Skip to main content


Featured Post

On Moralism

Morals are a problem too for science and religion. And of course the law - morals are laws or at the very least drive their formation. Yet God is dead. We have killed him. And with what shall we wash our hands of all the blood?  God, who used to be the root authority behind these morals. At least for most religion. And science is being driven by morals more than ever curiously. Why is this a problem? After all, isn't it better that 'men' now drive the creation and sustenance of morals? Yes, it's a very big problem indeed. Because it's a primary exposition showing how thought creates an image of the world and then worships the image it just created. Without realising it. How come? Well if 'men' now create the rules, they have self declared themselves as the root authority. It's circular reasoning. Or self fulfilling prophecy. Or you know what I mean. So is this anything new in the end? Even when God was the root authority, how do we know the idea of God w
Recent posts

Imaginary Rumours. An Ancient Primordial Instinct

Posted to Tania Williams on Substack: Have you considered the possibility of 'visionary rumours'? These are fabricated events, created at a systemic level, to present the world with unavoidable existential moments. They are not created by a cabal of wealth and power. But by an unconscious collective, or the 'great masse'. Ten thousand years ago or more, every day was a matter of existence and protecting oneself and family from very real danger a primary duty. It was normal to live with very serious daily threat. The ability to survive under these conditions was a skill or almost a genetic trait. Those with more of it tended to live. Roll on civilisation and today where the productive power of the economy is so high that no level of stupidity seems to be able to bring it down. Better still there are no longer any existential threats today except for those we create ourselves out of nowhere. Now. We still possess those ancient genes. And they still very much need satisfyi

Dialogue With a Professor on Economic Rent

When asking about what things should actually be taxed. The curious thing is he has never heard about the term 'economic rent' or at least did not understand its cause and effect. The only thing which all sides in political economy agree on. Yes thats a good question: by rights what should be taxed. Surely it is anything for which you have received a benefit, which was provided by that authority? In other words, taxation based on benefits received. Presently taxation is based on ones ability to pay it, regardless of where it comes from. There is no accounting for if one received a benefit from paying it - you may have paid too much and been scammed or too little and got a windfall. All that matters to the authority in today's distorted world is that you are able to pay it. Sure, it might be possible that the tax was taken and by accident it matched perfectly with the benefits you received too. But are these teeny exceptions a hard problem to deal with even in the highly unl

How Mr. Sunak can Win in a Landslide

This is not complex. And I'm amazed at how useless are Mr. Sunak's advisors on how to bribe the electorate. Are they getting paid? It's very simple. Offer the electorste lots of freebies they can identify with and understand immediately will be a huge windfall for them. For example: 1) offer all first time buyers guaranteed interest free mortgages  2) abolish stamp duty 3) abolish business rates 4) give pensioners an income tax holiday on all pensions 5) give home owners a capital gains tax holiday for several years The fools will say "but Robin, these are harmful policies?".  I would reply "and so are the policies of all parties, what is your point? All are harmful, except mine will help Mr. sunak win the election"

The Term, Collective Unconscious

The term 'collective conscious' is probably derived from its source 'collective UNconscious', made up by CG Jung over a century ago during the first world war. Its not clear if the derivation is an 'accidental' coincidence or curiously a 'meaningful' one. It's curious because a meaningful coincidence is how Jung termed a 'synchronicity'. So it was not a mistake when the term was used incorrectly. But it was done with meaning. While the purveyor was unconscious of doing it. This is not to make a mockery of people using the term. On the contrary, it is to pay close attention to what was actually going on in its use. Users are pointing at something very real and very important, but do not have the language to describe it. Its kind of 'forbidden' to talk about it directly. We knows something is happening but are unable to say it. Except in our dreams. Look in the mirror: What the collective unconscious means, is the possibility of a power

The Existential Gene

Everyone constantly complains about which party is in power. It doesnt matter which side you're on, the other side is always evil. Theres a reason for this - the existential gene. Evidently we're very happy with the current system, though we always complain about it, we want it. We need it to persist.  Remember the plandemic, the phoney wars, the so called genocides and of course climate change doctrine. All of them are visionary rumours, manufactured by the people as a collective. No one was forced, no one needed to be educated to do it. Apparently we all wanted these events. These are things the people 'NEED'. It is what the people want. They are existential activities. And without them, and since we also killed God, there is no longer meaning in life.  So we create artificial existential threats. Jung called these events 'visionary rumours'. We NEED them. It is primordial from times when every day our lives were under threat. We have not lost the gene. Or we

Bitcoin is Not a Commodity... Again!

In the world of Bitcoin theres one form of Bitcoin whose followers claim its is a commodity and not a security. They say making it essentially different having a unique utility and not subject to registration with the financial authorities. I don't agree with this claim yet. And am asking them to step back for a moment and while their current world view is suspended, place their claim under serious objective scrutiny. If they do and nothing new is found then no harm done. Release the suspension and go back to were we were. But as usual this is an ideological question and those things do not bear scrutiny well by their supporters.  Money is not a material world thing - its just an idea, credit, trust a promise to pay. It is sourced in our imagination and never actually touches the material world. And money despite its reputation has great utility. But because its source comes from our imagination we cannot touch and feel it. So we create proxies for it, tokens - bits of paper, metal