A Goblin is a monstrous creature from European folklore, first attested in stories from the Middle Ages. They are ascribed various and conflicting abilities, temperaments and appearances depending on the story and country of origin.
They are almost always small and grotesque, mischievous or outright evil, and greedy, especially for gold and jewelry. They often have magical abilities similar to a fairy or demon.
(Similar creatures include brownies, dwarves, duendes, gnomes, imps, and kobolds.)
English “Goblin” is first recorded in the 14th century and is probably from unattested Anglo-Norman gobelin, similar to Old French gobelin, already attested around 1195 in Ambroise of Normandy’s Guerre sainte, and to Medieval Latin gobelinus in Orderic Vitalis before 1141, which was the name of a devil or daemon haunting the country around Évreux, Normandy.
It may be related both to German kobold and to Medieval Latin cabalus, or *gobalus, itself from Greek κόβαλος (kobalos), “rogue”, “knave”, “imp”, “goblin”. German Kobold contains the Germanic root kov- (Middle German Kobe “refuge, cavity”, “hollow in a rock”, Dial. English cove “hollow in a rock”, English “sheltered recess on a coast”, Old Norse kofi “hut, shed” ) which means originally a “hollow in the earth”. The word is probably related to Dial. Norman gobe “hollow in a cliff”, with simple suffix -lin or double suffixation -el-in (cf. Norman surnames Beuzelin, Gosselin,Étancelin, etc.)
An elf (plural: elves) is a type of human-shaped supernatural being in Germanic mythology and folklore. In medieval Germanic-speaking cultures, elves seem generally to have been thought of as beings with magical powers and supernatural beauty, ambivalent towards everyday people and capable of either helping or hindering them. The word elf is found throughout the Germanic languages and seems originally to have meant ‘white being’.
The Green Man is a god of vegetation and plant life. He symbolizes the life that is found in the natural plant world, and in the earth itself. Consider, for a moment, the forest. In the British Isles, the forests a thousand years ago were vast, spreading for miles and miles, farther than the eye could see. Because of the sheer size, the forest could be a dark and scary place.
However, it was also a place you had to enter, whether you wanted to or not, because it provided meat for hunting, plants for eating, and wood for burning and building.
Several other ancient cultures also had green deities, often with some features in common with the Green Man. These include: Humbaba, the ancient Sumerian guardian of the cedar forest, as well as Enkidu, the wild man of the forest in Sumerian mythology.
As far as i know it begins with the deluge.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Came across an intriguing contention relative to markets and the disparity betwe
Came across an intriguing contention relative to markets and the disparity between Mengle’s theory of imputation and Adam’s labor theory. Curiosity has me peering this morning into imputation with one eye on the labor theory (testing binary) in hope to bifurcate my way through if possible, for awhile, and test whether or not claims made by each can reconcile (ternary) with current propertarian positions, and if so, why. If not, why not. Time constraints may limit me to the basics of imputation theory alone, which is fine. It is likely that a true binary does not exist of course (never does really), which translates to mean we end up bagging one more carry-along misfit ternary puzzle piece for future resolve. But the implications so far are heartening. Not sure if you’ve had the opportunity to perform this test already tho. -
Came across an intriguing contention relative to markets and the disparity betwe
Came across an intriguing contention relative to markets and the disparity between Mengle’s theory of imputation and Adam’s labor theory. Curiosity has me peering this morning into imputation with one eye on the labor theory (testing binary) in hope to bifurcate my way through if possible, for awhile, and test whether or not claims made by each can reconcile (ternary) with current propertarian positions, and if so, why. If not, why not. Time constraints may limit me to the basics of imputation theory alone, which is fine. It is likely that a true binary does not exist of course (never does really), which translates to mean we end up bagging one more carry-along misfit ternary puzzle piece for future resolve. But the implications so far are heartening. Not sure if you’ve had the opportunity to perform this test already tho. -
The Technique – Insult, Repeat Central Argument, Exhaust.
Nah. I don’t make argumentative fallacies. Whenever I think the other party is disingenuous or stupid I use Ad Hominems to increase their frustration and dampen their feeling of success, then restate the central argument, and repeat that process in response to every retort until the other party gives up. This allows me to construct an argument and appeal to the audience, rather than interact with the individual. It makes enemies that tend to leave you alone afterward as not being worth their trouble – which is the whole point. Meanwhile you’ve enlightened all the lurkers by using the useful idiot’s blathering as a promotional vehicle. I learned this technique back in the 80’s and i’ve maintained the zero-tolerance-policy and unforgiving retaliation since that time. -
The Technique – Insult, Repeat Central Argument, Exhaust.
Nah. I don’t make argumentative fallacies. Whenever I think the other party is disingenuous or stupid I use Ad Hominems to increase their frustration and dampen their feeling of success, then restate the central argument, and repeat that process in response to every retort until the other party gives up. This allows me to construct an argument and appeal to the audience, rather than interact with the individual. It makes enemies that tend to leave you alone afterward as not being worth their trouble – which is the whole point. Meanwhile you’ve enlightened all the lurkers by using the useful idiot’s blathering as a promotional vehicle. I learned this technique back in the 80’s and i’ve maintained the zero-tolerance-policy and unforgiving retaliation since that time. -
It’s Never Been Capitalism Vs Socialism. That Was A Nonsense Game.
The capitalism < — > socialism <—> communism debate has always been one framed by the jewish counter enlightenment. (It used to be referred to as ‘a jewish question’.) In the west, we have always held that the decision is only between rule of law under natural law which creates markets by necessity, or rule by arbitrary discretion which reduces markets by necessity. In history, in general, the natural nobility and aristocracy determined the use of taxes for the production of commons – in no small part because common people were often little more than semi-domesticated (superstitious) animals. The change from knights to riflemen, then from agrarianism to industrialism, altered the demand for influence over the commons such that far more people were participating in the market economy rather than the subsistence economy. and the emergent middle class wanted to direct proceeds to increasing markets, rather than territorial expansion of ‘aesthetic’ commons. Furthermore, once entered into the market common people were less and less ‘barely domesticated (superstitious) animals’. An american doesn’t really know what he is saying when he is dedicated to the constitution as if it is a sacred text, but he intuits it. And that is that western man – at least the aristocracy that until 1960 we all sought to aspire to imitate – has sought rule of law from which markets spread. And that commons should be produced by those contributing to its costs. And that the monarchy is welcome to spend its earnings as it wishes on commons or not. The ruling classes held more influence in french, less influence in german, and far less influence in english nations. And no one can rule the italians – even themselves. We reveled in the Italian aesthetic enlightenment. We all felt the vast shudder of the english enlightenment, more so the french counter-englightenment, more so the german counter enlightenment, and much more so the jewish counter enlightenment (marx, boas, freud), and its attempted fulfillment as the russian counter-enlightement (the USSR), – and since 1960’s the new French counter-enlightenment (postmodernism), and now the american left’s counter-enlightenment. Like all technologies, the counter enlightenment technologies all built upon one another, with outright lying (postmodernism) the replacement for supernatural lying. So. I argue, often, and for six to eight years now, that each people and each class of people requires an economic system suitable to their abilities. And that what we call a ‘mixed’ economy would be better termed a ‘hierarchical’ economy. Where just as in the past(present) we had(have) wild beasts (prisoners), slaves (soldiers), serfs(the majority of the underclasses), freemen (the majority laboring and working classes), citizens (the entrepreneurial and financial classes), Priests (the state, academy, media complex), Nobility (those few hundred very persistently wealthy inter-generational families) and Aristocracy (those few inter generational families that consistently produce warriors for the military). So I don’t see much in the 18th-21st century that tells me anything other than a series of attempts to impose a MONOPOLY economy of false equality on a hierarchy of people with different abilities each requiring a different economy to participate in. SO the future, in my mind, will consist, as it always has consisted, of a hierarchy of economies, that suit the needs of peoples. Will capitalism play out? Capitalism as we mean it, requires a mean of the distribution of talents above 105, if not above 110. Until we can cull enough of the lower classes again, so that the capitalist classes can carry the underclasses and the working classes, then I do not see how capitalism as we mean it (as that jewish extreme) can survive. However, i do see consumer capitalism remaining the dominant force in human affairs until we see some large enough leap in technology that a small number can organize the provision of consumption for all the rest. And if that happens we will return to slavery not liberty. -
It’s Never Been Capitalism Vs Socialism. That Was A Nonsense Game.
The capitalism < — > socialism <—> communism debate has always been one framed by the jewish counter enlightenment. (It used to be referred to as ‘a jewish question’.) In the west, we have always held that the decision is only between rule of law under natural law which creates markets by necessity, or rule by arbitrary discretion which reduces markets by necessity. In history, in general, the natural nobility and aristocracy determined the use of taxes for the production of commons – in no small part because common people were often little more than semi-domesticated (superstitious) animals. The change from knights to riflemen, then from agrarianism to industrialism, altered the demand for influence over the commons such that far more people were participating in the market economy rather than the subsistence economy. and the emergent middle class wanted to direct proceeds to increasing markets, rather than territorial expansion of ‘aesthetic’ commons. Furthermore, once entered into the market common people were less and less ‘barely domesticated (superstitious) animals’. An american doesn’t really know what he is saying when he is dedicated to the constitution as if it is a sacred text, but he intuits it. And that is that western man – at least the aristocracy that until 1960 we all sought to aspire to imitate – has sought rule of law from which markets spread. And that commons should be produced by those contributing to its costs. And that the monarchy is welcome to spend its earnings as it wishes on commons or not. The ruling classes held more influence in french, less influence in german, and far less influence in english nations. And no one can rule the italians – even themselves. We reveled in the Italian aesthetic enlightenment. We all felt the vast shudder of the english enlightenment, more so the french counter-englightenment, more so the german counter enlightenment, and much more so the jewish counter enlightenment (marx, boas, freud), and its attempted fulfillment as the russian counter-enlightement (the USSR), – and since 1960’s the new French counter-enlightenment (postmodernism), and now the american left’s counter-enlightenment. Like all technologies, the counter enlightenment technologies all built upon one another, with outright lying (postmodernism) the replacement for supernatural lying. So. I argue, often, and for six to eight years now, that each people and each class of people requires an economic system suitable to their abilities. And that what we call a ‘mixed’ economy would be better termed a ‘hierarchical’ economy. Where just as in the past(present) we had(have) wild beasts (prisoners), slaves (soldiers), serfs(the majority of the underclasses), freemen (the majority laboring and working classes), citizens (the entrepreneurial and financial classes), Priests (the state, academy, media complex), Nobility (those few hundred very persistently wealthy inter-generational families) and Aristocracy (those few inter generational families that consistently produce warriors for the military). So I don’t see much in the 18th-21st century that tells me anything other than a series of attempts to impose a MONOPOLY economy of false equality on a hierarchy of people with different abilities each requiring a different economy to participate in. SO the future, in my mind, will consist, as it always has consisted, of a hierarchy of economies, that suit the needs of peoples. Will capitalism play out? Capitalism as we mean it, requires a mean of the distribution of talents above 105, if not above 110. Until we can cull enough of the lower classes again, so that the capitalist classes can carry the underclasses and the working classes, then I do not see how capitalism as we mean it (as that jewish extreme) can survive. However, i do see consumer capitalism remaining the dominant force in human affairs until we see some large enough leap in technology that a small number can organize the provision of consumption for all the rest. And if that happens we will return to slavery not liberty. -
Igor Rogov Spengler writes on Prussianism with an insider knowledge and yet with
Igor Rogov Spengler writes on Prussianism with an insider knowledge and yet with a degree of condescension, characteristic of a genius toward the substrate. He approaches the socialism as an overreach of Prussian cultural habit of communal welfare and communal spirit in general – something that works at a level of a village but definitely wrong and monstrous when applied to the state in general. Sure, the layered society approach with stricter boundaries between municipal, regional and state level – with “socialism” only at municipal level – would somewhat mitigate this problem. -
Igor Rogov Spengler writes on Prussianism with an insider knowledge and yet with
Igor Rogov Spengler writes on Prussianism with an insider knowledge and yet with a degree of condescension, characteristic of a genius toward the substrate. He approaches the socialism as an overreach of Prussian cultural habit of communal welfare and communal spirit in general – something that works at a level of a village but definitely wrong and monstrous when applied to the state in general. Sure, the layered society approach with stricter boundaries between municipal, regional and state level – with “socialism” only at municipal level – would somewhat mitigate this problem. -
Framing, from false dichotomies through the addition of subsequent dimensions, t
Framing, from false dichotomies through the addition of subsequent dimensions, to entire narratives dependent upon them, serve as a means of deception by suggestion. We use the term paradigm for networks of theories.We use the suite of scientific paradigms to provide commensurability between unscientific paradigms. For the simple reason that the scientific (deflationary) paradigms consist of constant relations independent of ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. For the simple reason that the function of scientific investigation is the elimination of ignorance error bias wishful thinking and deceit from our speech by isolation and measurement of constant relations.