Cultish delusions [1213x1351 - 182KB] | Poal: Say what you want.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (243).

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

At the individual level. The boundary of the individual. You make a good point but also demonstrate lack of understanding of the threat of authority.

I do understand. I understand that your entire position represents a simple contradiction.

One should not give ones' own authority to another (or a thing, idea, concept, system, group)

But this is precisely what you are doing. Your own prescription of rugged libertarianism is a commitment to an idea, and to an authority, namely, to yourself. I wonder why you think that millions of people obeying their own scattered authority stand any chance against an ethnically cohesive enemy which is high in social trust and united by a common belief? History has proven you wrong again, and again. In recent times, you need only look at the swift ascendency of Islam to see what unification under a common authority accomplishes.

Your American culture has been largely individualized for a century, and it has been commensurate with complete cultural collapse and granulation.

The common enemy is each other - not the Jew, not the commie NKVD officer (though they are more dangerous than others cause of the more extreme levels of brainwashing/idolatry/submission to higher 'authority') - the extent of the enemy's power is only in the authority we give them and how much we allow ourselves to be intimidated by them.

Your individual authority is weaker than their group authority. This is very straightforward. You're suggesting that a nation in which every individual claims no adherence to a common belief system, but who instead supplant God with their own Self, and who adhere to no authority but their own, are somehow supposed to collectively deflect an attack by a unified enemy? You're living in a dream.

You've even specified that we are each other's enemies. There is just clear lack of sociological and historical insight here.

the main implication is return to barter. People who refuse to believe in third party idolatry thus reject the notion of money; be it a sea shell or dollar or Bitcoin. Such a transaction involving third party represents the relinquishment of authority to said idol and those who (((control))) it. We would therefore engage in commerce based on 1:1 trade; where both parties engage on the premise of exchanging real tangible goods or combinations of goods for mutual benefit and thus no authority given away, nor siphoned to third party through use of currency.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what money is. Money is simply a level of abstraction away from energy. Let's imagine the sorts of goods we'd be inclined to trade in what we take to be your bartering society. We're assuming that a society absent any idols would also lack most specialized commercial interests, and so people would be living from the land, i.e. a subsistence lifestyle - after all, living for any higher ideal would imply living for an idol. Material accumulation beyond that which is necessary for survival would be idolatry.

We'd expect, then, that people would barter in basic life essentials: crops, livestock, farming tools, building materials, and hunting tools - exactly what we'd imagine barter and trade societies probably did exchange.

What unites all of these things? They are all actual stores of energy, or they represent techne for acquiring energy. Energy is the basic demand the environment places on us.

What limitations are experienced by such a lifestyle, which are not in a world with currency? Money becomes something that stores energy - to put it properly, money represents a stored quantity of other people's energy. Why is this important? Because in a subsistence society without money, everyone is fundamentally responsible for all of their life requirements. Everyone must be a jack-of-all-trades. In a world with money, people are able to specialize. Farmer John can trust Hunter Joe to get meat, while John takes care of the crops. Paul can spend his time designing a better spear tip or a better bow and arrow, while Jeff builds fences.

They are all able to do this because they can trust that the others, by virtue of their specialization, are able to do their special tasks better than any other member of the community. Therefore, each person sells his value to the others for money, and can subsequently exchange that money to mobilize the energy of the other persons.

It may not be entirely clear why money is necessary, until you understand the abstract and crucial concept of time-value. You might object to what I've said and tell me, "No money is necessary! They could all specialize in their own task and simply trade their products!" (Let's just ignore that in a system of currency, $1 is always $1, whereas the value of a bushel of corn can shift greatly during a year's time).

Time is intricately related to energy. The natural world demonstrates that most animal life spend the vast majority of their time foraging or hunting for food, or securing shelter. Take the situation with Paul, who thinks he can design a better bow and arrow that will benefit everyone in his society - perhaps even making them better able to defend themselves from human enemies. That bow and arrow doesn't yet exist. Therefore, Paul has a gamble. He can waste precious time designing the bow and arrow. Or he can give himself over to growing crops. Growing crops is going to trap him into the cycle of nature, and take up his time. To make money growing crops essentially determines his use of time.

If, however, Paul has amassed some money, he can afford to devote himself to the gamble of possibly creating something very valuable. Once he has made the new bow and arrow, he can sell that for money, and continue devoting himself to this apparent skill of invention. Money opens up the ability for the highly skilled and highly intelligent in society to apply themselves to tasks that are more sophisticated than the basic set of life-necessities that everyone must do by default in a bartering society. The money Paul has stored is always good, and not perishable (prone to devalue) like crops or meat.

This speaks to the other benefit of money: a person can exchange money for any commodity they choose. Whether a given good is valuable to Jeff or to John depends upon their own individual situation. Corn can be valuable today, but not tomorrow, whereas money stores its value indefinitely, becoming the universal storehouse of energy and accounting. This simply isn't possible in a society where each individual has a different good to offer - exchange becomes tricky...how do we settle the scuffle when I give 4 pheasants to Betty for 3 gallons of milk, but only 2 pheasants to you for your 3 bushels of corn? How easy will it be to negotiate the exchange rates as the seasons change, or when there are natural shortages?

Since it is the most common worldwide form of idolatry; one in which you likely engaged in today when you bought a cup of coffee or carton of milk - and as such is the primary enabler of the 'enemy' (ourselves; our selfish tendency to give away authority) which can motivate us to unify.

Energy is the idol, and really, power. Money is simply the guarantee to be able to utilize other people's energy.

If you did not idolize money, you'd idolize whatever the most salient need was at the time. At harvest time, you'd idolize crops. In winter, you'd idolize deer meat and hides. Food has been a substantial means of manipulating entire societies in the past. Look at Communist China or Bolshevik Russia.

what we can bring to the table to provide for the needs of others

And just what moral system is going to act as the social cement for this Brady Bunch? What is going to cause people to trust one another's word, or that your neighbor isn't out to stiff you, or that they are actually even your friend? After all, if their ultimate authority is merely themselves (that is, their own self-interest), then in a village of 50 people, the only thing your neighbor needs to do to make stealing your stuff in their self-interest, is to convince the other 48 people against you.

LASTLY: You claim that all authority is the enemy, and yet your username is BaphometWorshipper, which tells me it is either completely ironic, or you respect the authority of a pagan idol and Satan cognate.

>At the individual level. The boundary of the individual. You make a good point but also demonstrate lack of understanding of the threat of authority. I do understand. I understand that your entire position represents a simple contradiction. >One should not give ones' own authority to another (or a thing, idea, concept, system, group) But this is precisely what you are doing. Your own prescription of rugged libertarianism is a commitment to an *idea*, and to an authority, namely, to yourself. I wonder why you think that millions of people obeying their own scattered authority stand any chance against an ethnically cohesive enemy which is high in social trust and united by a common belief? History has proven you wrong again, and again. In recent times, you need only look at the swift ascendency of Islam to see what unification under a common authority accomplishes. Your American culture has been largely individualized for a century, and it has been commensurate with complete cultural collapse and granulation. >The common enemy is each other - not the Jew, not the commie NKVD officer (though they are more dangerous than others cause of the more extreme levels of brainwashing/idolatry/submission to higher 'authority') - the extent of the enemy's power is only in the authority we give them and how much we allow ourselves to be intimidated by them. Your individual authority is weaker than their group authority. This is very straightforward. You're suggesting that a nation in which every individual claims no adherence to a common belief system, but who instead supplant God with their own Self, and who adhere to no authority but their own, are somehow supposed to collectively deflect an attack by a unified enemy? You're living in a dream. You've even specified that we are each other's enemies. There is just clear lack of sociological and historical insight here. >the main implication is return to barter. People who refuse to believe in third party idolatry thus reject the notion of money; be it a sea shell or dollar or Bitcoin. Such a transaction involving third party represents the relinquishment of authority to said idol and those who (((control))) it. We would therefore engage in commerce based on 1:1 trade; where both parties engage on the premise of exchanging real tangible goods or combinations of goods for mutual benefit and thus no authority given away, nor siphoned to third party through use of currency. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what money is. Money is simply a level of abstraction away from energy. Let's imagine the sorts of goods we'd be inclined to trade in what we take to be your bartering society. We're assuming that a society absent any idols would also lack most specialized commercial interests, and so people would be living from the land, i.e. a subsistence lifestyle - after all, living for any higher ideal would imply living for an idol. Material accumulation beyond that which is necessary for survival would be idolatry. We'd expect, then, that people would barter in basic life essentials: crops, livestock, farming tools, building materials, and hunting tools - exactly what we'd imagine barter and trade societies probably did exchange. What unites all of these things? They are all actual stores of energy, or they represent *techne* for acquiring energy. Energy is the basic demand the environment places on us. What limitations are experienced by such a lifestyle, which *are not* in a world with currency? Money becomes something that *stores energy* - to put it properly, money represents a stored quantity of *other people's energy*. Why is this important? Because in a subsistence society without money, everyone is fundamentally responsible for all of their life requirements. Everyone must be a jack-of-all-trades. In a world with money, people are able to specialize. Farmer John can trust Hunter Joe to get meat, while John takes care of the crops. Paul can spend his time designing a better spear tip or a better bow and arrow, while Jeff builds fences. They are all able to do this because they can trust that the others, by virtue of their *specialization*, are able to do their special tasks better than any other member of the community. Therefore, each person sells his value to the others for money, and can subsequently exchange that money to mobilize the energy of the other persons. It may not be entirely clear why money is necessary, until you understand the abstract and crucial concept of time-value. You might object to what I've said and tell me, "No money is necessary! They could all specialize in their own task and simply trade their products!" (Let's just ignore that in a system of currency, $1 is always $1, whereas the value of a bushel of corn can shift greatly during a year's time). Time is intricately related to energy. The natural world demonstrates that most animal life spend the vast majority of their time foraging or hunting for food, or securing shelter. Take the situation with Paul, who thinks he can design a better bow and arrow that will benefit everyone in his society - perhaps even making them better able to defend themselves from human enemies. That bow and arrow doesn't yet exist. Therefore, Paul has a gamble. He can waste precious time designing the bow and arrow. Or he can give himself over to growing crops. Growing crops is going to trap him into the cycle of nature, and take up his time. To make money growing crops essentially determines his use of time. If, however, Paul has amassed some *money*, he can *afford* to devote himself to the gamble of possibly creating something very valuable. Once he has made the new bow and arrow, he can sell that for money, and continue devoting himself to this apparent skill of invention. Money opens up the ability for the highly skilled and highly intelligent in society to apply themselves to tasks that are more sophisticated than the basic set of life-necessities that everyone must do by default in a bartering society. The money Paul has stored is always good, and not perishable (prone to devalue) like crops or meat. This speaks to the other benefit of money: a person can exchange money for any commodity they choose. Whether a given *good* is valuable to Jeff or to John depends upon their own individual situation. Corn can be valuable today, but not tomorrow, whereas money *stores* its value indefinitely, becoming the universal storehouse of energy and accounting. This simply isn't possible in a society where each individual has a different good to offer - exchange becomes tricky...how do we settle the scuffle when I give 4 pheasants to Betty for 3 gallons of milk, but only 2 pheasants to you for your 3 bushels of corn? How easy will it be to negotiate the exchange rates as the seasons change, or when there are natural shortages? >Since it is the most common worldwide form of idolatry; one in which you likely engaged in today when you bought a cup of coffee or carton of milk - and as such is the primary enabler of the 'enemy' (ourselves; our selfish tendency to give away authority) which can motivate us to unify. Energy is the idol, and really, *power*. Money is simply the guarantee to be able to utilize other people's energy. If you did not idolize money, you'd idolize whatever the most salient need was at the time. At harvest time, you'd idolize crops. In winter, you'd idolize deer meat and hides. Food has been a substantial means of manipulating entire societies in the past. Look at Communist China or Bolshevik Russia. >what we can bring to the table to provide for the needs of others And just what moral system is going to act as the social cement for this Brady Bunch? What is going to cause people to trust one another's word, or that your neighbor isn't out to stiff you, or that they are *actually even your friend?* After all, if their ultimate authority is merely themselves (that is, their own self-interest), then in a village of 50 people, the only thing your neighbor needs to do to make stealing your stuff in their self-interest, is to convince the other 48 people against you. LASTLY: You claim that all authority is the enemy, and yet your username is BaphometWorshipper, which tells me it is either completely ironic, or you respect the authority of a pagan idol and Satan cognate. @PS @ARM

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

.

And concerning this:

After all, if their ultimate authority is merely themselves (that is, their own self-interest)

Haven't you read Adam Smith?! The Invisible Hand will ensure everything works out for everyone's mutual benefit!

We all know how that worked out.

Highly relevant passage from EMJ's Barren Metal:

The change in motion Newton wrought by making force the central concern of his physics would have profound political and economic implications. Once inertia became the fundamental principle of the universe, strife would become central to all subsequent expressions of the English ideology based on Newtonian physics. According to Adam Smith's reading of Newton, greed or self-love is an instinct which is analogous to inertia in that each body in space seeks its own good without regard to any other body. Greed, which would lead to chaos, is held in check by competition, and the result is Smith's version of perfect motion, otherwise known as the "invisible hand" which assures that private vice is transformed magically (or alchemically) into public good. (pg. 474)

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

That's a great EMJ quote. I really like Jones's ability to interpret the prevailing cultural myth, and he uses excellent metaphors.

This one reminded me of some thought from a guy called John David Ebert. He is an underrated cultural critic from back in the 90s, and he came out of the Joe Campbell institute - so he is an expert on myth.

He described what EMJ does, pertaining to mechanistic physics, as a shift from the Christian mythos to the cultural mythos of machina.

It causes a fundamental shift in the way we see human beings, and it is evident everywhere. Ryle called the Cartesian view of mind: the ghost in the machine, and this played a role on par with Newton, highlighting this changing view of ourselves. By extension, God becomes the ghost in the economic machine...morality cannot be found explicitly, rather it emerges from the invisible ghost that emanates from behind our rugged self-interest.

EDIT: If you happen to look up JDE's youtube channel, just know that more recently he has gotten very into the esoteric, ala Steiner. I find that stuff interesting, but his earlier stuff is more level-headed. His lecture series on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is probably the best on youtube, and I'd highly recommend it. His series on Spengler is also worth it, but it is a commitment.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

It causes a fundamental shift in the way we see human beings, and it is evident everywhere. Ryle called the Cartesian view of mind: the ghost in the machine, and this played a role on par with Newton, highlighting this changing view of ourselves. By extension, God becomes the ghost in the economic machine...morality cannot be found explicitly, rather it emerges from the invisible ghost that emanates from behind our rugged self-interest.

Treating economics mechanistically, following Newton's seeming validation of mechanistic reductionism, justifies the treatment of economics as a physical system of science, rather than a moral one - which is obviously is since it involves the decisions of people. Taking morality out of economics is what has enabled the abuses of capitalism and communism alike.

parent
link

Load more (2 replies)

[–] • 0 pt

You know I msged you.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

But this is precisely what you are doing. Your own prescription of rugged libertarianism is a commitment to an idea, and to an authority, namely, to yourself. I wonder why you think that millions of people obeying their own scattered authority stand any chance against an ethnically cohesive enemy which is high in social trust and united by a common belief?

Who is the crazy believer here? You give (((them))) way too much credit; do not impose your beliefs on me that there is this ethnically cohseive enemy so high in social trust and united by a common belief.... I see no such evidence. I see a culturally mixed bag of sandniggers & sellout Europeans who've been subjected to the abusive cult behavior just as much as we have been; I see a fractured network of mafia cartels and muderous thugs who occassionally collaborate with one another to pillage and exploit; to perpetuate racketeering operations which ultimately are made possible by the selfish albeit unsuspecting victims of those 'not chosen'. Let them have their 'victims' - you and I already know their game, let's simply remove ourselves from it and carry on with the next civilization. Fear of the repurcussions is irrational and a form of idolotry in itself, perhaps cowadace even. The longer you literally 'buy into' their game; this taxation/usery/money and cult idolotry system the more power they gain. If you create a new 'state' based on the same foundations they will as the saying goes; eventually dumb you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Your own prescription of rugged libertarianism is a commitment to an idea, and to an authority, namely, to yourself.

Then so be it. If you don't agree with my intent to live based on providing for my needs & do not respect the individual authority for which I wish to retain 100% then you may attempt to capture me and nail me to a cross. Do as you may, or try.

You are no different than Karen asking me to wear a mask. Just because you 'believe' in some invisible thing that evidently gives you authority to exert authority over me does not make it OK. You and Karen are the fucking problem.

'yourself' is the most fundamental 'state' is it not? Why must you insist on inflating authority beyond that. That is when things become imbalanced and now we have clown world.

Your American culture has been largely individualized for a century, and it has been commensurate with complete cultural collapse and granulation.

Do not blame me for cultural collapse - I didn't build it. I appreciate when a peaceful culture is able to provide nice things - like a respectful environment that encourages healthy families and robust economy - but I also have no attachment to things I didn't necessarily build; as such the idol of "Amercia" can collapse and I will not be sad. To be sad or to feel bad about the collapse of an idol system that I didn't even sign up to would be selfish since again I took no part; I deserve no free gibs. Maybe it would be different if my ancestral line had a specific notion to maintain "America" but we were either corrupted or it just wasn't a big priority for them; so now I am more inclined to think of alternatives and a "New America" like the old one does not seem like the way to go - as tempting as that is.

Money becomes something that stores energy - to put it properly, money represents a stored quantity of other people's energy.

this is fucking cult idolotry man. You admit to belief in these imaginary units which apparently have 'energy'. The only energy they have is your selfish belief in them. Again at the cost of your own personal authority (and the safety of those others who share your ecosystem - who may now be subjected to the newfound 'power' gained by the idol for which you have subscribed). Rather than demand payment in real goods that can provide for you a better life now you demand it in imaginary units that are subject to the control of the idol who claims authority over said imagaunits and as such the value of what you recieve is taxed before it even enters your hands. Then as it sits in a digital account it is subjected to constant manipulation indirectly (or directly, if you chose to place it in the hands of another idol ie- a 'bank') by those who you allow to define the value of your imagaunit.

They are all able to do this because they can trust that the others

and that trust is the attack surface for (((the enemy))) to exploit. Trust, sure - but unchecked, unmaintained trust is again idolotry and you will be burned; how many times do you have to be lied to and screwed over before you start to realize this notion of a system of infinite trust is impossible ? Stop trusting external authorities who (((offer))) you nice things and instead yes - trust your neighbour - who you can see and enage in commerce in person, for real goods. Do you see how one model is better than the other? The promise of (((money))) is no different to that of the promise of communism. Both are systems that promise a paradise but the reality is different; so is the historical record as you point out. Let's stop the insanity. You may fantasize about a high tech world with sharks with laser beams on their heads and flying cars but that fantasy is your 'belief' - I not longer am a child and wish not to fantasize anylonger; it is time to simply live in balance with nature for it is the imbalances and 'fantasies' that are killing us.

Growing crops is going to trap him into the cycle of nature, and take up his time.

You mean like, trapped in the cycle of nature that is our world ? It doesn't matter if Paul makes a billion bow and arrows, he is not going to excape the cycle of nature unless he builds a portal to another dimension. If Paul is frustrated I might suggest he simply takes a little more pride in his crop growing and puts the fruits of his labour into even more valualbe things like the family he can sustain with that effort (instead of gambling it on a bow and arrow manufacturing deal; unless of course his crop biz gets so wildly successful that it is not necessarily a gamble to experiment).

If, however, Paul has amassed some money, he can afford to devote himself to the gamble of possibly creating something very valuable.

Now you are selling me on the degenerate act of gambling and all the fantastical things one can do with money; please spare me. I am not going to sit through your MLM pitch on why I must use your latest innovation here - sorry its a tool of usery & military industrialists; you are fool for particpating in their system or for relinquishing 'your energy' into such things.

money stores its value indefinitely,

again, who is doing the proclaiming now. This is a fallacy.
you have indefinite value until the day you die so maybe better to provide for yourself with tangible fruits that provide for your phyiscal well being instead of relying on stagnat dead items that will only burden you on your path to death.

At harvest time, you'd idolize crops. In winter, you'd idolize deer meat and hides. Food has been a substantial means of manipulating entire societies in the past. Look at Communist China or Bolshevik Russia.

indeed, and this is why they are preparing the masses for the next stages of idolory which will be based on control of food supply (the new currency). we are in the final stages of collapse of the idol unit that is money and they know this so they seem to be busy preparing the next stage which will of course just be a new idolotry system, but one which forces those of us who wish to reject their authority to participate.

I wouldn't call the desire for a basic human need such as food idolotry - perhaps if you consumed more than you needed it could be called that but otherwise this again falls within the realm of one's individual needs; one's own individual right to authority over their immediate ecosystem to sustain their needs. At harvest time, you don't idolize - you do what you need to do to survive; ini the winter you don't idolize you hunt for what you need. The excess you can choose to perserve, share with others or selfishly indulge into for yourself beyond what you need at the time but again to your own peril - such is the cycle of nature we cannnot escape.

What is going to cause people to trust one another's word, or that your neighbor isn't out to stiff you, or that they are actually even your friend?

You can't pick your family but you can pick your friends. If you don't trust your neighbors you don't have to engage with them - if all your neighbors are untrustworhty (idol worshippers) it might be a sign to find a new homeland; you point out the rightful problem - if you live in a village of 48 others who are so quick to giveaway authority you maybe living in the wrong village.

Seeking not to 'unify' with people like that, hence trolling Poal for more 'enlightened' like yourself and I mean that sincerely - the fact we can have a conversaion about these things implies cooperation which is obviously first step to unity.

I would question the stability of maintinaing community with you however, since you are going to invite idolorty into the picture; the very cause of our problem today.

> But this is precisely what you are doing. Your own prescription of rugged libertarianism is a commitment to an idea, and to an authority, namely, to yourself. I wonder why you think that millions of people obeying their own scattered authority stand any chance against an ethnically cohesive enemy which is high in social trust and united by a common belief? Who is the crazy believer here? You give (((them))) way too much credit; do not impose your beliefs on me that there is this ethnically cohseive enemy so high in social trust and united by a common belief.... I see no such evidence. I see a culturally mixed bag of sandniggers & sellout Europeans who've been subjected to the abusive cult behavior just as much as we have been; I see a fractured network of mafia cartels and muderous thugs who occassionally collaborate with one another to pillage and exploit; to perpetuate racketeering operations which ultimately are made possible by the selfish albeit unsuspecting victims of those 'not chosen'. Let them have their 'victims' - you and I already know their game, let's simply remove ourselves from it and carry on with the next civilization. Fear of the repurcussions is irrational and a form of idolotry in itself, perhaps cowadace even. The longer you literally 'buy into' their game; this taxation/usery/money and cult idolotry system the more power they gain. If you create a new 'state' based on the same foundations they will as the saying goes; eventually dumb you down to their level and beat you with experience. > Your own prescription of rugged libertarianism is a commitment to an idea, and to an authority, namely, to yourself. Then so be it. If you don't agree with my intent to live based on providing for my needs & do not respect the individual authority for which I wish to retain 100% then you may attempt to capture me and nail me to a cross. Do as you may, or try. You are no different than Karen asking me to wear a mask. Just because you 'believe' in some invisible thing that evidently gives you authority to exert authority over me does not make it OK. You and Karen are the fucking problem. 'yourself' is the most fundamental 'state' is it not? Why must you insist on inflating authority beyond that. That is when things become imbalanced and now we have clown world. > Your American culture has been largely individualized for a century, and it has been commensurate with complete cultural collapse and granulation. Do not blame me for cultural collapse - I didn't build it. I appreciate when a peaceful culture is able to provide nice things - like a respectful environment that encourages healthy families and robust economy - but I also have no attachment to things I didn't necessarily build; as such the idol of "Amercia" can collapse and I will not be sad. To be sad or to feel bad about the collapse of an idol system that I didn't even sign up to would be selfish since again I took no part; I deserve no free gibs. Maybe it would be different if my ancestral line had a specific notion to maintain "America" but we were either corrupted or it just wasn't a big priority for them; so now I am more inclined to think of alternatives and a "New America" like the old one does not seem like the way to go - as tempting as that is. > Money becomes something that stores energy - to put it properly, money represents a stored quantity of other people's energy. this is fucking cult idolotry man. You admit to belief in these imaginary units which apparently have 'energy'. The only energy they have is your selfish belief in them. Again at the cost of your own personal authority (and the safety of those others who share your ecosystem - who may now be subjected to the newfound 'power' gained by the idol for which you have subscribed). Rather than demand payment in real goods that can provide for you a better life now you demand it in imaginary units that are subject to the control of the idol who claims authority over said imagaunits and as such the value of what you recieve is taxed before it even enters your hands. Then as it sits in a digital account it is subjected to constant manipulation indirectly (or directly, if you chose to place it in the hands of another idol ie- a 'bank') by those who you allow to define the value of your imagaunit. > They are all able to do this because they can trust that the others and that trust is the attack surface for (((the enemy))) to exploit. Trust, sure - but unchecked, unmaintained trust is again idolotry and you will be burned; how many times do you have to be lied to and screwed over before you start to realize this notion of a system of infinite trust is impossible ? Stop trusting external authorities who (((offer))) you nice things and instead yes - trust your neighbour - who you can see and enage in commerce in person, for real goods. Do you see how one model is better than the other? The promise of (((money))) is no different to that of the promise of communism. Both are systems that promise a paradise but the reality is different; so is the historical record as you point out. Let's stop the insanity. You may fantasize about a high tech world with sharks with laser beams on their heads and flying cars but that fantasy is your 'belief' - I not longer am a child and wish not to fantasize anylonger; it is time to simply live in balance with nature for it is the imbalances and 'fantasies' that are killing us. > Growing crops is going to trap him into the cycle of nature, and take up his time. You mean like, trapped in the cycle of nature that is our world ? It doesn't matter if Paul makes a billion bow and arrows, he is not going to excape the cycle of nature unless he builds a portal to another dimension. If Paul is frustrated I might suggest he simply takes a little more pride in his crop growing and puts the fruits of his labour into even more valualbe things like the family he can sustain with that effort (instead of gambling it on a bow and arrow manufacturing deal; unless of course his crop biz gets so wildly successful that it is not necessarily a gamble to experiment). > If, however, Paul has amassed some money, he can afford to devote himself to the gamble of possibly creating something very valuable. Now you are selling me on the degenerate act of gambling and all the fantastical things one can do with money; please spare me. I am not going to sit through your MLM pitch on why I must use your latest innovation here - sorry its a tool of usery & military industrialists; you are fool for particpating in their system or for relinquishing 'your energy' into such things. > money stores its value indefinitely, again, who is doing the proclaiming now. This is a fallacy. you have indefinite value until the day you die so maybe better to provide for yourself with tangible fruits that provide for your phyiscal well being instead of relying on stagnat dead items that will only burden you on your path to death. > At harvest time, you'd idolize crops. In winter, you'd idolize deer meat and hides. Food has been a substantial means of manipulating entire societies in the past. Look at Communist China or Bolshevik Russia. indeed, and this is why they are preparing the masses for the next stages of idolory which will be based on control of food supply (the new currency). we are in the final stages of collapse of the idol unit that is money and they know this so they seem to be busy preparing the next stage which will of course just be a new idolotry system, but one which forces those of us who wish to reject their authority to participate. I wouldn't call the desire for a basic human need such as food idolotry - perhaps if you consumed more than you needed it could be called that but otherwise this again falls within the realm of one's individual needs; one's own individual right to authority over their immediate ecosystem to sustain their needs. At harvest time, you don't idolize - you do what you need to do to survive; ini the winter you don't idolize you hunt for what you need. The excess you can choose to perserve, share with others or selfishly indulge into for yourself beyond what you need at the time but again to your own peril - such is the cycle of nature we cannnot escape. > What is going to cause people to trust one another's word, or that your neighbor isn't out to stiff you, or that they are actually even your friend? You can't pick your family but you can pick your friends. If you don't trust your neighbors you don't have to engage with them - if all your neighbors are untrustworhty (idol worshippers) it might be a sign to find a new homeland; you point out the rightful problem - if you live in a village of 48 others who are so quick to giveaway authority you maybe living in the wrong village. Seeking not to 'unify' with people like that, hence trolling Poal for more 'enlightened' like yourself and I mean that sincerely - the fact we can have a conversaion about these things implies cooperation which is obviously first step to unity. I would question the stability of maintinaing community with you however, since you are going to invite idolorty into the picture; the very cause of our problem today.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

I can understand and appreciate your concerns. They aren't trivial, and I am honest when I say I appreciate the thought you are giving this.

I would just say this: money is not necessarily an idol. I see it as a technology like any another, except that it doesn't manipulate gross matter. Instead it is a time technology. The danger of money is precisely that it does, to an extent, liberate man from the natural vegetative cycle of nature. But can't we agree that (although not in all ways), in many ways this liberation has increased the good in society? Are we better today in terms of technology and wellbeing for not all having to be farmers? There is a reactionary sort of ethos that says we aren't better, and at times I have been prone to this, but if you let your emotions settle and really approach the question clearly, I think it is obvious that we are better today for not all needing to be farmers.

I agree with you on the risk of money. It can be an idol - especially without God in the picture. If we look at religion, it actually gives us the laws by which we prevent money from becoming an idol. It encourages charity, tithing, It would prevent usury, and generally prevent the just order from overtaxing and also violating natural property rights.

I think you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I want to point out that we have advanced the conversation to an argument among economic systems.

I would never say that discovering the best economic system is an easy task. It's taken some of the best minds in history to task. But the presence of corruption (the many varieties that you point out) does not poison the concept of a money economy whatsoever, rather, it shows that man can corrupt anything, making the issue of a moral and religious system paramount - and not separate from the economy, but as an overlay of the political-economic system.

Keeping any institution just requires this very same moral order. In fact, it is the rugged individualism you promote that has done more to corrupt this economy than anything. Why? Because it was this self-interest that made people vulnerable, as isolated individuals, to the offers of the Jews, which always relies on a peron's passions. Runaway capitalistic consumerism is a problem in a society of individuals overcome by the pleasure principle and their own self-interest.

But we could begin to look at what makes one system better than another. One of the downfalls of our system is the private centralization of control of the money supply - which does what? Puts the control of money in individual interests instead of tethering it to a government (which is ideally offset by the Church).

We could also confront the issue of fiat, and begin to talk about the improvements with, say, labor-backed currency. There was a point, in fact, that the church had built up a surplus of wealth based on such a system and without usury.

The issue is NOT money...it is allowing the fact that money is an abstraction to take it out of the natural law. Usury is reproduction without copulation, and homosexuality is copulation without reproduction - as EMJ is fond of saying (and which I believe originated with Aristotle?).

You can control the function of money in society by (a) preventing usurious growth and exchange, (b) exploitative speculation and information control, and (c) by backing the very value of the currency on something real such as labor.

In the end, the same moral commandments that always preside over us, also preside over our use of monies. The individuals in an economy must participate mutually in a game founded on the same value system and on healthy fear of the same transcendent authority: God. God must be the idol, the one and only (never mind my strained use of that term). It's precisely when God ceases to be the zenith of man's ideals, the image to which he constantly aspires, that man's self-interest and his passions usurp his faculties.

A key revelation is that we all have either masterS or a master. There is no escaping this. Submit to The One master, or become the subject of the many, which together in their mutual self-exaltatuon will tear a man's identity into warring parts.

I can understand and appreciate your concerns. They aren't trivial, and I am honest when I say I appreciate the thought you are giving this. I would just say this: money is not *necessarily* an idol. I see it as a technology like any another, except that it doesn't manipulate gross matter. Instead it is a time technology. The danger of money is precisely that it does, to an extent, liberate man from the natural vegetative cycle of nature. But can't we agree that (although not in all ways), in many ways this liberation has increased the good in society? Are we better today in terms of technology and wellbeing for not all having to be farmers? There is a reactionary sort of ethos that says we *aren't better*, and at times I have been prone to this, but if you let your emotions settle and really approach the question clearly, I think it is obvious that we are better today for not all needing to be farmers. I agree with you on the risk of money. *It can be an idol* - especially without God in the picture. If we look at religion, it actually gives us the laws by which we prevent money from becoming an idol. It encourages charity, tithing, It would prevent usury, and generally prevent the just order from overtaxing and also violating natural property rights. I think you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I want to point out that we have advanced the conversation to an argument among economic systems. I would never say that discovering the best economic system is an easy task. It's taken some of the best minds in history to task. But the presence of corruption (the many varieties that you point out) does not poison the concept of a money economy whatsoever, rather, it shows that man can corrupt anything, making the issue of a moral and religious system paramount - and not separate from the economy, but as an overlay of the political-economic system. Keeping any institution just requires this very same moral order. In fact, it is the rugged individualism you promote that has done more to corrupt this economy than anything. Why? Because it was this self-interest that made people vulnerable, as isolated individuals, to the offers of the Jews, which always relies on a peron's *passions*. Runaway capitalistic consumerism is a problem in a society of individuals overcome by the pleasure principle and their own self-interest. But we could begin to look at what makes one system better than another. One of the downfalls of our system is the private centralization of control of the money supply - which does what? Puts the control of money in *individual* interests instead of tethering it to a government (which is ideally offset by the Church). We could also confront the issue of fiat, and begin to talk about the improvements with, say, labor-backed currency. There was a point, in fact, that the church had built up a surplus of wealth based on such a system and without usury. The issue is NOT money...it is allowing the fact that money is an abstraction to take it out of the natural law. Usury is reproduction without copulation, and homosexuality is copulation without reproduction - as EMJ is fond of saying (and which I believe originated with Aristotle?). You can control the function of money in society by (a) preventing usurious growth and exchange, (b) exploitative speculation and information control, and (c) by backing the very value of the currency on something *real* such as labor. In the end, the same moral commandments that always preside over us, also preside over our use of monies. The individuals in an economy must participate mutually in a game founded on the same value system and on *healthy* fear of the same transcendent authority: God. God must be the idol, the one and only (never mind my strained use of that term). It's precisely when God ceases to be the zenith of man's ideals, the image to which he constantly aspires, that man's self-interest and his passions usurp his faculties. A key revelation is that we *all have either masterS or a master.* There is no escaping this. Submit to The One master, or become the subject of the many, which together in their mutual self-exaltatuon will tear a man's identity into warring parts. @PS @ARM

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

I would just say this: money is not necessarily an idol.

A false idol is only that worshipped as an end in itself, that is not God. Money can be an idol; so can what money buys. Only when money is viewed as a means to serving the will of God - e.g. feeding a family and raising them in holiness - is it viewed licitly.

Usury is reproduction without copulation, and homosexuality is copulation without reproduction - as EMJ is fond of saying (and which I believe originated with Aristotle?).

Aristotle may have commented on this as well, but EMJ usually cites Dante's Divine Comedy, in which Dante placed usurers and sodomites in the same circle of hell - because they are both guilty of unnatural and corrupting activity, one turning what is fertile (sexual union) into something sterile, and the other turning something sterile (money / gold) into something fertile.

A key revelation is that we all have either masterS or a master. There is no escaping this. Submit to The One master, or become the subject of the many, which together in their mutual self-exaltatuon will tear a man's identity into warring parts.

Just as St. Augustine said in The City of God:

Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but what is worse, as many masters as he has vices.

parent
link

Load more (1 reply)