Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 21, 2021

The MoA Week In Review - OT 2021-090

Last week's posts at Moon of Alabama:

---
Other issues:

Criminal Interference Agency:

Guaido is finished:

Covid-19:

Alastair Crooke triplet:

Boeing:

Use as open thread ...

Posted by b on November 21, 2021 at 14:12 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

Right or Left - this is worth listening to

The Dying Citizen

Key point: the middle class is vital because of their independence. They are willing and able to criticize government because they are largely independent. The wealthy use government for their desires and the poor are dependent on government too much to safely criticize it.

Other notes: 40% of Americans work for some form of government

You don't have to be perfect to be good.

Hanson is still stuck in Cold War 1 but it doesn't mean he has nothing worth listening to regarding other topics.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 24 2021 15:33 utc | 401


@. uncle tungsten | Nov 24 2021 4:15 utc | 372

You mentioned “Graebers” in your short list of the appreciated which brings me to remark in passing B4 reading further on this thread that there’s a new book out by David Graeber (and David Wengrow), a collaborative project lasting ten years and finished just before David’s untimely death last autumn, so published posthumously and released this month.

The Dawn of Everything A New History of Humanity, while a thick book of over 500 pp, is an enjoyable read imo.

Posted by: suzan | Nov 24 2021 16:49 utc | 402

@ suzan | Nov 24 2021 16:49 utc | 402 who wrote
"
The Dawn of Everything A New History of Humanity, while a thick book of over 500 pp, is an enjoyable read imo.
"

The book is on its way to me but other barflies have asked me for a book report...how about one from you?

Thanks!

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 24 2021 17:00 utc | 403

@392 Lurk

Ridley Scott at his height. Shortly after Alien, correct?

Yes, I have come to the same conclusion that we are all Replicants in that film and that worldly power is created by those who bifurcate, or cleave into binary opposition, all of reality. Desireable and undesireable. Self and other, etc., etc.. The beginning of the modern, IOW the philosophy of Descartes.

Dick, the Author, was a gnostic Christian, where the emphasis is on the idea of a demon who obscures reality. There are many notions extrapolated down the centuries from the teachings of Jesus Christ that the Church believes are Heretical. I am no scholar in this regard so I will leave it at that.

Certainly one thinks of the notion of Original Sin, of Jesus Christ being the solution to this, as he is placed back on the Tree of Knowledge in the garden during his crucifixion.

In a similar vein, the thought arises that the philosophy of Martin Heidegger emphasizes the need for destruktion of philosophy that came after the pre-Socratics. Attunement with the Pre-Socratics involves a dilligence of maintenance and study around it. We have yet to be up to this task.

A great essay to understand this would be Heidegger's, Hegel and the Greeks. .pdf online somewhere I am sure.

So Blade Runner does do a good job of its central idea that we live in a philosophical house that is pillared with false or misleading notions of reality as it relates to the human.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Nov 24 2021 19:15 utc | 404

@ psychohistorian | Nov 24 2021 17:00 utc | 403

I just now had time to see your message, and have not yet had time to catch up on the thread (or any other reading) beyond where I was this morning when I responded to UT. As I am still reading the book, and I see (but won’t read until I finish the book) there are many reviews available online, I offer here only the table of contents of it for people at the bar who are interested. I could not find a publisher-supplied T of C so I typed it out from the book. All errors are mine. When I finish and digest the book and find time to write, usually when snow flies, perhaps I’ll have something to contribute beyond what is contributed by people more erudite than I.

Contents

List of maps and figures
Foreword and Dedication
Acknowledgements

1. Farewell to Humanity’s Childhood Or, why this book is not about the origins of inequality
2. Wicked Liberty The indigenous critique and the myth of progress
3. Unfreezing the Ice Age In and out of chains: the protean possibilities of human politics
4. Free People, the Origins of Cultures, and the Advent of Private Property (Not necessarily in that order)
5. Many Seasons Ago. Why Canadian foragers kept slaves and their California neighbors didn’t; or the problem with ‘modes of production’
6. Gardens of Adonis The revolution that never happened: how Neolithic peoples avoided agriculture
7. The Ecology of Freedom How farming first hopped, stumbled and bluffed its way around the world
8. Imaginary Cities Eurasia’s first urbanites — in Mesopotamia, the Indus valley, Ukraine and China — and how they built cities without kings
9. Hiding in Plain Sight . The indigenous origins of social housing and democracy in the Americas
10. Why the State Has No Origin The humble beginnings of sovereignty, bureaucracy and politics
11. Full Circle On the historical foundations of the indigenous critique
12. Conclusion The dawn of everything

Notes P 527
Bibliography p 611
Index p 675

Posted by: suzan | Nov 24 2021 21:50 utc | 405

psychohistorian @403--

An Open Preview of the book's available here and covers the Intro and first two chapters. Co-author David Wengrow tells us in his Dedication that the book was a collaboration covering the past ten years and was to have three sequels! I like what I read on the first few pages as I seem to share a lot with the philosophical direction of their inquiries. I wonder if the surviving partner will attempt the publication of the planned sequels; given the investment of time, I hope at least one is produced.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 24 2021 22:58 utc | 406

Lurk #393

I am looking forward to your next installment. And I don't mind the occasional gruffian brawl but not on the subject at hand.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 25 2021 2:17 utc | 407

suzan #402

The Dawn of Everything A New History of Humanity, while a thick book of over 500 pp, is an enjoyable read imo.

Thank you, I will add it to my 'immediate' list :))

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 25 2021 2:19 utc | 408

Now that this thread is dead I'm going to post the latest Windsor perfidies in full (because of a tendency to disappear from the ether), and in reverse order (latest first).

Barflies know about her two eldest boys, both in trouble with the police at the moment.

This is about another of the men in her life.

This is another reason why the people know nothing at all about this despicable bunch.

The "Rules based order" from which those who make the rules are themselves exempt.


Britain’s royals used obscure legal procedure to hide distant relatives’ wills

Leopold de Rothschild, Prince Georg Valdemar Carl Axel of Denmark, Princess Margaret, Prince Francis Joseph Leopold, Frederick of Teck and Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.

Judge reveals identities of more than 30 people whose wills – showing details of their assets – were sealed

David Pegg, Rob Evans and Caroline Davies
Wed 24 Nov 2021 19.19 GMT

Wills detailing the assets of distant relatives of the royal family have been kept secret through an obscure legal procedure, a court document has revealed.

The Windsor family has over the last century managed to exempt itself from a law requiring the wills of British citizens to ordinarily be made public.

The identities of the more than 30 royal wills that were sealed over that period had not been formally made public.

That changed on Wednesday when a senior judge published the list of royals whose sealed wills are stored in a locked safe. The contents of the wills themselves remain secret.

One name on the original list released by the court was Leopold de Rothschild, Edward VII’s close friend, suggesting his will was made secret in 1917. It is unclear how the British banker would have been able to achieve this, given the exemption was supposed to apply to senior royals.

Hours after publishing its original list on Wednesday the court issued a new list, with Leopold de Rothschild’s name removed. A spokesperson for the court said the inclusion of Rothschild’s name on the original list was “an error” as he was not a member of the royal family.

The official publication of the list discloses for the first time the extent to which the secret legal procedure has been used – without the knowledge of the public – to conceal the wills of even minor members of the royal family.

Another name on the list is Prince Georg Valdemar Carl Axel, who died in 1986. A member of the Danish royal family, he was only distantly connected to the Windsor line by virtue of being a second cousin to the late Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh.

He was born and died in Denmark, and it is not clear why an application to seal his will was made in London.

Other names on the list include the Duke of Windsor, who was King Edward VIII until he abdicated the throne in 1936, as well as more obscure minor members of the Windsor family, such as grandchildren of Queen Victoria and various children of George V and Queen Mary.

David McClure, a royal finance expert and author of the book The Queen’s True Worth, said the contents of the list demonstrated how the sealing of wills, supposedly only for the highest-ranking members of the royal family, was in fact much more widely applied.

“If you were a royal of any European royal house you could, if you made enough of a song and dance about it, have your will sealed. It does slightly make a mockery of the whole process that this should be for more senior royals.”

Norman Baker, a former Liberal Democrat minister who has also written a book about the royals, suggested some wills may have been sealed to cover up “just how much money they have accumulated from public funds”. A Buckingham Palace spokesperson said the royal family did not wish to comment.

For decades, lawyers for the royal family have successfully submitted legal applications to the high court to have wills kept secret after the deaths of family members. But the use of this procedure has drawn criticism, as it gives the royal family a right that is not granted to other British citizens.

The latest will to be sealed belonged to Prince Philip, who died this year. At a secret hearing in July, the president of the family division of the high court, Sir Andrew McFarlane, approved an application from the Queen’s private lawyers and the attorney general to keep his will secret for at least 90 years.

McFarlane said senior members of the royal family had to be exempted from the law requiring the publication of wills. This was “necessary to enhance the protection afforded to the private lives of this unique group of individuals, in order to protect the dignity and standing of the public role of the sovereign and other close members of her family”.

He published his ruling in September – the first time that a judgment ordering the sealing of a will of a member of the royal family had been made public. McFarlane ruled that “a level of transparency” had been established, adding that the list of the sealed wills should be made public – an instruction that was realised on Wednesday.

However, the small number of parties permitted to attend the court hearing, including the attorney general, successfully persuaded the judge to exclude the media from the hearing.

The Guardian is taking legal action to challenge the decision to exclude the media from the hearing. Its lawyers are seeking permission to argue that the high court’s failure to properly consider whether the press should be allowed to attend the hearing or make representations constitutes such a serious interference with the principle of open justice that the case should be reheard.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/24/britains-royals-used-obscure-legal-procedure-to-hide-distant-relatives-wills

Posted by: John Cleary | Nov 25 2021 10:20 utc | 409

Prince Philip’s will: legal battle launched over media exclusion from hearing
High court ruled in secret hearing in September that Philip’s will should be hidden from public for 90 years

David Pegg and Rob Evans
Thu 18 Nov 2021 06.00 GMT

Legal action against the attorney general and the Queen’s private lawyers has been initiated over a decision to ban media organisations from a court hearing about the Duke of Edinburgh’s will.

The Guardian is seeking permission to argue that the high court’s failure to properly consider whether the press should be allowed to attend the hearing or make representations constitutes such a serious interference with the principle of open justice that the case should be reheard.

In September the president of the family division of the high court, Sir Andrew McFarlane, ruled that the will of Prince Philip should be hidden from the public for 90 years, after a secret hearing that media organisations were not told about and were barred from attending.

The only parties permitted to attend the court were Philip’s executor, Farrer and Co Trust Corporation, a subsidiary of the Queen’s private solicitors Farrer and Co, and the attorney general, Michael Ellis. Both parties successfully persuaded the judge to exclude the media from the hearing.

McFarlane said he “accepted the argument that only the attorney general can speak, as a matter of public law, to the public interest, and that there was, legally, therefore no role for those who might represent the media at a hearing (public or private) in putting forward any contrary view of the public interest”.

Under British law, when a person dies any will they have left behind is automatically made public. That is done in order to ensure the will is acted upon, to bring it to the attention of potential beneficiaries, and to prevent fraud against a person’s estate.

The Windsor family is exempt from this requirement. Although the monarch’s will is hidden from the public by law, there is no statute passed by parliament requiring the wills of other members of the royal family to be hidden. There is also no established legal definition of who is, and who is not, a member of the royal family. However, about 100 years ago the royal family began making legal applications to have their wills hidden from the public.

In the judgment summarising the closed court case relating to Prince Philip’s will, McFarlane identified the first will to be kept secret as that of Prince Francis of Teck, the younger brother of Queen Mary, who died in 1910.

Teck’s will was kept secret in order to hush up a sex scandal. Mary persuaded a judge to keep it closed as it is understood to have shown that he had bequeathed prized family jewels to a mistress.

McFarlane wrote: “The answer to the question ‘why should there be an exception for senior members of the royal family?’ is, in my view, clear: it is necessary to enhance the protection afforded to the private lives of this unique group of individuals, in order to protect the dignity and standing of the public role of the sovereign and other close members of her family.

“While there may be public curiosity as to the private arrangements that a member of the royal family may choose to make in their will, there is no true public interest in the public knowing this wholly private information … The media interest in this respect is commercial.”

The practice of sealing the Windsor family’s wills from the public was last considered in 2007 when an accountant, Robert Brown, sought access to the wills of the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret on the basis that he believed they would provide evidence that he was the illegitimate child of Margaret.

His application was rejected. However, he successfully argued that the family court had failed to consider matters of public importance relating to the practice of sealing the Windsor family’s wills away from public scrutiny.

Brown’s case also successfully uncovered the existence of a secret agreement between the attorney general, the former president of the family court, the royal household and Farrer and Co. The document was later partially disclosed.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/18/prince-philips-will-legal-battle-launched-over-media-exclusion-from-hearing


That answers a question that many have posed. WHO decides on what is the public interest?

only the attorney general can speak, as a matter of public law, to the public interest

Posted by: John Cleary | Nov 25 2021 10:53 utc | 410

« previous page

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Working...