The UK banking system
- Thread starter zArk
- Start date
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Rune said:
That's about right, yes.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
zArk said:
It's all beginning to sound like a load of auld pomo bollocks now.
ok, i was talking about total enslavement to a system that is economic.
I futher mentioned the private structure of the the entire government which is servile to Madam and not the public.
I would like to draw your attention to Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
and
Constitutional Reform (Prerogative Powers and Civil Service etc.) Bill
these two are the most horrific i have seen in the past 4 years.
Madam is still in charge and the entire Government is above and beyond the public in all cases.
Previous to this the public had a little influence allowed to keep up the pretense of democracy and some decent mps could have worked in favour of the public but now, its all gone.
"The Abolition of Parliament"
The ministers are going to be able to change laws, policies, rights, anything, whenever and however they wish without even having to put it to the commons vote. Right is wrong, Up is down, 2 + 2 = whatever you say leader.
We are serfs and a new technological feudal society has begun.
Family blood lines = your position in society
Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill [HL]
We have jumped back in time. The English Civil War was a failure.
I futher mentioned the private structure of the the entire government which is servile to Madam and not the public.
I would like to draw your attention to Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
and
Constitutional Reform (Prerogative Powers and Civil Service etc.) Bill
these two are the most horrific i have seen in the past 4 years.
Madam is still in charge and the entire Government is above and beyond the public in all cases.
Previous to this the public had a little influence allowed to keep up the pretense of democracy and some decent mps could have worked in favour of the public but now, its all gone.
"The Abolition of Parliament"
The ministers are going to be able to change laws, policies, rights, anything, whenever and however they wish without even having to put it to the commons vote. Right is wrong, Up is down, 2 + 2 = whatever you say leader.
We are serfs and a new technological feudal society has begun.
Family blood lines = your position in society
Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill [HL]
We have jumped back in time. The English Civil War was a failure.
I am not endorsing zark. Nor his style which I wouldn't share. However where he is absolutely right is that the money system enslaves us and it should be, perhaps, the biggest single issue that we should think about. The banking system, by virtue of its control over money, not only has the public well and truly enslaved but governments by the gonads too.Pingu said:
Not difficult if you receive a cut from pretty much every dollar, pound or yen that's in existence and can wreck industries or indeed whole economies at your whim by turning their money taps off.
If your brain isn't too frazzled there are more links on this site. Have a read. They really don't want you to.
www.prosperityuk.com
Pingu
Credo
i am in no doubt about how the monetry system screws with both individual lives and the fates of whole countries.
what I am having a problem with though is sifting through all the bollocks and fruitloopery for the nuggets. Its a bit like some AR activists. They dig up someones dead granny and so now the whole moevment is screwed because of someones fuckwittery... hardly helping the cause.
what I am having a problem with though is sifting through all the bollocks and fruitloopery for the nuggets. Its a bit like some AR activists. They dig up someones dead granny and so now the whole moevment is screwed because of someones fuckwittery... hardly helping the cause.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
zArk said:
I get the feeling that this thread is the subject of a dissertation/paper.
Well, zArk?
Bob_the_lost said:
I always find it amusing when idiots like Bob pop up to take this piss out of a discussion they are obviously far from being capable of understanding. Blagsta always does this too, it is the impotent rage of the ignorant. What Zark is saying is basic postmodernist philosophy: some of it is true and some of it is not, but only an ignorant person would fail to take it seriously just because it is not easy to understand and actually makes you *think* about the state of the world. Zark is using Baudrillard on the economy, and he is bascialy correct, although he might like to consider the labour theory of value--money certainly does not exist, is a mere system of representation and so on, but it is a representation of human activity, and this effects one's ethical analysis of it, among other things. Zark is also using Lacan (who I regard as wrong) and Zizek (who I regard as wrong to the degree he is Lacanian), but neither of these is particularly eccentric. In fact, Zark's three inspirations are probably the three most currently respected scholars in the humanities throughout the world.
revol68
what, fucking what?
phildwyer said:
yes it's true that what Zark is saying is based on postmordernis theory, but it is also true that like Baudrillard and the Situationists before him he fails to look at the actual human activity (as you pointed out). But the thing is that Zark is merely putting forward in a shite way some very shite theories. Theories which can only gain a sphere of influence with academia. After all what suits the acdemic more than reducing the world to representation?
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
phildwyer said:
1) It may or may not be postmodernist. I don't know and care even less.
2) The fact that zArk didn't originally put this in TheoPhil&Hist makes me question whether a post modernist discusssion about economices was intended in the first place. Had zArk originally prefaced his "arguments" with, "from a post modernist perspective you could argue that . . . " he "may" have been taken more seriously.
3) I wouldn't call this thread a discussion. More like 95% of posters demonstrating with evidence that zArk's talking bollox.
A Dashing Blade said:
I wouldn't call it "bollocks." I think he's assuming that his audience is more familiar with his ideas than is in fact the case. Take for example his statement that "Cromwell was loyal to the monarchy." When he said this, someone (I think it was Blagsta) gleefully took it as evidence that Zark was talking bollocks. When Blagsta (or whoever it was) saw this, his slow mind trudged back to his O-level history and thought "I say, didn't the old beak say something about Cromwell chopping the bally king's head orf," and immediately posted their glee at Zark's alleged error. But in fact those who know anything of the civil war will be aware that Cromwell was indeed accused of favoring a monarchy in all but name, in other words of remaining loyal to the monarchy though not to the monarch, and that the centralization of economic power formed a central element in the radicals' case against his neo-Royalism. So Zark's statement is at least *arguable,* but his audience weren't aware of this fact. I've mentioned before my surprise at the degree to which scientists (and plain ignoramuses of course) outnumber philosophers on these boards. Seems odd for a Leftist BB.
revol68
what, fucking what?
phildwyer said:
except that Philosphers aren't exactly reknowned for having a good grasp of history, beyond using it as a play thing for their pet projects.
Zarks sounds more like some twats whose stumbled upon Baudrillard, takes him at face value and applies it to things he evidently knows fuck all about.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
I like the way twats like phil dwyer and zark assume they're the only people that have ever read post-modernist or post-structuralist philosophy or are capable of understanding it. I think its insecurity 'cos they know that its mostly a load of academic waffly shite with no use outside their wanky closeted academic lives.
For future reference - you're not the only ones to have read Baudrillard, Lacan, Lyotard etc. Get over yourself.
For future reference - you're not the only ones to have read Baudrillard, Lacan, Lyotard etc. Get over yourself.
revol68
what, fucking what?
Blagsta said:
exactly
alot of people read them, take some ideas from it and realise that Baudrillard and Lyotard were just reacting towards their own crude marxism. Baudrillard just took the Situationists idea of the spectle to it's logical conclusion by purging it of it's essentialism. Unfortunately he fails to address the Situationists one dimensional totalised spectacle and hence we are left with an absurd world of signs with no active agency.
Blagsta said:
I'll believe you've read them when you can discuss them. But your contributions to this thread, and to other threads on similar matters, consist *entirely* of empty mockery and abuse. Like many others here, you show a blank inability to take philosophical ideas seriously, which I think is a serious psychological defect. Witness the savage howls of ridicule that greeted Zark's point about the postmodern economy being Satanic, or demonic, in nature. This really isn't that controversial for anyone who knows what those terms mean, you know. Or do you?
revol68 said:
But absurd as it is, that *is* the empirically "real" world. Money, which rules the world, is a system of signs with no *visible* guiding intelligence, although I'd argue that it does in fact have an autonomous agency in the sense that it obeys its own logic which transcends human intentions.
It's more deluded than inspired him.
There's definitely some interesting things said by pomo philosophy, no doubt about that. Thought provoking and nice for an intellectual ponder. But if taken to its logical extremes, and divorced from objective reality, it loses all sense of meaning or perspective. That's when you get drivel like that spouted by zArk.
There's definitely some interesting things said by pomo philosophy, no doubt about that. Thought provoking and nice for an intellectual ponder. But if taken to its logical extremes, and divorced from objective reality, it loses all sense of meaning or perspective. That's when you get drivel like that spouted by zArk.
slaar said:
Perhaps it will help if we speak of specific authors and texts. Just of the top of me head, some quite recent books that are indispensible for understanding the postmodern economy are:
Jean Baudrillard: For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign
Marc Shell: Money, Language and Thought
Jean-Joseph Goux: Symbolic Economies
Dierdre McClosky: The Rhetoric of Economics
These contain most of the ideas that Zark has been paraphrasing here. If anyone fancies trying to show me why any of them are rubbish, or irrelevant, please go ahead.
revol68
what, fucking what?
phildwyer said:
well Baudrillards problem is that having shown that the boundary between use value and exchange value is extremely fluid, he goes on to completely reject it. A typical fallacy of pomo theory, things are either black or white or they are unreal, the notion that truth or use value and exchange are human constructs and hence always negiotable and incomplete leads the post modernist to see them as false or unreal.
It's kind of like three people climbing a mountain, the objectivists wants to stop and built a house for the night, the post modernist see's this as ridiculous as we can't build a house on such unstable terrain and it would stop us proceding, the third person takes on board the unstable terrain but also realises the need for some form of shelter or they shall all perish, so he proposes setting up a tent in the knowledge that it is not a permanent structure but serves as a useful purpose that can be packed away as circumstances change.
