakar yesterday.


RL. What does Desai’s Rap sheet look like?

RB. He knows his Sraffa,_Baron_Desai

RB. Saw this referred to, in an Indian context, in an FT piece on CBDCs:

RL. Sraffa exposed Monopolistic and oligopolistic contradictions in classical economics. Aadhaar is a tool of State Monopoly Capitalism. Maybe desai doesnt know his Aadhaar?


RB. Sounds like he’s forgotten his Sraffa

RL. I have not read the UPI link Ranjan, but CBDC and the Open Banking legislation which is quite advanced in the EU is all part of the same process as is the current culling of US regional Banks and German Local Banks.

Olof Palme blew up Nordstream and sank the MS Estonia


Principle of Explosion – Cultural Analysis & Philosophy (


It is impossible to circumvent any of the fundamental laws (identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle) and retain the capacity for meaning.


Introductory Remarks. [ON METHOD] THERE are seven causes of inconsistencies and contradictions to be met within a literary work.

The first cause arises from the fact that the author collects the opinions of various men, each differing from the other, but neglects to mention the name of the author of any particular opinion. In such a work contradictions or inconsistencies must occur, since any two statements may belong to two different authors.

Second cause: The author holds at first one opinion which he subsequently rejects: in his work., however, both his original and altered views are retained.

Third cause: The passages in question are not all to be taken literally: some only are to be understood in their literal sense, while in others figurative language is employed, which includes another meaning besides the literal one: or, in the apparently inconsistent passages, figurative language is employed which, if taken literally, would seem to be contradictories or contraries.

Fourth cause: The premises are not identical in both statements, but for certain reasons they are not fully stated in these passages: or two propositions with different subjects which are expressed by the same term without having the difference in meaning pointed out, occur in two passages. The contradiction is therefore only apparent, but there is no contradiction in reality.

The fifth cause is traceable to the use of a certain method adopted in teaching and expounding profound problems. Namely, a difficult and obscure theorem must sometimes be mentioned and assumed as known, for the illustration of some elementary and intelligible subject which must be taught beforehand the commencement being always made with the easier thing. The teacher must therefore facilitate, in any manner which he can devise, the explanation of those theorems, which have to be assumed as known, and he must content himself with giving a general though somewhat inaccurate notion on the subject. It is, for the present, explained according to the capacity of the students, that they may comprehend it as far as they are required to understand the subject. Later on, the same subject is thoroughly treated and fully developed in its right place.

Sixth cause: The contradiction is not apparent, and only becomes evident through a series of premises. The larger the number of premises necessary to prove the contradiction between the two conclusions, the greater is the chance that it will escape detection, and that the author will not perceive his own inconsistency. Only when from each conclusion, by means of suitable premises, an inference is made, and from the enunciation thus inferred, by means of proper arguments, other conclusions are formed, and after that process has been repeated many times, then it becomes clear that the original conclusions are contradictories or contraries. Even able writers are liable to overlook such inconsistencies. If, however, the contradiction between the original statements can at once be discovered, and the author, while writing the second, does not think of the first, he evinces a greater deficiency, and his words deserve no notice whatever.

Seventh cause: It is sometimes necessary to introduce such metaphysical matter as may partly be disclosed, but must partly be concealed: while, therefore, on one occasion the object which the author has in view may demand that the metaphysical problem be treated as solved in one way, it may be convenient on another occasion to treat it as solved in the opposite way. The author must endeavour, by concealing the fact as much as possible, to prevent the uneducated reader from perceiving the contradiction.

Jain Many SidedNess

Anekāntavāda (Sanskritअनेकान्तवाद, “many-sidedness”) refers to the Jain doctrine about metaphysical truths that emerged in ancient India.[1] It states that the ultimate truth and reality is complex and has multiple aspects.[2] Anekantavada has also been interpreted to mean non-absolutism, “intellectual Ahimsa”,[3] religious pluralism,[4] as well as a rejection of fanaticism that leads to terror attacks and mass violence.[5] Some scholars state that modern revisionism has attempted to reinterpret anekantavada with religious tolerance, openmindedness and pluralism.[6][7]

  1. Affirmation: syād-asti—in some ways, it is,
  2. Denial: syān-nāsti—in some ways, it is not,
  3. Joint but successive affirmation and denial: syād-asti-nāsti—in some ways, it is, and it is not,
  4. Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable,
  5. Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syān-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable,
  6. Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable,
  7. Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is indescribable.

Author: rogerglewis

Real Estate Entrepreneur.

Leave a Reply