ensuring their own "innocence by institutionalized solipsism."

[h3rm35]

Keiser describes a process whereby our MOTU could define their way out of legal jeopardy. All they need to do, he says, is take the dictionary private with a leveraged buyout. Then, they could change the definitions and "refloat" those words on some kind of "lexiconic" exchange, thus ensuring their own "innocence by institutionalized solipsism."


Deconstructing Myths of America: Who Makes Whom? pt3: Innocence by institutionalized solipsism

Max Keiser, during today’s broadcast of The Keiser Report, in his inimitable over-the-top style, has defined the method of malicious myth-making I’m always on about, using a financial metaphor for manipulating our shared narrative in favor of our MOTU (masters of the universe).

At c.7:42-7:56, Keiser describes a process whereby our MOTU could define their way out of legal jeopardy. All they need to do, he says, is take the dictionary private with a leveraged buyout. Then, they could change the definitions and "refloat" those words on some kind of "lexiconic" exchange, thus ensuring their own "innocence by institutionalized solipsism."

That’s the power of myth, baby! Major Stuckert’s appraisal shows clearly how it’s been effectively weaponized by DoD, to define themselves as GoD.

Stuckert’s appraisal, that DoD has assumed the role of GoD.

Quote: While some political commentators have theorized that the administration’s unwillingness to admit errors is the result of arrogance or political calculation, it is more likely that the administration believes they are doing the will of God and will be vindicated in the end. In other words, intelligence or analysis that seems to support invasions or other administration policies are interpreted as an affirmation of God’s will, while information is to the contrary is viewed with suspicion – perhaps an effort by Satan to deceive or mislead.

As President Carter explained to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, what people believe as a matter of religion, they will do as a matter of public policy. There is a tendency on the part of Americans to view foreign policy and international affairs as a “clash of moral opposites.” This tendency may make it difficult for U.S. policy makers and strategists to perceive and act upon subtleties that may lie outside our conceptions of moral absolutes.

It’s also detailed in Gordon Bigelow’s May, 2005 article in Harpers.org: Let there be markets: the evangelical roots of economics.

Quote: Economics, as channeled by its popular avatars in media and politics, is the cosmology and the theodicy of our contemporary culture. More than religion itself, more than literature, more than cable television, it is economics that offers the dominant creation narrative of our society, depicting the relation of each of us to the universe we inhabit, the relation of human beings to God. And the story it tells is a marvelous one. In it an enormous multitude of strangers, all individuals, all striving alone, are nevertheless all bound together in a beautiful and natural pattern of existence: the market. This understanding of markets—not as artifacts of human civilization but as phenomena of nature— now serves as the unquestioned foundation of nearly all political and social debate. As mergers among media companies began to create monopolies on public information, ownership limits for these companies were not tightened but relaxed, because “the market” would provide its own natural limits to growth. When corporate accounting standards needed adjustment in the 1990s, such measures were cast aside because they would interfere with “market forces.” Social Security may soon fall to the same inexorable argument.

The problem is that the story told by economics simply does not conform to reality. This can be seen clearly enough in the recent, high-profile examples of the failure of free-market thinking—how media giants have continued to grow, or how loose accounting regulations have destroyed countless millions in personal wealth. But mainstream economics also fails at a more fundamental level, in the way that it models basic human behavior. The core assumption of standard economics is that humans are fundamentally individual rather than social animals. The theory holds that all economic choices are acts of authentic, unmediated selfhood, rational statements reflecting who we are and what we want in life. But in reality even our purely “economic” choices are not made on the basis of pure autonomous selfhood; all of our choices are born out of layers of experience in contact with other people. What is entirely missing from the economic view of modern life is an understanding of the social world.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Those are examples of the power of myth-making to shape the world in which we act. This series is an example of unmaking, even deconstructing, those myths. If we don’t like the world our present myths are making, it seems plain as day to me, we need to examine the underlying cosmogenetic myths and rectify them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
edit:(Do yourself a favor and watch this video

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Merriam Webtser’s Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: so·lip·sism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-ləp-ˌsi-zəm, ˈsä-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin solus alone + ipse self
Date: 1874

: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism



edit:
just wanted to add one of the comments from this piece at the original site:

Quote: geoshmoe May 4th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
I’m not sure I should put out this half baked comment but there is space here.

If MOTU A. would:

take the dictionary private with a leveraged buyout. Then, they could change the definitions and “refloat” those words on some kind of “lexiconic” exchange, thus ensuring their own “innocence by institutionalized solipsism.”

and if MOTU B. could: Pattent the rest of the gonome as (Monsanto) and [others?] appear do intend.

Then: A+B=C… Solipsism revert to Godhead and Quiescence… or Thesis: Antithesis: Synthesis.

An unexpected source for a deffinition of “dialectical materialism” I thought at the time, J Edgars “Masters of deceit” In his description of Communism and its theoretical basis in the Hegal. Which I browsed 40 years ago

When it gets to the point that we need to look so deeply IE: myth, philosophy, existentialism, to figure what is taking place in the public square, it seems a little ominous. Where is it headed etc.