Forum Post: I talk too much!

I talk too much! So I've been told.

Especially when I'm trying to relate things, which I've given lots of thought, to people who've never really thought much about anything. They didn't have to think much, they'd been filled in already and simply accepted the internalization/socialization process as the best way to understand. In other words, they know only what they're supposed to know and what's good for them. That, of course, is actually what's good for their betters. I've called the “thought” of such thralls “conditioned thought responses.”

My worst “talk too much” offenses, the ones thought worst by the thought police, occur when I try to explain to people how they're programmed. But those aren't the ones I get in the most trouble about. After all, the imagination police are only imaginary. No, the biggest problems arise when I try to jump ahead to the conclusion, cutting off the conclusion my potential enlightenee has already jumped to with impetus lent by conditioning. Those are the crimes for which I'm condemned.

And I deserve condemnation for foolishly trying to force a fool to understand something they're simply not prepared for. [Yes. I ended the sentence with a preposition. If you're not prepared for that common sense offense against grammatical orthodoxy, you'd better stop reading now. You aren't ready for anything I have to say.] So my sin is really impatience and imprudence. And at age 68 I've not quite reformed myself yet. I'll try to restrain myself right now by holding back from using personal anecdotes and examples. I may get to such one day but for now I'll continue with hypothetical instances or working on the abstract design and hope my audience, if any are still with me, are ready by the time we come to working on the solid ground.

I consider what to do about the threat. Most ideas are thwarted by moral objections. If I steal or con to alleviate the danger of excessive want, I become like the worst of us. I can say that bankers are worse frauds. My conscience says that may be but we shouldn't be like them anyway. I asked how are we to deal with them if we don't understand them? It said no matter: we shouldn't be like them.

Most people are moral and don't want to be otherwise. The ruling elite parasites train us up that way. And of course we don't want to do like they do. But if we ignore them, and most people won't even believe the rich are parasites, then what's been going on for thousands of years will continue until it reaches the inevitable end: self destruction and extinction of the human race.

The clowns running this circus will never catch on that their greed is self destructive stupidity. Ordinary people won't really believe it either. And those who do see it either don't want us to catch on or they're cowed into silence by the power of the rulers. If to take back from them is as evil as they are, then we either do that evil or we die. If we can take it back by a con, isn't that better than a violent revolution? It depends on who you con. The rich are not easy marks. How do you think they got rich?

The moral principles most people have are applied to one another among ourselves. Criminals at our level rob each other, not the masters. We condemn the petty thieves and con artists who work among us and rip us off. But the really serious criminals, like bankers and investors, rob us all every day and we ignore it because there's nothing to be done about it or stupidly pretend it isn't happening. What's up with that? We're ready to imprison or kill those who present minimal danger and ignore the real threats to our existence.

That's like conservative justice. They will bust little people for any crime real or imagined and ignore and even refuse to collect taxes from outsourcers who make us dependent on foreign powers for the stuff of life and who are aided and abetted by complicit co-conspirators: bankers and investors. They'll condemn you for porn or birth control or stealing a box of staples from your employer but the real criminals whose existence threatens the survival of the rest of us are protected from prosecution or even a bad mouthing.

Concentration of the community produced wealth in the hands of the few is a threat to the survival of the many. They didn't do hard work to make and gather that wealth. We worked for them. The greatest crime of all has been to program us to defend the wealth of parasites with the self destructive morality they've invented for us and don't observe themselves. No, I don't want to be like them. I don't want them to be like them. I don't want them to exist! And if as a class, they really observe the morality that's been imposed on us (as opposed to giving the appearance of observance like the Pharisees of the Testament) then they will cease to exist in a morally acceptable way. The question then becomes: can we afford to wait that long?

Those, if there are any, who've followed my posts with a halfway opened mind, don't need to ask why FIRE is a threat to human survival.

One example from an email to friends: “A Rose by Any Other Name 2/18/14” “. . . the perpetual motion of money machine we call investment and banking, all of FIRE, concentrate wealth at an exponentially growing rate and snuff out real economic activity that we depend on to survive. . . .”

I came across the excerpt above while looking over the first couple of months' posts of this year. A recurring theme through all of my writings has been that real economy is the goods and services we depend on to support our lives. That FIRE and other rentier praxis take from the economy without producing any material goods or services is obvious.

It should also be apparent that if non productive services are necessary, they must be provided at the lowest possible cost so that they do the least harm to the economy. But ever since the Friedman delusion took hold, the rentier and FIRE section have maximized the tax they impose on all of our economic activity, in order to maximize their profits. Can you see why the economy is in real trouble, even if Wall St. is prospering?