Market Lies and the Rise of Anti-Jew Conspiracies.
We make assumptions about reality. Our biggest assumptions are thought to be laws of physics. For example, we believe there are laws of conservation of energy, and of matter. We know that this is slightly untrue, when you factor in the bizarro laws of quantum dynamics and all that chaos, and unpredictability. We assume there is gravity, but really don't even understand what it is. We assume there are thermodynamical laws and that time always goes forward. We superstitiously assume that we sit in a fixed spot and - almost - that the world revolves around us. Narcissistic hogwash, ha. Turns out, our assumptions are all local in scope, basically. For all practical purposes. But, we nonetheless project a grid of standards upon everything else, far and wide.
Well, we do the same thing with infrastructure. We run everything according to set standards, on a set grid, along a standardised time, using standardised bits of energy. For the most part, this all works out pretty well for us, all of it being based on our almost precise laws of physics. But, just like the Earth passing through a cloud in the galactic plane every 12,000 years - sometimes, significant change rears its ugly head, and things can get disrupted. Precisely because they are so ordered, so structured. Which is a primary reason why civilisations fall, in the end. Everything shifts, but much of the social system puts more and more effort - and energy - into keeping their grids of infrastructure, physics and law the same.
Standard value grids exist through supply and market chains. Autoparts. Standardised screw sizes. Standardised billing. Standardised food measurements. Standardised shipping processes. Standardised schedules. Standardised market values. It has all fit together pretty well, and allowed trade to go global. Especially when global trade has been protected from pirates and rogues by a standardised USA Navy. The funny thing about all this is that it is not called standardised trade. It is called free trade. Because it is built on the premises of free choice, free will, and the relatively free ability to pursue personal necessities in life. Like food, clothing, shelter and safety. Protection from all the things that would otherwise conspire to make people very unfree, if not fully dead.
Of course, free trade can hide a lot of lies - not only in the fact that there is so much standardised structure behind it - but there is also a lot of control behind it. Coercion. Because, as we all know from standardised information on the internet, standardisation does not only facilitate more free will for many, many people - it can - and usually does - facilitate lots of centralisation by organised political or corporate structures - or mobs or cabals - which in turn feed a lot of power-hungry and manipulative people. Psychopaths and narcissists, who lie, and lie some more. Telling people what's good for their freedom, while simultaneously stealing that freedom away. Such can be hidden behind the grandeur called globalisation.
You;re always going to get that, in civilisations: Selfish parasites who profit off of making other people's lives worse, not better, even while operating from within structures or trends which promise people greater freedoms. They adopt those promises, use them as lies, and run their false-idol scams on masses of people. Indeed, such is so intrinsic to the capitalist or communist or statist structures of civilisations that we can be confident that some degree of it will always be contaminating, even the truths we tell each other. Even in our own lives, we may want to believe one thing, but somewhat suspect something opposite, at the same time, right? Everyone is both good and bad. Especially in the big cities.
So, when we get to the top of a political structure, we do find a lot of what is called, "corruption." To the point, even, sometimes, of devil-worship, as if to spite the Christianity of the masses, and so on. A full-on anti-morality, completely convinced of it own - some-kind-of - 'moral' imperatives. Not only do corrupt agencies and agents assume they need to lie - but that they were, in fact, born to lie - for the greater good, whatever that means. The lies of Empire - which I have written about before.
All because of the facilitation of all this standardisation - even of moral laws and assumptions.
Closest to home, standard value grids exist across our markets and currencies. (So, you get financial scams and corruptions, too).
I have always been somewhat interested in how people just assume everything has a pretty-much set price. Right? A person makes a set amount of money each week, or so, and proceeds to spend a set amount on this and that - on all the standardised items that person will or must buy. That person will spend a lifetime working for an hourly wage that other people in society - "higher up" - have helped to determine. And that person will scrim and save, seat blood, make sacrifices, and so on - all for a set number. As if that person is given only a set number of apples, or potatoes, ever week. But, it's not any really quantity of anything. It's just numbers inked onto pieces of paper - and usually not even that. In reality, the person is receiving set, regimented assumptions, as pay, every week.
Yes, it is amazing that we, as a species, are able to think symbolically, like this. But - there can also be a great flaw of naivete in this symbolic thinking, as well. Because it assumes a conservation of nature, when we are not talking about nature, we are talking about money - a fiction. Far more of a fiction that physics.
Just as with any kind of morality or ideology, you have fundamentalists in money - who firmly believe, e.g., that the dollar is a set kind-of thing. Unto itself. And they believe in a lifetime of work and honesty, and all that. But, you can't have fundamentalism without having some backdrop - some extra context - or relativism. So, there are relatives who are always trying to transform money, like the dollar - as if it were a liquid or a gas. More than in any other standard value grid, there more relativisation going on in money, and banking, than can possibly be imagined, by most people. There are more lies in capitalism - sometimes passing as communism - than in any other field of enterprise.
When a standard dollar buys a can of Coke, let's say, most people tend to understand that the dollar is not entirely a thing. It's kind of a coupon for a thing - kind of a thing for a thing. Like a sticky note. If a dollar were really as equal to a thing as many people might want to assume, then we could use dollars as barter collateral. But, most people people ultimately know that prices change, fees are added, inflation happens, finances run low, products run low, and so on.
So, this too-high fundamentalism recalls, to us, "why communism can't work" - at least one reason why, as discussed in THIS POST. (Maybe see also THIS POST). Because you have the same dollar price for a bag of coal both in rich coal country as in desolate arctic snow country. Just like you try to do with the dollar, itself. And that is just unreal - because it totally unQUALIFIES everything about the commodity. It denies that there are different reasons for different people to be wanting, holding or evaluating the commodity - including the dollar itself. In so doing, it attempts to remove WILL (i.e., choice) from exchange.
So, the dollar is not really a thing, per se, if merely by virtue of the fact that it is constantly being reevaluated by so many different people. On top of this, there fees added, and taxes, and inflation, and so on.
And, then, on top of this - is the whole game of banking, which uses money to make money - and makes money out of thin air, thus constantly devaluing the dollar over time, and thus extracting wealth from the people holding dollars, (who are less savvy to this relativisation), even while basin their relativisation on the same standard value grid laid out for the dollar, and all associated economy.
(I used to wonder why, if a dollar went from being able to buy one can of Coke, to only being able to buy only half a can of Coke - why did it now have to take two dollars to buy that can of Coke? Why not, instead, just fix the inherent value of the dollar to the true rate of inflation, so that one dollar will always = one can of coke? Because - that's the bag of coal, and that's denying the reality that the dollar is manipulated by banks (and market forces) in other ways. That's a kind of fluid price-fixing, which is not a viable economic plan in the longer term - just as neither is communism. But - maybe it could work in some kind of multi-tiered system, idk).
The fact is, unlike gold and silver, paper currency does not retain its relative value over the decades. (Whereas an ounce of gold still buys what it bought in 1928, pretty much). And this is largely because paper money is a stand-in for real money. Most people carry on like it does, assuming the currency standard value grid is basically solid. But we are mistaken, preoccupied as we are with the menial problems of our lives.
People started on paper currencies, and coins, because gold, silver, copper, horses, etc., were too difficult to carry around. So, a convenient stand-in became paper currency, (etc.), which was light-weight, and generally backed by the power of the state, usually via war. But, this allowed one store of gold, e.g., in a bank, to be lent out to many people at once. Say, one guys $10,000 of gold was now being used to back the purchases of ten other guys, simultaneously. Banks assume a normal future, and there will be no run on that gold, by all ten guy, all at once. In the same way, banks assume standard normalcy will continue into a future, where everyone does not rush to withdraw all the currency they have stored in the bank - as if itself were gold, a kind of thing.
But this is where the big lies begin. In the assumption about futures, upon which some-degree-false promises are built. Because, as we have said, standard normalcy sometimes gets punctuated by disequilibria, doesn't it? And that's when, suddenly, masses of people suddenly discover that they have been trading in lies.
The relativisation suddenly shows itself in public, for all to see. As the monster that it is and can be. Especially in comparison to the more fundamentalist assumptions being made, and relied upon, by most of the rest of more honest society.
So - lies are inherent in capitalism. In money itself, especially in paper money. And - more-so - lies are inherent in the controlling of the values of money - as when people are TOLD what they can or cannot buy, as opposed when they and their market decide upon the best price for each commodity, even while set within a standard value grid of assumptions and expectations. Because that is the most rational, decentralised way of managing the more relative aspects of money. Bigger banks exert more control, on the other hand, and so less rationality, and so less fairness. As do bigger corporations. Wealthier elites. Crazier governments. And all that.
OK - that's a good start. I need to rest now.
Well, we do the same thing with infrastructure. We run everything according to set standards, on a set grid, along a standardised time, using standardised bits of energy. For the most part, this all works out pretty well for us, all of it being based on our almost precise laws of physics. But, just like the Earth passing through a cloud in the galactic plane every 12,000 years - sometimes, significant change rears its ugly head, and things can get disrupted. Precisely because they are so ordered, so structured. Which is a primary reason why civilisations fall, in the end. Everything shifts, but much of the social system puts more and more effort - and energy - into keeping their grids of infrastructure, physics and law the same.
Standard value grids exist through supply and market chains. Autoparts. Standardised screw sizes. Standardised billing. Standardised food measurements. Standardised shipping processes. Standardised schedules. Standardised market values. It has all fit together pretty well, and allowed trade to go global. Especially when global trade has been protected from pirates and rogues by a standardised USA Navy. The funny thing about all this is that it is not called standardised trade. It is called free trade. Because it is built on the premises of free choice, free will, and the relatively free ability to pursue personal necessities in life. Like food, clothing, shelter and safety. Protection from all the things that would otherwise conspire to make people very unfree, if not fully dead.
Of course, free trade can hide a lot of lies - not only in the fact that there is so much standardised structure behind it - but there is also a lot of control behind it. Coercion. Because, as we all know from standardised information on the internet, standardisation does not only facilitate more free will for many, many people - it can - and usually does - facilitate lots of centralisation by organised political or corporate structures - or mobs or cabals - which in turn feed a lot of power-hungry and manipulative people. Psychopaths and narcissists, who lie, and lie some more. Telling people what's good for their freedom, while simultaneously stealing that freedom away. Such can be hidden behind the grandeur called globalisation.
You;re always going to get that, in civilisations: Selfish parasites who profit off of making other people's lives worse, not better, even while operating from within structures or trends which promise people greater freedoms. They adopt those promises, use them as lies, and run their false-idol scams on masses of people. Indeed, such is so intrinsic to the capitalist or communist or statist structures of civilisations that we can be confident that some degree of it will always be contaminating, even the truths we tell each other. Even in our own lives, we may want to believe one thing, but somewhat suspect something opposite, at the same time, right? Everyone is both good and bad. Especially in the big cities.
So, when we get to the top of a political structure, we do find a lot of what is called, "corruption." To the point, even, sometimes, of devil-worship, as if to spite the Christianity of the masses, and so on. A full-on anti-morality, completely convinced of it own - some-kind-of - 'moral' imperatives. Not only do corrupt agencies and agents assume they need to lie - but that they were, in fact, born to lie - for the greater good, whatever that means. The lies of Empire - which I have written about before.
All because of the facilitation of all this standardisation - even of moral laws and assumptions.
Closest to home, standard value grids exist across our markets and currencies. (So, you get financial scams and corruptions, too).
I have always been somewhat interested in how people just assume everything has a pretty-much set price. Right? A person makes a set amount of money each week, or so, and proceeds to spend a set amount on this and that - on all the standardised items that person will or must buy. That person will spend a lifetime working for an hourly wage that other people in society - "higher up" - have helped to determine. And that person will scrim and save, seat blood, make sacrifices, and so on - all for a set number. As if that person is given only a set number of apples, or potatoes, ever week. But, it's not any really quantity of anything. It's just numbers inked onto pieces of paper - and usually not even that. In reality, the person is receiving set, regimented assumptions, as pay, every week.
Yes, it is amazing that we, as a species, are able to think symbolically, like this. But - there can also be a great flaw of naivete in this symbolic thinking, as well. Because it assumes a conservation of nature, when we are not talking about nature, we are talking about money - a fiction. Far more of a fiction that physics.
Just as with any kind of morality or ideology, you have fundamentalists in money - who firmly believe, e.g., that the dollar is a set kind-of thing. Unto itself. And they believe in a lifetime of work and honesty, and all that. But, you can't have fundamentalism without having some backdrop - some extra context - or relativism. So, there are relatives who are always trying to transform money, like the dollar - as if it were a liquid or a gas. More than in any other standard value grid, there more relativisation going on in money, and banking, than can possibly be imagined, by most people. There are more lies in capitalism - sometimes passing as communism - than in any other field of enterprise.
When a standard dollar buys a can of Coke, let's say, most people tend to understand that the dollar is not entirely a thing. It's kind of a coupon for a thing - kind of a thing for a thing. Like a sticky note. If a dollar were really as equal to a thing as many people might want to assume, then we could use dollars as barter collateral. But, most people people ultimately know that prices change, fees are added, inflation happens, finances run low, products run low, and so on.
So, this too-high fundamentalism recalls, to us, "why communism can't work" - at least one reason why, as discussed in THIS POST. (Maybe see also THIS POST). Because you have the same dollar price for a bag of coal both in rich coal country as in desolate arctic snow country. Just like you try to do with the dollar, itself. And that is just unreal - because it totally unQUALIFIES everything about the commodity. It denies that there are different reasons for different people to be wanting, holding or evaluating the commodity - including the dollar itself. In so doing, it attempts to remove WILL (i.e., choice) from exchange.
So, the dollar is not really a thing, per se, if merely by virtue of the fact that it is constantly being reevaluated by so many different people. On top of this, there fees added, and taxes, and inflation, and so on.
And, then, on top of this - is the whole game of banking, which uses money to make money - and makes money out of thin air, thus constantly devaluing the dollar over time, and thus extracting wealth from the people holding dollars, (who are less savvy to this relativisation), even while basin their relativisation on the same standard value grid laid out for the dollar, and all associated economy.
(I used to wonder why, if a dollar went from being able to buy one can of Coke, to only being able to buy only half a can of Coke - why did it now have to take two dollars to buy that can of Coke? Why not, instead, just fix the inherent value of the dollar to the true rate of inflation, so that one dollar will always = one can of coke? Because - that's the bag of coal, and that's denying the reality that the dollar is manipulated by banks (and market forces) in other ways. That's a kind of fluid price-fixing, which is not a viable economic plan in the longer term - just as neither is communism. But - maybe it could work in some kind of multi-tiered system, idk).
The fact is, unlike gold and silver, paper currency does not retain its relative value over the decades. (Whereas an ounce of gold still buys what it bought in 1928, pretty much). And this is largely because paper money is a stand-in for real money. Most people carry on like it does, assuming the currency standard value grid is basically solid. But we are mistaken, preoccupied as we are with the menial problems of our lives.
People started on paper currencies, and coins, because gold, silver, copper, horses, etc., were too difficult to carry around. So, a convenient stand-in became paper currency, (etc.), which was light-weight, and generally backed by the power of the state, usually via war. But, this allowed one store of gold, e.g., in a bank, to be lent out to many people at once. Say, one guys $10,000 of gold was now being used to back the purchases of ten other guys, simultaneously. Banks assume a normal future, and there will be no run on that gold, by all ten guy, all at once. In the same way, banks assume standard normalcy will continue into a future, where everyone does not rush to withdraw all the currency they have stored in the bank - as if itself were gold, a kind of thing.
But this is where the big lies begin. In the assumption about futures, upon which some-degree-false promises are built. Because, as we have said, standard normalcy sometimes gets punctuated by disequilibria, doesn't it? And that's when, suddenly, masses of people suddenly discover that they have been trading in lies.
The relativisation suddenly shows itself in public, for all to see. As the monster that it is and can be. Especially in comparison to the more fundamentalist assumptions being made, and relied upon, by most of the rest of more honest society.
So - lies are inherent in capitalism. In money itself, especially in paper money. And - more-so - lies are inherent in the controlling of the values of money - as when people are TOLD what they can or cannot buy, as opposed when they and their market decide upon the best price for each commodity, even while set within a standard value grid of assumptions and expectations. Because that is the most rational, decentralised way of managing the more relative aspects of money. Bigger banks exert more control, on the other hand, and so less rationality, and so less fairness. As do bigger corporations. Wealthier elites. Crazier governments. And all that.
OK - that's a good start. I need to rest now.