This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
We Begin
The Matrix was a movie released on 33-11-999, or as more commonly formatted (in the USA), 3-31-1999. In the 14 years since it's debut it has become one of the most influential cultural icons of any generation, not only here in America but throughout much of the globe. Everyone, at least those ones in Western sphere societies, somehow, can readily identify with it. I wonder why?
No, I don't. I know exactly why. The Matrix was an urgent tap on the shoulder of ones who slumbered for too long. It was Neo's alarm clock going off after he had spent the night chasing the White Rabbit. It itself was a Red Pill, subliminal and subconsciously delivered, setting us on a collision course towards a wakeful state.
On 9-11-2001, WTC #1 and #2 were offered to Americans as the Red Pill and the Blue Pill. Except there was no choice: we were force-fed the Blue Pill, a concoction of Prozac, Viagra, Extenz, and Meth. A review of our history from that choreographed day to now reveals all too plainly the grotesque tragedy of America the Empire as it played out towards its predictably inevitable demise. Today, America is a mere rumor of what was once upon a time a respected nation of common statesmen and country scholars; the land of the free and home of the brave. Oh, what a sad irony those words now elicit.
So here it is on a 13 date, and it's 11:55 as I glance at the clock on my computer. This day is a long one in coming. I asked Tyler to let me blog on Zero Hedge over a year ago. I wanted to begin spreading a word, a gospel--the Gospel of Chumba. Perhaps I am an arrogant man. Or perhaps I see what is happening today as Biblical in proportions. The Sequle, as it were, being written before our very eyes. We are witness to the next aeon of history; the year zero. It is begun again.
I know, I know, none of this makes any sense whatsoever. Chumba's a douche, and Tyler's a fag for letting him on here to spew this horse shit. My response to you is: patience, brother. Patience. This is a process. First, we need to open your eyes, but it must be done slowly. The first actual rays of real light shining into your pupils are going to be overwhelming and painful. This is normal. You will be dazed and confused, cognitively dissonant. I am going to blow your mind, and you will not like it one bit. But you will thank me for it later. You're welcome.
To begin this journey, you must awaken within the dream, before you can awaken out of it. So follow the white rabbit. Don't worry about over-sleeping and being late for work. You're soon to find out your job or career or whatever is irrelevant anyway, once you come to the realization that modern society is merely the modern day equivalent of the Colonial American slave plantation, just with benefits like a corner office and vacation time. It's an elaborate stage performance put on to convince you that you're free, and everyone is a player in the charade, too doped up to realize what they're watching in the TV is themselves. A caricature for sure, but ourselves nonetheless, a carnival house reflection of what we have become.
But the crazy dream, it ends now. Wakey wakey. There is work to do.
I am Chumbawamba.
»
- chumbawamba's blog
- 25317 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
It's not easy to prioritize time consistently. I used to post regularly myself but I still read most of the ZH articles and a lot of the comments. Some of the more complex articles eat up a bit o' time and don't allow for an allocation of extra time to comment. And then, sometimes, I just don't have a dog in a lot of the commentary fights. What a few folks have to say here is the same thing they said yesterday, so why bother. Just because it appears that some folks have left, they may have just regressed to the lurking/reading stage again.
Hey, it's all good.
RockyRacoon correctly noted:
True enough. Sometimes events in surreal life will compel reallocations of the way time is spent. For instance, some readers in the northern hemisphere are no doubt putting in time with their gardens and trying to keep the grass no higher than ankle deep.
When I'm pressed for time, I'll revert to reading selected articles and only peruse some of the comments. That's what I did here since the blogspot days until I finally got a ZH account a couple years ago.
Sometimes people just take sabbaticals.
never sarcastic
with all the abuse and ad hominem attacks from commenters here on anything that leo contributed, no wonder he stopped wasting his time here. and that's what happened to a lot of other contributors from 3+ years ago. our loss. not theirs.
Leo Kolonasskiss, the spineless apologist for the corruption and criminality that passes as the financial and monetary status-quo, deserved every bit of derision, sarcastic mockery and contempt that he received in this forum, and then some.
Leo was,quite simply, the epitome of the moral and intellectual abdication that characterizes our contemporary degenerate times.
I enjoyed 'B9K9'... long time, can't remember when he posted last.
Definitely one of my favs... it's been at least a year I think... he'll hit us up every once and a while when a big event comes through though... just to stuff it into his narrative/gloat.
i would assume that anyone MIA has probably moved on to other forums to discuss, but checks here to see if anyone is making progress towards their viewpoint...
law of diminishing returns and all, after a while it's just worth more to focus on what you think has value in a more specific venue. people learn the way they lean, and go with it. ZH is generally a very broad platform that trickles out into a wide variety of worldviews.
QFT*
*The end of world crowd is not missed though
The world as most of this generation has known it has already ended. We are now in suspended animation.
"We used to get a lot of meaningful commentary." Yes, and we used to have a market, too. Which is now dead and gone. Maybe there is a correlation between the passing of all markets and the lately sarcasm ...
We used to get Robot Trader's boob and ass pics
He was always good for a laugh, too. What has become of his LuluLemon investments? ;-)
In a world of total survelliance, sarcasm = plausible deniability.
Oh, touche', Jim.
In medieval times only the court jester could speak his mind. Social critics would write parables! Like the story of the Emperor who has no clothes... You could get your head cut off for criticizing the king, but you could make your point more 'subtly' with a book like Gulliver's Travels, or a folk tale, like the story of the Goose who laid the Golden Egg (might be a metaphor for government taxation in there!)
+1
"Marc to R.." good one, what a patronizing pric that guy is!
Monetary Metals almost as bad.
Congrats on finally getting to blog here.
"Chumba's a douche, and Tyler's a fag for letting him on here to spew this horse shit."
THIS
Pretty much. This first post is the blog equivalent of crayon on a napkin... only one chance to make a first impression... although he has some street cred for being a vet on the boards, I figure he'll get a tight leash. Best of luck and hope it works out, but based upon my conversations with him, it's going to be a crash and burn... one giant concoction of fear, envy, desperation, and imagination with a pinch of antisemitism.
It's good to see college educated readers here. Please do stick around, so that we may actually learn something after all.
Well Chumblz, you certainly cant please everyone, especially the lawyers like MM.
Well, he does have his oath to honor. That's one good thing about attorneys: they are at least honorable to their dishonor.
While it's great to have confidence, it's incredibly presumptuous to think that you have anything to teach anyone else. I think the word you're looking for is indoctrinate... You'll get the same treatment as everyone else... I'll drink the kool-aid when you lay a proper, logical foundation.
PS, if our discussions are any indicator, then I won't be holding my breath.
PS2, if your legal theories actually worked in court and I could use them to my clients' advantage, then don't you think I would try? Do you think it's the court that's paying my retainer? Rule #1, protect your client's interest... simple as that.
Hmmm... no one else could have thought of these ideas before... they've never been litigated, at all, ever... and no one uses them today because it's a big conspiracy among all bar members to shield the corporation of the united states, at the expense of their own credibility and pocket books... got it.
Not at all. The fact that one isn't in jail isn't a testament to chumba or anyone else... correlation isn't causation... it could simply be a testament to the ineptitude and/or apathy of our civil servants.
In order to go down the road, you need a fundamental misunderstanding of the system. If you want to beat the system, you cannot do it through the judiciary... I've posted in another thread, but the gist is that the loopholes and escape hatches have long been sealed. The common law has been replaced and superseded in large part. Concurrence is... a foreign concept. [fuck, look at obamacare's SCOTUS decision].
Further, things like "nullification" (see generally Kansas' recent brush with the 2nd amendment and Holder's response) are valid exercises of long forgotten powers. The things that chumba is preaching are fucking nonsense... long dead theories. If you want any material change, one of the most recent trends seems to be the localization of politics... and a broader attempt by local governments to exercise authority over the feds (again, see kansas... see colorado pot... et al.).
What he will propose are simply ways to stall... ways to attempt a battle of attrition. But here's the issue, he (and you apparently) will cite any success for the proposition that what he says is the "truth"... it is not the truth... it's simply a parlor trick that annoys judges who would rather be fishing and confuses idiot civil servants. You don't want to accept the truth...
then as he posts his nonsense refute it with valid assertions of legal authority. if you believe that his answers are wrong, guide in a way that makes right, instead of blocking his speech through the statement that he is patently incorrect as to the basis of law, correct him when the time comes.
That would be great if it was our first rodeo... but it isn't...
PS, I don't have editorial authority over nor any affiliation with this website... as a result, it is impossible for me to censor him or otherwise curtail his efforts... the ball is in his court.
i wasn't implying that you did(i also don't), only saying that as long as the comment section gives you a voice then use it.
i won't question who is granted status here for the sole reason that it isn't mine, as long as people are still allowed to disagree openly on the issue/s at hand, those with the authority to post articles are still held to account by the group in that sense, which is necessary.
You know, he also adjudicated the Casey Anthony matter before it went to the jury. He's so good, he can just raise non-issues, rule himself correct (in the CoUrT of CrAzYtOwN), and issue a bench warrant, all with the same motion. Dude is like a superhuman breed of attorney. He feeds off of radiation from nuclear waste. No one knows how to stop him. I'm scared.
Thus far all I've seen are ad hominems... hopefully your next installment has a bit more content. I'll be eagerly awaiting to learn without being taught. Osmosis?
my entire point is that the discussion itself needs to be accurately defined, until that is necessary and possible it will just be a circlejerk. im out, and hold no particular allegiance.
His article will define the context... when he actually writes one (this isn't an article)
Tell ya what: send me your e-mail address and I'll put you on the mailing list so that when I compile my years long ZH series into a single tome you'll be sure to get the announcement, and then you can read it all in one sitting and pass righteous judgment.
k?
Until then, seriously, contribute something that amounts to more than rat droppings or just beat it already.
Who said anything about teaching? I'm just here to spew. You obviously find something of value here because you keep returning.
That being said, why don't you stick around? You might learn something new afterall. You might keep finding value each return.
This is the same ridiculous bullshit that I (and I'm sure others) are sick of dealing with chumba...
If you are speaking, and you expect me to learn from it, then what are you doing? What do you call that? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teach You can pretend that you're a robot and you have no emotional investment in what you're writing to us, but anyone that has spoken to you knows differently... please stop with the bullshit. You're not just coming here to "spew".
PS, I'm going to make a prediction here... and that is your entire theories will be predicated upon twisting the basic definition of key words and phrases... I hope you prove me incorrect in this regard.
semantic arguments are an essential feature of language, and to have a codified legal system relies on coherent and accepted definitions; language is the basis of law, but as usage and definition shift, so come semantics, as the common tongue diverges from the definition of the past, each generation must again reassert through dialogue the common meaning... i doubt you speak old english, but their emotion and sense of justice can be translated, even though it is the "same language", odd that.
but i'll step back at this point, i shouldn't even be interfering in y'alls feud.
That's a great theory, but irrelevant to this discussion... it isn't that there is an argument between a theory representing a historical usage and a competing theory representing contemporary/common usage. Instead, it's taking a term of art in the legal field and using its common terms to create some absurdity. Do this enough and you're left with... nonsense. Again, this isn't our first rodeo.
PS, semantic arguments have no place once the law has been established, which is typically done on public policy grounds (after a weighing of the relevant public policies). You could make the argument if you're trying to decide the meaning of a statute for the first time... but there are rules for interpretation and, further, once it's been decided, you've got stare decisis to deal with. This isn't what we're debating... you'll see.
Forgive me, I don't debate amoeba. Please evolve a few thousand millennia and then maybe we can have a cogent discussion.
you remind me of this guy (watch @ about 4:00 in):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zWNJHS9PBE
pretty much same arguments mr wizard makes...
You remind me of someone who has nothing relevant to add to the discussion.
Go and look at your article and tell me what there is to discuss that hasn't been discussed ad nauseum... Are you hoping that we write your next article for you?
OH I'M SORRY DID I NOT WRITE IT TO YOUR SPECIFICATIONS
that is patently untrue on that basis of precident and judicial authority, are you honestly stating that judicial interpretation plays no part in law? How do you feel about jury nullification, or the entire concept of a "jury of your peers"?
Jury nullification is a hallmark of our system... one of the many lynch pins of the entire system. Prosecutorial discretion and jury nullification don't get much press, but they're probably as important as anything in keeping the system functioning. Many courts attempt to woodshed the fuck out of jurors and keep them from coming to their own conclusions based upon their own moral codes, but this is like ice skating uphill... good luck. In short, I love jury nullification because I absolutely believe in the jury system. It's basically a magic box... you throw a case in there and out comes the correct answer, magically, virtually all of the time... weird, but incredible.
Ahhh, but you ignore the elephant in the living room. Very few cases actually go to trial. Pretty rare in actuality.
why the fuck have i never been called to stand on a jury? do you think just maybe that it is because i support jury nullification?
Well, you'd first need to be sufficiently registered to get selected for a jury pool... Then, be lucky enough to get selected... then not have any conflicts (for cause)... and, then, somehow manage not to get struck by either side's attorneys. My guess is that you're likely struck for being opinionated and your responses to other issues than jury nullification. In many cases, both sides may be hoping for jury nullification... just depends on the topic at hand.
However, it is not some large conspiracy against you... the attorneys probably are also provided your work history, address, and many other tidbits about you that could get you struck... again, there is a much more likely and practical explanation for your dismissal from the pool.
No, the reason why he doesn't get picked up is that few criminal defendants actually go to trial.
Pop quiz, Matlock: what's the difference between a "jury trial" and a "trial by jury"?