Pages

two sinister guys holding masks before faces in a dim-lit room

institutional taxonomy, malleus novus maleficorum?

two sinister guys holding masks before faces in a dim-lit room

the antonym of self-knowledge is lying to others

 

a brief introduction to institutional taxonomy

before i begin, may i apologise to readers of deLiberation for this tangled farrago of abstract nonsense, and may i lament publicly  the (perhaps judicious) obscurity of its expression. it describes some researches i made in the theoretical section of the Akashic Record, prompted by the desire to find an answer to Richmond Edmondson’s justifiably outraged response to a paradigmatic example of  US political skulduggery:

in a post on boldfacenews.com Ariadna Theokopoulos, commenting on the unwholesome influence of the powerful Jewish lobby on the two main political parties of the United States, noted that the US democratic party recently adopted two new articles of “faith”:

….more important is the amendment adopted into the Party plaform that proposed two additions, namely,  to specify that “we affirm our faith and belief in God is central to the Democrat Party’s platform” and second declaring Jerusalem the indivisible capital of Israel.

Ms Theokopoulos continues:

The second addition, as well as the fact that the benediction of the Convention will be given by Rabbi David Wolpe of the Los Angeles Sinai Temple, seem to indicate that “the belief in God” referred to belongs to a single denomination.

the method of adopting this amendment seemed reminiscent of all those curious chads featured in a recent close-run US presidential election. Ms Theokopoulos quotes from a comment underneath the you-tube video she posted:

democratic physiognomy

“With the entire world watching on live TV, the Democratic National Committed railroads its own delegates over God & Jerusalem. DNC asked for a late amendment to the platform. Ted Strickland read the amendment, lots of cheers.. then Antonio Villaraigosa asked for a vote, needing 2/3rds to affirm. And

condolezza rice caricature

democratic physiognomy

he asked for Yeas.. and it was pretty loud. Then he asked for Nays and it was MUCH louder. He froze. Then we went.. umm.. maybe I need to read the amendment again. Asked people to vote again.. and at least 50% of the voters responded NAY. He turn turned to someone who ran onto the stage, said something about “we can’t do that”.. then asked them to vote again. Again, more then 50% (by volume) voted NAY.. and then he just turned and said, with 2/3′rds of the members voting AYE, the amendment passed. And the place boomed in boos.”

those boos are a hopeful sign – echoes, perhaps, of the cries of the sacred geese of Juno who alerted Rome in her hour of danger.

Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, who introduced the amendment, was described by Richard Edmondson in a comment on Ms Theokopoulos’ post:

He calls himself “an ordained United Methodist Minister” while wholly abandoning the teachings of Jesus and siding with the most powerful lobby on the planet. Significantly, also, his motion calls for putting “God” into the platform but makes no mention of Jesus. I guess that would offend the Jews.

as i began to formulate a response to Mr Edmondson’s remark, my mind was invaded by a swarm of confused ideas. too many indeed to include in a reply to Mr Edmonson’s much pithier comment.  that is my reason for taking the liberty of introducing this theme here. i hope readers of deLiberation, who know of my aspergers mental processes,  will forgive me for reporting these ideas in essentially the same jumbled form as they first occurred to me.

_____________________________________________________________
The only thing that should surprise us is that there are still some things that can surprise us.  Francois de La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680)

(Richard and Ariadna) i often wonder why we (the people) never cease to be  surprised, and often outraged by the sight of hypocrites invoking the Holy Names to validate and sanction their lies and crimes in the eyes of their dupes, the sheeple?

the “established churches” no doubt provide a home for some genuine spirituality, likewise their congregations, and even the ranks of their functionaries,  are not entirely bereft of people who aspire to humane intervention in society, performing charitable actions, defending values like social justice &c.

nevertheless, the phrase “established churches” has, to my ears, the same ring as that potent neologism “the mainstream media” – both phrases identify a dominant institution whose real agenda is far from the bogus image it successfully projects.

in the phylum institution one might say that established religion and the mainstream media belong to the same genus.

a third species of the same genus is  “government”.

a fourth is “science”

a fifth is “education”

a sixth is “law”

a seventh is “politics”

an eigth is “banking”

all of these may, with equal justice, be called pseudo-institutions. (from the Greek ψευδώς = false)

there are genuine institutions, which are what you see on the label. these may be called wysiwyg institutions. (wysiwyg is a term familiar to software designers. it is an acronym formed from the initital letters of the words in the phrase what you see is what you get. it is pronounced like the nonsense phrase whizzy wig)

examples of wysiwyg institutions are mathematics, music, literature, organised crime, the armed forces, the prison service, showbiz and hypnosis. in present-day human societies there is a fairly clear dichotomy between what we may term the positive and the negative wysiwyg institutions, depending on whether their agendas and modus operandi tend to favour or inhibit the longer-term spiritual evolution of the human species.

the positive wysiwygs are characterised by a high degree of autonomy of their exponents, and the degree to which institutional prestige depends on real talent, rather than, as with the negative wysiwygs, subservience to authority and a willingness to do its bidding unquestioningly.

this dichotomy between positive and negative wysiwygs may eventually shed further light on the evolution of institutions – however such advances in understanding await an epoch when we have acquired greater knowledge of the phylogenetic history and comparative anatomy of these curious creatures.

the study is an urgent requirement, as some of these institutions now threaten to dominate every aspect of our lives, in ways far from what we might choose were we free to do so. the current situation  harks back to an era several hundred million years ago, when  the land-mass of the earth was in many places dominated by un-naturally large and ugly reptiles, known as saurians.

the wysiwygian dichotomy is by no means absolute, as a considerable degree of institutional hybridization has occurred over time. moreover the positive wysiwygs , whose legitimate goal it to  tellurize the positive currents of human social and creative evolution, are constantly subject to seduction, blackmail, extortion and infiltration by agents of the pseudo institutions and the negative wysiwygs.

although, as just explained, there is an inevitably fuzzy boundary between the two main branches of the genus wysiwyg, all genuine investigators have found it useful to use the term diabolic* to refer to the amalgamated class formed through a symbiotic-type relationship between the pseudo institutions and the negative wysiwygs. (parasitismus mutualis)

*the basis of this terminology is in certain passages of the gospel.

the institution of espionage is interesting in respect of the pseudo/wywsiwyg dichotomy, because it has a foot in both camps.

in connection with espionage it is worth mentioning another specialised genus – the crypto-institutions, whose main role, apart from espionage, will explained later. (from the Greek κρύπτω = i conceal)

espionage has a very easy mutual relationship with crypto institutions, whilst one of its minor functions is to infiltrate the positive wysiwygs wherever it can.

the nature of a postive wysiwyg give it an innate protection which ultimately is very powerful, since its basis lies in the nature of reality and the creative, sustaining godhead which is the absolute centre from which all ‘realities’ are emanations.

for example it would be difficult for most spies, however good was their tradecraft, to use the cover of posing as a highly creative mathematician or a poetic genius. the artistic positive institutions are more vulnerable, due to their resource-dependence on pseudo-institutions, together with that mental instability and narcissism which all too often is a burden of the creatively gifted in our somewhat deformed society. any writer, for example, naturally wishes to be published, and most are not averse to receiving awards or other forms of official recognition. the subversion of the arts by party-sponsored mediocrities and the mumbo-jumbo of pseudo-political ideology, was particularly noteworthy in the communistic societies of the 20th century.

the very ancient institution of espionage is a very special case, and may conveniently be labelled a gödelian institution (after Kurt Gödel** 1906-1978 -  a mathematician who proved that no set of mathematical axioms is powerful enough to yield a valid demonstration of its own consistency – i.e. no system of mathematics can prove that is it not self-contradictory).

characteristics of institutions composing  the diabolic ascendancy

the pseudo institution genus, within the context of its diabolic symbioses with negative wysiwygs, is the apex predator in the ecological system within which the institutions have evolved. this ecosystem is subsystem of a larger system known as the anthroposphere, which in turn is belongs to the still larger ecosystem  sometimes called the terrestrial, or planetary, biosphere.

the pseudo institutions and the negative wysiwyg institutions. have several easily identifiable anatomical features which differentiate them from other institutions.

they are authoritarian in nature, and manifest as pyramidal power-structures.

they function through coercion.

they appropriate to themselves the right to be the arbiters of “reality” within their ordained sphere of influence. whilst token opposition is sustained for propaganda purposes, anyone who seriously questions or opposes the officially-sanctioned pseudo-reality will rapidly find themselves deprived of the means of publicly disseminating their ideas.

those in the top echelons of the pyramidal power structures form a self-serving elite which appropriates to itself many special privileges.

the great majority of members of a pseudo-institution, forming the base of the pyramid, are effectively duped by the powerfully-promoted false image which a pseudo-institution projects in order to mask its real aims and  to  ‘justify’ its existence and structure in the social order.

the principal motives of the power structures are to perpetuate the pseudo- institution, to maintain, adapt and elaborate its protective pseudo-ideology, and to consolidate or increase the degree of wider social power that it is allocated, not least, the perks and privileges of the upper echelon, which include various degrees of immunity from prosecution.

the members of the power-elite of a pseudo institution are nearly all  unscrupulous, mendacious and hypocritical, because people with these characteristics are (a) better placed to rise up the greasy pole towards the top echelons (b) more useful in realizing the agenda of the institutions. it is generally suggested, though evidence needs to be carefully sifted, that amongst their number there is an unusually  high incidence of psychopathy, sociopathy, and depraved, un-natural or excessive lusts. there is also an abnormally high frequency of people of Khazarian ancestry at the top level of many of the diabolic institutions. this is worth noting because for cultural-historical reasons the Khazarians and their talmudic allies have their own crypto-institution, which interpenetrates but is not identical with its freemasonic offspring. to compare and contrast contemporary Khazarian influence with that of the Jesuit order within the previous Roman Catholic ascendancy would be of interest, but would be too much of a digression in the context of this brief introductory survey.

as a counterbalance to the natural disloyalty of the unscrupulous, which would weaken the pseudo institution through centrifugal forces, two measures are necessary to ensure very rigorous preservation of pseudo institutional solidarity. the first is in part symbolic or theatrical – within a ritualistic context (secret for obvious reasons) a candidate for office must swear an oath of allegiance to the institution – such oaths abrogate and over-ride all other loyalties – e.g. loyalty to one’s country – and breaking of the oath is sanctioned with the threat of some dire punishment. at the very least oath-breakers, if discovered, will be excomunicated and all their privileges rescinded. to materialistic people this deprivation of privilege is already a dire punishment. secondly a candidate must have a shameful secret – some repulsive act or habit which is repugnant to human decency and morality, and which, if it were generally known, would be of devastating consequence to the lifestyle of the candidate (financial ruin, social disgrace, prosecution and imprisonment etc.). this secret must be validated by incontrovertible evidence – photographs, audio recordings, signed affidavits…which remain in the possession of the Guardians of the Inner Sanctum of the pseudo institution, and which constitute the ultimate sanction for controlling the actions and public speech of members of the institutional elites.

rather than have separate mechanisms to fulfil this crucial cohesive function within each individual diabolic institution, it has proved much more economical and effective to recruit the services of other specialised institutions.

these specialised institutions form a separate genus, which may be called crypto-institutions, of which freemasonry is the best-known example.

the functionality of the cypto-institutions is to permit, beneath a cloak of secrecy, acquaintance between, and a circulation and diffusion of ideas and agendas amongst, the power-elites of the various diabolic institutions.

there has naturally developed, through this diabolic symbiosis of negative wysiwigs and pseudo-institutions, a common agenda:  to preserve, collectively,  their dominant, controlling position in the sub-ecology. this facilitates fulfilment  of the individual agendas of the separate diabolic agencies, which, as already pointed out, are principally defined by the greed and lust of their elites, and their creation, through wars and other means, of mass human sacrifices.

despite the inadequacy of the aforegoing analysis i feel i have said sufficient to share my obscure intuitions on a subject whose deeper outlines, for me at least, still remain shrouded in mystery

despite my lamentable ignorance, i hope this brief essay on institutional taxonomy will be of some interest. i would be happy to learn of any places where my argument is faulty, unclear, or simply mistaken. i would be equally contented if some revised version of my inadequate schema, might be corrected and elaborated, and expressed in more readily comprehensible language,  as an educational tool which might assist our co-humans amongst the younger generation to more rapidly assimilate the basic principles of veridical sociology.

_______________________________________________

**Godel’s views on religion are of interest, yet not widely known. according to the redoubtable wikipedia:

Gödel was a convinced theist. He rejected the notion of others (e.g. his friend Albert Einstein) that God was impersonal.

picture of Kurt Godel

Kurt Godel 1906-1978

He believed firmly in an afterlife, stating: Of course this supposes that there are many relationships which today’s science and received wisdom haven’t any inkling of. But I am convinced of the afterlife, independently of any theology. It is possible today to perceive, by pure reasoning that it is entirely consistent with known facts. If the world is rationally constructed and has meaning, then there must be such a thing as an afterlife.

In an unmailed answer to a questionnaire, Gödel described his religion as “baptized Lutheran (but not member of any religious congregation)”. My belief is theistic, not pantheistic, following Leibniz rather than Spinoza.  He said about Islam: I like Islam: it is a consistent, or consequential, idea of religion and open-minded.
__________________________________________________

the following anecdote about Gödel’s application for US citizenship is rather better known that his views on religion, but is  worthy of note, given his status as the principal logician of the twentieth century:

(also from Wikipedia)

On December 5, 1947, Einstein and Morgenstern accompanied Gödel to his U.S. citizenship exam, where they acted as witnesses. Gödel had confided in them that he had discovered an inconsistency in the U.S. Constitution, one that would allow the U.S. to become a dictatorship. Einstein and Morgenstern were concerned that their friend’s unpredictable behavior might jeopardize his chances. Fortunately, the judge turned out to be Phillip Forman. Forman knew Einstein and had administered the oath at Einstein’s own citizenship hearing. Everything went smoothly until Forman happened to ask Gödel if he thought a dictatorship like the Nazi regime could happen in the U.S. Gödel then started to explain his discovery to Forman. Forman understood what was going on, cut Gödel off, and moved the hearing on to other questions and a routine conclusion.

 

Francois de La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680)

The only thing that should surprise us is that there are still some things that can surprise us.
Francois de La Rochefoucauld

As it is the characteristic of great wits to say much in few words, so small wits seem to have the gift of speaking much and saying nothing.
Francois de La Rochefoucauld

It is great folly to wish to be wise all alone.
Francois de La Rochefoucauld

The defects and faults of the mind are like wounds in the body; after all imaginable care has been taken to heal them up, still there will be a scar left behind, and they are in continual danger of breaking the skin and bursting out again.
Francois de La Rochefoucauld

It is from a weakness and smallness of mind that men are opinionated; and we are very loath to believe what we are not able to comprehend.
Francois de La Rochefoucauld

A man is sometimes as different from himself as he is from others.
Francois de La Rochefoucauld

 

The force we use on ourselves, to prevent ourselves from loving, is often more cruel than the severest treatment at the hands of one loved.
Francois de La Rochefoucauld

 

Share Button

15 Responses to institutional taxonomy, malleus novus maleficorum?

  1. Ariadna Theokopoulos September 8, 2012 at 8:31 pm #

    I salute this outstanding taxonomy as an essential aid to the compilation of the database of evil doers discussed the other day.

    Having only read it twice so far, I have only superficial observations to make.
    1. I note that you changed the gender of evil doers from the original Maleficarum (which referred to witches) to the masculine Maleficorum. Given that “witch hunt” is now a set phrase applicable to both sexes I wonder what your reason was. Was it that you perceive institutions (now endowed with “personhood) as masculine? Most of them (perhaps with the exception of the Catholic Church) contain many noteworthy “witches” that might feel slighted.
    2. Also you changed the place of the adjective Novus, which makes me wonder if your Anglo syntax erroneously persuades you that by doing that you have turned it into a modifier of Maleficorum. If you wanted to say “the new evil doers” that should have been Malleus Novis Maleficorum.
    3. With chutzpaic nonchalance I, the undisputed champion of typos, draw your attention to the only typo I spotted: change “principle” to “principal” in the paragraph starting with “the principle motives of the power structures.”

    As for the stupendous achievement this taxonomy represents, ie, actual content, I will return after I have read it once more.
    Deeply admiring congratulations.

    • David Holden September 8, 2012 at 10:14 pm #

      your linguistic observations are precise. the change of gender to maleficorum was considered. i felt that i could more easily cope with the psychic onslaught of the slighted femal;e wiccans, than with the likely damage to my property and person that mgt be a consequence of failure to pay the usual tribute to the phallocracy.

      i did consider the phrase malleus novus novorum maleficorum but i was aware from my first post that the character limit on legible titles might have garbled the phrase and led to confusion amongst that section of the readership lacking in your scholarly appreciation of the subtleties of Latin declension.

      your critique of principle is gratefully acknowledged, and i will make the appropriate adjustment at my earliest convenience. this cannot hide the deep sense of shame i feel at having inflicted such a rudimentary solecism on the readers of this excellent journal.

      i noticed a rogue full stop in the middle of a sentence somewhere, which i shall attempt to locate. the editing process involved a struggle with far more consequential errors, and so i lazily left this minor correction to the tender, but unreliable, mercies of a later encounter.

  2. Ariadna Theokopoulos September 9, 2012 at 12:22 am #

    “the deep sense of shame i feel at having inflicted such a rudimentary solecism on the readers of this excellent journal.

    No! Check your own quotes– François would not approve: “It is great folly to wish to be wise all alone.”
    François knew what he was ‘maximin’ ” about.

    • David Holden September 9, 2012 at 11:56 am #

      ah! le Prince de Marcillac – sa sagesse douce, si élégamment distillée pour nous, transcende toutes les barrières du temps et de l’espace.

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos September 9, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

        élégantement

        No, that one, his twin, a ruffian, a rake and a poor raconteur

        • David Holden September 9, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

          merci ;-)

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos September 9, 2012 at 2:25 pm #

            or “Mercy!”

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBrbpWwWafQ

          • David Holden September 9, 2012 at 3:00 pm #

            http://snd.sc/P5EX9o

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos September 9, 2012 at 3:27 pm #

            Many years ago when I was about to go on a business trip, a friend offered to keep my dog for the 3 days I was gone so I wouldn’t have to put him in a … canine institutional setting.
            When I returned I found out that my dog (despite my friend’s young son (5 yrs old) devoting loving attention to the cur), had somehow managed in his spare time to eat through the screen door (I like to think it was out of consideration for his hosts, not wishing to bother them every time he wanted to let himself out), dig up the carpeting from an entire room, dig out some bulbs from their garden and chew them and generally wreak as much havoc as he could in 3 days.
            I was mortified. Among the acts of contritions I included a card addressed to the young boy, purportedly written by the dog, in which he supposedly apologized.
            My friend read it to his son (he couldn’t read yet). His son’s response was: ‘Daddy did he really write this card? It can’t be, Dad. When did he have time?!”
            (It’s a long story but I am partial to anything that has dogs in it…)
            So, David, looking at the link you provided I am stumped as the little boy:
            David, when do you have time?!?

    • David Holden September 9, 2012 at 12:19 pm #

      “maximin”! η γλώσσα είναι στο μάγουλο!

      wikip:

      minimax (sometimes minmax) is a decision rule used in decision theory, game theory, statistics and philosophy for minimizing the possible loss for a worst case (maximum loss) scenario. alternatively, it can be thought of as maximizing the minimum gain (maximin\)…has been extended to more complex games and to general decision making in the presence of uncertainty.

      on the other hand, an interesting occurrence of acute spontaneous sanctity, (ASS), in the turbulent world of fourth-century geo-politics:

      Saint Maximin (born at Silly near Poitiers; — Poitiers 12 September 346) was the fifth bishop of Trier, according to the list provided by the diocese’s website, taking his seat in 341/342.[3] Maximin was an opponent of Arianism,[4] and was supported by the courts of Constantine II and Constans, who harboured as an honored guest Athanasius twice during his exile from Alexandria, in 336-37, before he was bishop, and again in 343. In the Arian controversy he had begun in the party of Paul of Constantinople; however, he took part in the synod of Sardica convoked by Pope Julius I (ca. 342), and when four Arian bishops consequently came from Antioch to Trier with the purpose of winning Emperor Constans to their side, Maximinus refused to receive them and induced the emperor to reject their proposals.

  3. Somoe September 9, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    This is very coherent institutional taxonomy and i can’t disagree with any of it (tho’ i am undoubtedly more endowed with ‘lamentable ignorance’ than you). It appears to me that far from confusion, your ideas help to make sense of what appears to be quite a confusing world at times. This is a very empowering piece of writing ~ thanks for sharing your wisdom!

    • David Holden September 9, 2012 at 12:36 pm #

      Somoe you are kind and encouraging as ever. my tweet-rate has been quite low recently, but in thanks i will repeat here a tweet which just occurred to me whilst composing my comment on Ariadna’s use of the splendid term maximin’. i apologize in advance for its shallowness of thought, and its seductive and hypocritical sugar coating of facile verbal pithiness:

      the art of politics is twofold – taking people for a ride, and persuading them to pay for it

      • David Holden September 9, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

        actually it is so obvious that i’d be surprised if it hadn’t been recorded before.

  4. Ariadna Theokopoulos September 9, 2012 at 1:53 pm #

    “the art of politics is twofold – taking people for a ride, and persuading them to pay for it”

    I supposed there is no way to add something about raping them in the back seat too?

    • David Holden September 9, 2012 at 2:11 pm #

      emotionally i agree with you. technically there are problems.

      in Regina v Roger Fawcett Lord Justice Dongestein ruled that getting into a cab can in some circumkstances be construed as consent to sexual intercourse with the driver. specifically,

      1. if the passenger is drunk and scantily clad.

      and/or

      2. has not the means to pay the standard no-sex surcharge of £200

      or

      3. is a girl of age less than three years and a day.

      my organisation has been campaigning for years to get these archaic and disgusting laws brought up to date, but our efforts are continually thwarted by the powerful Rothschild-funded Khazarian Kabsters clique (KHAZKAB)who currently dominate the executive of NAPHCO (the National Association of Professional Hackney Carriage Operatives)

Leave a Reply