Stand Firm, and State Your Truth

Liars is what U are. THEY lied. I tried the Wi-Fi AND IT WORKED. Boy am I upset. A McD’s worker interceded in my conversation with the cashier. She said “no” after I had asked if it worked, and it did! I was asking about WiFi. I had thought to ask, before sitting down to eat, whether Wi-Fi worked. And this person had said “no,” but as I suspected that was not the case. I thought it might work. And it did. It did, it did, it did. And I was lied to yes I was! Because it worked. Everything in America is just like that. I think the facts indeed are always denied to us. They do it at McD’s and they do it on Broadway and they do it  all over the world. And that is the way it is. Don’t get into it with me. It is my opinion and I have the right to it.

The whole world is a lie. We live in the world, a sea of turtles, a pool of lies with our politicians standing before us posing grandly. As public servants.

O they accuse one another, accuse anyone, accuse the Russians. Accuse the F.B.I. Anyone. Now everyone is no good, so only the rebel remains.

When I am lied to like I was at McDonalds, I feel I know how the world works. I extend the metaphor too generally. I extend it to Washington and D.C., to Jefferson and Virginia. They are doing it, always were. These are the pernicious men who man Washington, D.c.

What can you do, when a chicken sandwich is lying. When the whole world is a lie? When nothing makes sense? Is the McChicken sandwich lying? Oh my g-d.

Don’t become like those persons. That’s not just my opinion, no. That’s the best advice. There’s no gain lying, in thinking you are proving something

Maybe the woman thought she herself was a rebel, acting like that, protecting someone, against something. Maybe she thought I was homeless. I have a home. This is my home.

Advertisements

Some Words as to ‘Hillary and Kristol’

What long-term vision do Hillary or Kristol have? What is the long-term vision? Where do they expect US/America to be in fifty years?

Maybe the vision is that of economic growth. Is it that we will get fifty per cent better efficiency from our machines – in 2065?

As compared to 2020. I wonder if this kind of vision gets you going. Will aluminum be even lighter? What is their vision? Is there something they want? Something that they want for the benefit of every one? All of us? Do they just want power? Yeah, in order not to be embarrassed.

In other words, do they want anything other than, Well– a good time for the next couple years? Are they any better than any little dictator in some tropical country?

(written in response to their getting close to one another, and Hillary’s recent re-tweet of Kristol’s tweet)

Why We Cannot Connect with ANYTHING

What am I seeing everyday? To me it is very obvious. It takes only a moment to see, and I see it most clearly in a moment. So, I want to try to describe it.

I see in a moment’s time that in this country we are not set up on the right social basis.          What’s a social basis?

In general, the idea that everyone needs a social basis. This is just part o fus. And with that, you need to have some solid ground. There your country and your culture stand. It is a social ground. it is a culture. A question of what kind of a culture you will have. What is on the ground? What ground is that?

You cannot tell in the US (US/America is my preferred term, since “America” is generic to many countries). And this is the problem I am talking about. US/America (my term) has this problem of no solid cultural ground. One faction wishes for us to live in some sort of super individualistic society.

But that common ground is not extreme-individualistic. This is rather to be understood as a country where the dominant powers try to impose certain ideas of super-individualism (this is obvious, merely by looking at advertising and looking at the public relations industry). Those ideas reflect white protestant influence. In any event, individualism is an old ideal. There is no doubt that our country was formed upon a basis of individual freedom. Of that there is no doubt, but this should not be confused with a focus on individuals, as if there were no groups ever, as if the normal, welcome obligations between member and  group were absent. Other than war, when they need you – for that they will call!

The following therefore applies. All governments service become compromised, the country is based on idiotic, wrong ideas, and these misunderstand the history I talk about above, and misunderstand capitalism. Now, this system of capitalism is a very important part of America, to be sure. B.t.w: we misunderstand the free enterprise system totally. We are saying it is individualistic, thereby negating all mention of non-individualistic factors, even though there are many.

The result is that persons cannot connect with liberals, and not even with the conservatives. So they vote for a person like Trump.

There are some enormous misunderstandings.

A Realistic Appraisal, (or, This Cruel World of Capitalism)

Society has a strong desire to oppress but social systems are diverse and different, even where the distinction is between Florida and Illinois, or Chicago and Tampa Bay. So, there are differing social systems. A social system is how persons organize. They are different. What they have in common is a need to keep the poor bent over. That is Numero Uno. Some of the members of the society have more power, some less. That is the nature of things. It is that way everywhere. Isn’t that so? And for how long has that been going on I cannot say. I can say that at this time this society is not organized on the basis of maximum equality, nor of maximum creativity. Of course the society is a power system; some have much more than do others. I hope this does not come as too much of a surprise. To some of you more sensitive types.

We may say that society has a desire or a tendency to stop most persons who want to achieve or maximize their potential. It is, a little too dramatically, called “oppression” sometimes. Society is usually trying to oppress; only in some cases do these processes by which society puts its stamp on us try to aid. Maybe society also occasionally wants to aid us, the members of that society, or other societies, valiantly helping a country like Afghanistan. Gee that’s swell. Or other noble causes, whatever it is: Orphans in Somalia. So, I am being very cynical here, so, in general, there are different levels of power within the social group. Sometimes, elites actually fight over how to help us, the orphans.

And no doubt, this is where the bullshit comes. Although the truth is that the society only helps its constituent members some of the time, often only the powerful helping others of their own class, liberals claim to possess an abundant sense of virtue, saying they are trying to help – gosh – everybody! Even conservatives believe in it: some vague notion of equality is always attested to. It’s all just bullshit. I am being too cynical here, but it exists certainly and it is so American and you cannot get away from this display. It is saying: “We are Good,” and that is how Chomsky put it, actually, in one piece. My insight here is that, if you are a liberal, you do feel this way. You wish for there to be full equality. You see other persons and you wish them to be happy. True. Okay, but society has other things in mind.

Now. Does society have a mind? I don’t know if Carl Jung or Nietzsche are correct, but if they are, it has! This mass mind is powerful, and leaders (who are not to be confused with masses) are powerful. Even though US/America is a democracy, how much power do the leaders have? How much power leaders have seems like a dark and somber topic, really, something you should discuss when you talk around the campfire in the evening. Like science-fiction.

But a question may arise. As follows. Does capitalism give MAN (this is equivalent to “society,” as used!) control over his destiny? It certainly does not. Capitalism changes us, but we do not control those events that preceded us, and that got us here. Now the challenge is that, the capitalist period having already been bestowed, how can the social or political systems get a grip on it? So, that’s the question because only then will we finally be able to take over control of our own little destiny. We must never say “do not intervene in the market.” Because that’s stupid. It is a disgusting, abject capitulation to our own ignorance, actually. We should be looking for the right ways, for what are the suitable means to do this, and it is not easy. Difficult to do, but our destiny is to regulate it, intervene in it at some point, or modify. Let’s search for those tools. Let’s search with the same energy we would put into finding a filament for a light bulb or any other complex solution. Let’s not waste time on “don’t intervene in the market” because that is a nonsense mantra, an excuse for giving up.

The Great Svengali

Capitalism is full of unbelievably bad ideas. Businessmen and venture capitalists, on the other hand? Fuckinjj geniuses. Capitalism creates a culture of bad ideas. Let’s make money selling oil, and burn that oil until the atmosphere warms up. That’s the good old global warming philosophy. Trump called it that. Maybe we need some “good old global warming.” Tweet of late Dec., 2017. That’s not fake news. He wrote that, tweeted this message, which is a capitalist bad idea, or, in Trumpian, a BAD idea. I don’t know, you should ask genius don Trump. Or is it DON? I don’t know. I wouldn’t know; don’t have enough money.

 

Money Divides Itself Up

Where Money Divides Itself Up
Where is the economy? Is it in the money or in the people who are dividing it up? This is an important question, from my economics point of view, which is a very original point of view indeed. Just a hard question to answer. Economics ain’t an easy subject. But the standard idea as it appears in our universities strikes me as entirely inadequate. I will try to get at what they claim. I translate into my own terminology. They are, in my words, claiming that the money divides itself up due to self-interest. They understand that people are involved. We need to note that. They know persons exist. Then, these persons — the economists — make an assumption. They claim that everyone is self-interested. Now I do not follow that, and I think the weaknesses of the approach are readily apparent. Everyone is (to use their term) “self-interested” and therefore they would be saying that the money divides up according to that. So, that’s their economic theory — that the money sort of divides itself up on its own! This is a very important point to voice here. I feel pretty clear about it. But we also need to consider what is the use in arguing with the members of the bizarre cult who believe this. And what do they believe? That self-interest could in any way whatsoever answer the question of distribution? Fool’s errand (both listening to them and being them.)

So, let’s just take persons out of the picture. Could it be that the money divides itself spontaneously? On its own? Now the discussion gets more interesting. We could say: No, because it (money) does not have a mind. But then how is it distributed? It has to be distributed out to persons. How is it divided amongst persons in a society? It is an interesting problem. This is a real problem because capitalism only gets to exist if this decision is made. Who makes it? The money does! In the social setting in which neoclassical economics arose it was getting itself distributed. And capitalism was growing. This is the kind of society that Marshall saw, in which this problem had to be answered. Those Marshall called the “professionals” were out to solve it. What I personally have no sympathy with, whatsoever, is the view that if we come up with some equations that solves the problem. I have a glimpse – I can sort of see how one could think that, but it seems completely deluded.
.What they were really doing was imposing a particular view, and that view was that of the individualist. Capitalism is not individualist, though. But, should one insist on individualism, it becomes a tough problem to solve. Neoclassical economics assumes individualism with no justification.
.Trade relations, by Marshall’s day, had been established. Once relations were established, persons spontaneously began helping each other. Not everybody wants this. The Western individualist instead has an austere, mechanical view. This is his view of how life “should” be. For him, this is how it “must” be. How things must be. These persons had no space in their minds for anything outside of individualism. Yet, they had to confront reality.
.What these persons were confronted with was a developing market reality, and, what was motivating them? I think the real aim is to solve this problem of economics without saying that humans are socially motivated. They are willing to tackle economics matters only so long as human goodness or social feeling is not part of it. One could argue that that wouldn’t be scientific. So, we want to stay closer to science. In one book I saw, in a library, the assertion is that things occur by the “Laws” of economics. There are just Laws out there and it works by those Laws. Interesting that no one says that anymore. It sounds archaic. Somehow.
.My theory is that economics (meaning capitalism) functions because of goodwill, which is totally different from self-interest. One can discern that such a “social” idea could be threatening, to some Erroll Flynn millionaire, slashing his way forth in selfish splendor. But, once again, defer to science. Which alternative explanations exist? How do cooperation and goodwill solve the problem? What does the existence of goodwill explain?
As I indicated above, the money actually was getting divided up, the proletariat were not sinking ever deeper into misery. Something was happening. Capitalism was working. It wasn’t simply a Malthusian death trap. It is a very interesting problem. In trying to get rich, why would anyone share his gains with any other person? By the 1870s, this seemed to be happening. Capitalism was beginning to pay a living wage, instead of just sending its working class to the graveyard. To explain this directly, the scholars of economics would have had to discuss public (Speenhamland laws) or private social behaviors. The neoclassical school, in my view, was simply made up of persons who did not want to think that way. Those who were more oriented towards social policy may have become “socialists.” And this would seem to divide up the economic thinkers rather neatly.
In order to analyze economics, one must find it. How elusive is this? Start with the condition of nature, the conditions found in nature. There are resources; and they have to be divided up. There are two elements of this condition or situation. There are persons, and there is the physical setting the people are in. This called “nature” or “resources.” (t.b.c.)

We are all in this Together

I was browsing, at the library…
I was casually browsing at a local library where I picked up a book off the display. I am concerned with “messages” and how they come packaged. Browsing a book this way, I am getting that package. The books of a society make for a package. This is so we can promote our values. Pick up your read. If you take your pick out of the libraries, or bricks-and-mortar stores, your interactions are more tangible. The whole experience that comes is a tangible whole. I think Amazon understands this. Because, accordingly, there is now physical representation, on 34th street, for your experience of Amazon books in New York City in a more tangible way.
When books are marketed like this there’s more interaction and this provides a path towards seeing what printers and manufacturers want out of us. It provides a way to understand what the book printers and makers and publishers desire, want, or need to say. How they are programming us. It is not exactly a benign social intervention. The book I was looking at, for example, was by someone named Brannen. The title said, “The End of…” Ends of the… world. It has a nice pleasant colorful cover. The world may come to an end. That could be. But, still… all is well. All these kinds of books basically say: “All’s well. The world goes on, everything’s fine, books come out…” I hope you’re having a nice time. The world works well; we are going to put out some nice books. The Ends of the world…Ha! -this is quite clever.

.
This marketing provides me with information, and no less so than do words. These are messages, you could say. Both are messages. They are the words in the book, arranged by the clever writer and the marketing, arranged by clever publishing firm. These are in the package, together. The marketing aspect, including the “buyer experience,” contains a message. And so does the stuffed-up, official content. Both are together. There is one package, and many.
Why should we think any differently? A book is packaged content. It has something to say in words. Okay, and that is the text. Or we call that the book’s “argument.” That is one argument, or one phase of the argument. That is a message, one transmission. A particular book’s content/argument is just one message among many. An individual, any individual, in the course of life, gets millions of messages. That’s all the society does, is to send messages. And do you think the recipient of all of the messages keeps the marketing and the content separate? Or is the “marketing” a cultural element, mixed with other cultural characteristics?
It must be hard for persons to admit the truth of this. But it is about time that we face up to the way we receive the messages transmitted to us, within U. S. culture.
But why bother to say “U. S.” culture? It probably has been no different at any time in history since Gutenberg’s press. I think what is different is that the U. S. has been organized as a democracy and its people are subject to these forces. They will have a job to do, in the next election. We have a responsibility to carry out a certain mandate.
Intellectuals need to come off the high road: they should possess a broader understanding of cultural forces. Come off the high road, get your feet wet.