Twitter cuts (#130)
Neoliberalism pic.twitter.com/DM1jku8wsT
— John Robb (@johnrobb) April 21, 2017
23
Apr
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Apr | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
Neoliberalism pic.twitter.com/DM1jku8wsT
— John Robb (@johnrobb) April 21, 2017
Non-customer Bowels Matter
#NBM
[Reply]
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 23rd, 2017 at 5:18 pm
Negro black metal
[Reply]
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 23rd, 2017 at 5:41 pm
Once during an insight role I was verbally-energetically attacked by a Negro Dravidian Indian working at Burger King, who saw-instincted an easy opportunity to satisfy his sub-verminal lust-to-“power” as I was barefoot in “his” shop as the insight role was to be homeless in a big city. Incidentally, Berlin.
Nigga screamed at me to get out, trying to shame me. I wasn’t ashamed but for him. I had been a paying customer of the restaurant for some time and a cause of no trouble.
But he had to follow his savage instinct. Not that his color is the cause of it. I had the similar happen to me from depigmented autochthonous Germans too, at an other times. It was then a drive-out of me by a German officer of a homeless food ‘n’ sleep-in, the reason this time because I was White and not darkie enough to utilize such services it seem’d. “Mr. Eiríksson is on a holiday” he sneered at me.
There’s strange energy in Berlin, like it’s built on a Native burial ground or sum shit.
[Reply]
s Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 12:39 am
is this copypasta
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 4:49 pm
No.
Rohme Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 6:56 am
Forgive me, Erik the Red, but the term insight role was unfamiliar to me.
After looking it up, insight roles seems to be a Satanist practice.
You have made mention of your spirituality in other posts. Are you an initiate of Luciferianism?
What is your understanding of Lucifer?
[Reply]
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 4:29 pm
I have whole books of things to say on this. Briefly said, Lucifer represents a nonschizophrenic Christianity.
I will add responses to your query any given hour or year.
[Reply]
Wagner Reply:
April 25th, 2017 at 2:24 am
>”What is your understanding of Lucifer?”
>*APORIA*
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 25th, 2017 at 11:06 pm
Lucifer is quite resolvable. Primordially the role of a Priest and a Warrior were one. You’ll see even in Caesar’s time (very late) he is the chief warrior, CEO, high priest all-in-one. He rules the guilds, the priesthoods, the armies, everything. Central autocrat, god on earth.
The Jews had this traditional understanding as well. Before their fall. Lucifer represents their fall. He fell. They lost their warrior principle, hoping to get it back they got only priestly Jesus.
Albeit, of the order of Melchizedek.
You lose your shit you get split
Traumatised deal-with
Trauma into split
Split mind,
split myth
caused
mat
Rohme Giuliano Reply:
April 27th, 2017 at 12:28 am
Leif Erikson,
First, I would ask what you mean by ‘a nonschizophrenic Christianity’?
I once read about the telestai of the Mysteries needing to carefully cultivate the initiated so as not to produce schizophrenic damage within them. Is it similarly in this sense you refer to schizophrenia.. ego dissolution?
Does your understanding fall within theist or nontheist horizons? Monist or dual?
Gratefully,
a neophyte
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 27th, 2017 at 2:15 am
I’m an omnitheist.
I think there is one universe which is an indefinite multiplicity with, apparently, certain directions of movement or currents. We keep finding names for these currents. I mean currents in the sense that universe is movement. It’s a turn. Sun turns. Planet turns. We take turns. Games have turns. Roads had turns. Twists and turns. Movement. Lines. Flows. Verses upon verses fall. Forms reform forms.
People hope for returns. Of the Old Ones. Or their investments. Or both.
I’m mostly interested in the Chinese, Japanese and Korean interpretations of these currents, but that’s second to the Indo-European ones and the Judeo-Christian ones.
I think it’s highly useful to personify nonanthropic things. Doing that you get gods. Spirits. Figures, whatever.
Christianity in most version is schizophrenic in the sense of the word meaning ‘split minded’ (cf. ‘schism’, or ‘shit’ which refers to separating something from oneself).
Because it has two gods. At least. Jehova and Jesus and Jesus’ nameless Father in Heaven. Jesus never mentions Jehova, but he speaks of the more neutral or humanistic Father.
Actually those Christians who have a greater focus on the NT rather than a too mixed one are more in tune with the Christ’s mess-age.
Jesus was an ascetic. He was apparently a pacifist who chose subtle goods over wordly goods. Yet many “Christians” focus on both? Doesn’t that make them have a psyche, and even conduct, of contradicting ideologies believed to be one?
The Christianity that Jesus preached is not the same as was known as official Christianity decades later. It was customised ad-hoc.
What does this have to do with Lucifer? I’m too tired to say.
Rohme Giuliano Reply:
April 27th, 2017 at 10:44 pm
@Asher
Erik,
Very interesting!
There were Christian communities practicing egalitarian asceticism such as the Cathars and the Bogomils. They were liquidated through Catholic mergers & acquisitions.
Catholicism offered a highly syncretic religion (‘Sun’ worship) for the laity, while offering a chivalric order for the clergy.
From the Catholic religious orders comes feudalism and monarchy. He who doesn’t understand this should be sent to a garbage disposal program as folks here like to say.
This is within the purview of what you mentioned as ‘political theology’.
My question: is Lucifer, being counterpositional to the ‘corpus mysticum’, a symbol for anarchy?
Is there in Luciferianism, whether theistic or non-theistic, an ethics for anarchy?
Is there also a possibility of a cosmological model of the anarchic community?
I do hope you follow up this query.
Neoliberalism = using semi-capitalism to create demand for currency, then taxing it to pay for the permanent socialist welfare state.
[Reply]
Dark Reformation101 Reply:
April 23rd, 2017 at 5:34 pm
Fascism = using semi-capitalism to create demand for currency, then taxing it to pay for the permanent fascist welfare/warfare state.
[Reply]
it is all right, not all of them not going inside at the same time.
[Reply]
Posted on April 23rd, 2017 at 6:03 pm | QuoteIs this what they call “recuperation” on the left?
[Reply]
Posted on April 24th, 2017 at 12:10 am | QuoteLand, you are a liar. I suggest you forget about what your past-self was and sublate to the next life.
[Reply]
Posted on April 24th, 2017 at 12:32 am | QuoteAre you soyfed vaginas still bugging Old Nick and talking to yourselves?
[Reply]
Wagner Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 9:46 am
MUH MESSIAH OF THE AI
[Reply]
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 27th, 2017 at 1:51 am
MUHHSAIAH
[Reply]
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 1:01 pm
Cryptie, you medio-ogre-brain; don’t you realise replying to, as it were, oneself is a matter of functionality? (Of course, you’re just trying to appear wiser or cooler than you are and I can already predict your reply to this; some complaint about my content or persona as it appears to your myopic hyperbiased copycat personality.)
It’s called threading. You have a topic and sometimes choose to subthread from that topic, rather than create a new instance. I know some readers of these comments are interested in what I have to say, which I why, I assume, they read or reply to my comments. If I mostly amuse some, that’s fine as well. Why an annoyed complainy prick like yourself does, is a more abnormal psychology. If a Commie “capitalist” exists, it’s you. A pseudo-liberal.
As for subthreading, you see it with technical geeks the most. Go to a programming forum and you’ll see one user replying to himself for pages.
I did take to heart though your complaint that the extended matters were sometimes pushing the other threads down the page (which you yourself had often part in), and saw as a corollary of that consideration to find a new balance of subthreading vs. nuthreading (bottomposting).
As for soy — I avoided that stuff for years. I was on HFLC / paleo based diets. I can confirm the value of such, along with fasting for increased testosterone and associated sought-after biochemical phenomena.
Incidentally, my trip in Germany ended with me staying in a cozy apartment where I could enjoy fine dining and drinks in the sun on the balcony, along with its renter, a university educated girl in her twenties, working in the organic shop next door, whom I vaginally penetrated the same day I met her asking for directions to the local library.
[Reply]
Wagner Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 6:41 pm
“I’m not sure that Nick Land ever ceased to be “Fanged Noumena”-Nick Land, searching for the Patriarchy in Immanuel Kant.
For his closeness to former editors at Urbanomic, I keep thinking he’s a classic troll.”
“Watch both his twitter accounts for Outside in _and_ for the Urban Futures blog.
Urbanomic is the publisher that put out “Fanged noumena”, a collection of his pre-mental breakdown essays. It’s daring, it’s interesting. It’s left-wing as fuck, too.
I’m a fan of Urbanomic and their publisher Robin McKay. But — these people are left-accelerationists, they’re marxists at the core. Not in a Rockefeller Foundation way, in a “we think the world through this framework” way.
How is that the world rejects (post-breakdown) Nick Land but their former publishers stand by his side? I think the whole DE thing is a (half-)persona; particularly considering that he’s still writing on Urban Futures and stuff.”
“As for Land’s new DE stance being half an act, that would explain a lot. But you know how that goes – the line between parody and real espousal of a viewpoint is perilously thin, especially when you’re really smart.”
O’Reilly: Land goes in, Land goes Out. Never a miscommunication. YOU can’t explain that. You can explain WHY Land goes in…
Silverman: Land goes in, Land goes Out…?
O’Reilly: Yeah, see — Land comes in and he goes Out, Mr. Silverman. He always goes in…
Silverman: Maybe it’s Thor up on Mount Olympus who’s making Land go in and Out…
O’Reilly: No no, but you can’t explain that… you can’t explain it…
[Reply]
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 10:42 pm
Land is saying things that are not supposed to be said. He is bringing us closer to the goal…
Rohme Giuliano Reply:
April 27th, 2017 at 12:15 am
Erik,
You should one day write a bildungsroman on your time in Germany. I would read it.
[Reply]
Lotus Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 7:56 pm
@Cryptogenic I laughed out loud
[Reply]
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 9:54 pm
I smiled and was tingled in the funny
[Reply]
Cryptogenic Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 10:14 pm
You should never be allowed near women or children. You are an excessively disgusting bugman and you have to go back.
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 10:44 pm
Aha.
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 26th, 2017 at 12:38 am
I’ve never sexually abused a child nor ever wanted to. So what are you thinking of, Cryptie? Want me to call your mother? Are you lost?
Where does abuse happen more often, under Communism or Capitalism?
Is it true what they say about Hollywood? I thought you were supposed to be the Heartless one? Is there a glimpse of soul in that corpse, after all?
Or did your petty quotidian self get pushed to a corner and cognitive dissonance happened, A2H overload.
Oh how you bore me, sometimes, I only reply to you because of my own replies. I am using you.
‘Drain’. The dark elf says. To think of how you might reply bores too much to predict.
Neoliberalism (monetarism) and identity politics are not the same thing. And their divorce will be acrimonious.
[Reply]
Seth Largo Reply:
April 25th, 2017 at 3:46 pm
No, but neoliberalism always needs more customers, and what better way to get new customers than peddling to their deepest identities? Mad Men was great about this. The most hardcore money-grubber in the show, Pete Cambell, was also the greatest force for racial reconciliation, on the grounds that his clients could be making way more money by making blacks part of the customer base.
I have a soft sport for this sort of liberalism: “Let’s all hold hands and make peace, it’s more conducive to making money!”
But that only works for a certain percentage of the population. There are always too many disaffected males ready to burn the market to the ground in pursuit of their vision of ethnic or otherwise factional justice.
[Reply]
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 25th, 2017 at 8:34 pm
I support omnifranchisement of racial trash.
But not the way Merkel &c. does it.
Nor the way the Neocons.
De Land TSC&ICL:
NRx vs NLB
vs NCN
[Reply]
Rohme Giuliano Reply:
April 27th, 2017 at 12:12 am
Mr. Largo,
Capitalism needs more customers and neoliberalism is simply a philosophy on money supply.
Your effort to equate neoliberalism with advertising and identity politics reminds me of a baby elephant swinging its trunk.
[Reply]
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 27th, 2017 at 1:44 am
Disambiguation is a noble practice. But so is ambigotrophy.
Rohme Giuliano Reply:
April 27th, 2017 at 3:48 am
@Rohme
LOL. I understood the first part. Not so much the second part. It this the desired effect of your art?
[Reply]
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 28th, 2017 at 6:14 am
When being misunderstood for long, it becomes a value.
Typically a lot of what I say is decipherable for certain types, at least when I hold back the word perversion a bit. ‘Ambigotrophy’ composites from ‘ambiguous’ and ‘hypertrophy’ to mean growth of ambiguity—or saying more with less, in the cases that it does. What is much ambiguity for some is in some cases only extra layers of meaning multiplicities for others — strengthening the mixture—hybridising.
Incidentally, Sanskrit has words like triputipratyaksavada.
As someone posted here recently: “Images are not arguments, rarely even lead to proof, but the [human] mind craves them, and, of late more than ever, the keenest experimenters find twenty images better than one, especially if contradictory.”—Henry Adams, A Law of Acceleration (1904).
More images, more meaning variation, more information gleaned, more possibilities seen, more angles of re-flection. Things looked at in varieties of contrasts, through lenses, shades, spectacles, glass darkly, greyscale and colored. Intensities, distortions, glitches. Ghosts. Goddess Apophenia greatest of all muses
There is a spectrum haunting
Rohme Giuliano Reply:
April 28th, 2017 at 6:31 am
Can we add philologist to your list or heraldic achievements?
I have never heard of the world apophenia before. For that I am very grateful.
To teach someone a word is to expand their universe. Each word is an increment.
I am not a theist but I do have unusually long patience for a metaphor. Almost to the point of genuflection.
Be well homie.
Naive question: what is the difference between neoliberalism and libertarianism? This is literally how many people imagine libertarianism, based on how economics 101 works. Rational actors caring about profits and not much else. I am perfectly aware that distinctly different kinds of libertarianisms exist, yet, if you ignore historic niches and subcultures, this is exactly how mainstream corporations – whom people associate with business, markets and economics – tend to think. After all they may have employees of many orientations, colors and all that. But they don’t have any employees who don’t get paid. If the only thing in common in them is getting money for their work, it makes sense the only discrimination basis they can agree in is paying money for the services. If they got paid in status, they would agree to let only cool people pee there.
[Reply]
An Fomoire Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 5:33 pm
Simply, and glossing over many things, there are two main differences. Neoliberalism is fine with a lot of monetary policy. Monetarism is a large portion of neoliberal theory (chicago branch mainly). Libertarianism isn’t.
Neoliberalism says “tax everybody”. Libertarianism says “tax nobody”.
Neoliberalism is okay with strong governments on foreign policy (not including trade).
[Reply]
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 6:10 pm
I associated Neoliberalism with Angela Merkel &c. and Libertarianism with Land, Samuel Edward Konkin III, and co.
[Reply]
An Fomoire Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 6:51 pm
There’s a lot of confusion. Hayek and Friedman were labelled as neoliberals.
Alan Greenspan is one of the better examples. Neoliberalism was largely abandoned in the 90s in favour of a blend of Neo-neo-Keynesianism (sticky prices and short run focus) and new classical rational expectations and DSGE (Hicks and Solow). Based on Walras and utility theory. Big on monetary and fiscal policy in general. Prevailing view of IMF and ECB. Mankiw is the prevailing authority.
[Reply]
Michael Rothblatt Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 6:44 pm
Apart from the obvious-at-the-first-glance differences, i.e. neoliberalism supporting central banking, anti-discrimination legislation, etc. etc. libertarianism is propertarian, whereas neoliberalism is statist. So under libertarianism you can have a landlord running a Sharia commune (all with stonings, burkas, etc. etc.), right next to a landlord running a hippie commune, whereas such a thing isn’t possible under neoliberalism where everyone must conform to the state mandated hedonic utilitarianism, and under which proprietary communes would be seen as travesty (private law, such as Sharia, would be most unacceptable to a neoliberal).
[Reply]
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 25th, 2017 at 10:58 pm
There was not central banking in Russia until Lenin propped up I believe. I remember reading one of his nazi steel smelt texts where he termed the importance of a central bank.
I am sumewhere btwixt transcendental distributism and monolithic unicentral banksterism.
Or shall we say ad hoc ad libitum ad agape deum.
Or primordial liberamperium.
https://jaysanalysis.com/2016/07/23/managed-dialectics-and-the-liberal-imperium/
[Reply]
Rohme Giuliano Reply:
April 27th, 2017 at 3:41 am
@SVErshov
Economics is not a science. Its ‘system-building’ is cosmological.
Neo-classical economics does not survive falsification through scientific method. In superstitiousness, its only close rival is African cosmology.
Keynes was not an economist; he was an inventor; a plumber lacking his correct tools; inventing a quick fix for a leaky pipe.
Neoliberalism is used as a catch-all to describe the wave of institutional reforms in governmental and financial centers following the global depression in the 1970s. However, it was really just another wave of plumbers, this time, lacking imagination as well as the tools.
Most insidious is the cosmologists belief in exogenous money (bank credit lending follows central bank reserve deposits)
The reality of money creation is more delectably dialectical than its simplified, mythologized origins.
From the BOE’s ‘Money creation in the modern economy.’ by Michael McLeay, Amar Radia and Ryland Thomas..
“rather than banks lending out deposits that are placed with them, the act of lending creates deposits — the reverse of the sequence typically described in textbooks.”
What we see in practice is…
Banks create money by crediting their customer’s deposits and, through speculative investment firms, over-leverage until the point of collapse. At that point the central bank then ‘de-leverages’ them with reserves, a techinuqe known as ‘quantitative easing’.
Treasury notes, truly creatio ex nihilo, are bought by the central bank to buy brokered securities from a commercial bank. These ‘reserves’ sit on the bank balance sheet as assets.
As an easing it’s kind of like the ‘easing’ provided by a lubricant prior to anal penetration.
[Reply]
I think it is an answer on human brotherhood BS in previose thread. very nice !!
[Reply]
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 4:37 pm
🙂
[Reply]
Wagner Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 6:51 pm
I detect that if LSD were to be dumped into the alt-right/NRx watersupply, the following morning would involve lots of head-scratching and feelings of self-loathing and humiliation.
[Reply]
G. Eiríksson Reply:
April 24th, 2017 at 9:46 pm
Uh?
Is anyone here into IoTising? I’m looking to set up a completely computer controlled estate — working my way up (and down), starting with simple light-switches or what not.
Lights, gates, surveillance & security systems, temperature, automated defense systems … or as the music artist « Curren$y » phrases it (2010): ‘Hollow a mountain out
Build a villa in it, pimp that’s what I’m talkin’ bout
Uh, Closed minded lil’ children, I write my way to a million, lookin’ out the plane windows
Fuck around get popped like a collar
For slippin’ in my city get bitten, chewed, swallowed’.
I prefer maximum user control over comes-in-a-box consumer products, altho I will use the latter if need/value be.
I.e. self or custom made, relatively. Arduino comes into mind, but is hardly necessary as I have a PC. The first step is controlling a typical indoor light bulb or even lamp with the Windows PC and Android phone. Which is easy PC, if you buy consumer but endlessly customisable otherwise.
I’d be interested in any IoT story y’all can relate. Reminds me of that X-Files episode…
[Reply]
Posted on April 24th, 2017 at 6:08 pm | QuoteYou can have anything you want
But you better not take it from me
In the jungle
Welcome to the jungle
[Reply]
Posted on April 24th, 2017 at 7:22 pm | QuoteI’m on that club ground battle scars
I’m on that 3 AM bizarre
And the whole world stops its turning
As the love fills up our lungs
These sweet dreams in motion
Feelings take over
Memories wide open
Summer keeps calling
Braveheart
Show me what you got
Gotta show me when the beat drops
Braveheart
[Reply]
Posted on April 25th, 2017 at 11:14 pm | QuoteI’ve noted a new increase in customisation of YT autoplay, or is it just my increased usage causing increased accustomisation
[Reply]
Posted on April 25th, 2017 at 11:44 pm | Quote@Asher
Erik,
Very interesting!
There were Christian communities practicing egalitarian asceticism such as the Cathars and the Bogomils. They were liquidated through Catholic mergers & acquisitions.
Catholicism offered a highly syncretic religion (‘Sun’ worship) for the laity, while offering a chivalric order for the clergy.
From the Catholic religious orders comes feudalism and monarchy. He who doesn’t understand this should be sent to a garbage disposal program as folks here like to say.
This is within the purview of what you mentioned as ‘political theology’.
My question: is Lucifer, being counterpositional to the ‘corpus mysticum’, a symbol for anarchy?
Is there in Luciferianism, whether theistic or non-theistic, an ethics for anarchy?
Is there also a possibility of a cosmological model of the anarchic community?
I do hope you follow up this query.
[Reply]
Posted on April 27th, 2017 at 9:15 pm | Quote