In society, we the people, always get what we want - especially in a democracy.
Heads Up - I'm going to tell you why our world of social organisation is full of social problems and never makes way in resolving them. Simply put, its because I ask for it to be so. And so do you. You will deny this as preposterous. I will show you how you are deceiving yourself about it and that you're not even aware you are doing it. By making this observation I'm not trying to be negative for the sake of it or because I have low self esteem. I am trying to show you how you can get out of it and improve your self esteem. I'm also not trying to save the planet, help others or do charity. I am talking about how you can save yourself.
In society, how else would social effects be caused, but by the acts and desires of the people on the whole who comprise that social organisation? Could it be an external natural force not related to our society causing it? could it be a single omnipotent ruler who lives in secret and controls everything that is administered. Is it a class of wealth and power who collect all the spoils and dish out just enough to the masses to keep them producing it all for them. Is it a third world tyrant who keeps all the aid. Or is it simple. ME?
In social organisation, which I'm suggesting is totally controlled by the actions of ALL people within it, how could the people not get what they ask for? For anyone who has trouble with this suggestion, where are the external forces powering it, if its not the people causing the social problems?
Life is a gamble, the earth is a casino.
No one will ever confess to the following observation: all people, no matter how morally good they are, how much charity they do, and how much planet saving they do... live our lives playing a game of life and death. Where all of us no matter who we are left or right, willingly partake in high stakes gambles as the foundation of running our households.
This comes out in the form of the acquisition of economic rents as a first duty - the getting of the goodies, without the giving of them in a fair exchange. But its very difficult for an educated person to see it, because the activity has been normalised by legalisation of all its forms.
And certainly, all people have our heads buried deep in this trough. And for those who don't yet, all the rest aspire to it, one day. Its called getting on the ladder. Our very democracy makes it an unwritten yet highest order and fully adopted policy.
What are these 'rents'? Any income of wealth I receive for which I made no inputs of my own. Social organisation arranged for the income stream to flow into my bank account, legally, without me having to use my savings or any form of other effort or exertion to acquire it.
Once, that is, I've paid 'the deposit'. Which is to willingly sign a contract to get some of it - the mortgage contract is the biggest and most widely used form. There are others, far behind in scale and effect. A contract is where there are always two willing counter parties, neither of whom have been coerced. For a mortgage, there is the Homeowner who will receive some of the rents *note1. And the Bank who will receive the remainder. The deposit is a metaphor for getting on the housing (mortgage debt) ladder, where I sign a legal document telling the world I'm a willing participant in the game with full knowledge of the consequences. So I didn't read the rules. More fool me, who plays a game without knowing the rules, should the winner bail me out when I lose?
To gain some context here, in 2007 the Office for National Statistics calculated the value of the UK. ISTR back then it was about UK£12Trillion. 7 trillion was the value of all real estate in the UK. The rest was the capital value of the nation(everything else which was not real estate). So when an analyst talks about the relative amounts of money exchanged by corrupt banking or money laundering or whatever is your present complaint and perpetrator, you will have a much better context. Real Estate founds the economy of every nation. There is no escaping this unless one is ideologically possessed by smaller factors.
Great. I've paid my deposit and am now on the ladder. What's the problem then? Surely I have made it socially and can now stop complaining about being a loser and start talking about how I came from nothing and look at me now! And possibly start treating the remaining losers no better than the evil ones I used to speak about.
So what's the problem?
Well, all of it, is a gamble. There is no guarantee I will win. And if I lose I can go to the administrators(managers, politicians, oligarchy) and ask for a bail out. All 27 million of me in the UK alone, which is a democratic majority, with about 2 voters per household, your class is the mostly highly represented of all classes in any nation. Who cares about taxation and so called representation which is a fallacy anyway. I am truly represented by my home ownership absolutely above all else. In our curious society there's a very high chance you will get bailed out. Show me a politician who will be electable in the next 20 years if they refuse to deliver the homeowners a bailout whenever they call for it? (20 years being the lifetime of a mortgage, just long enough for me to have forgotten about the last time my household helped to crash the economy).We can talk about the inevitable effects of an economy like this another day *Note2
This is an odd situation because bail outs never happen in a real casino. I would be laughed at, if I made the gamble, knowing the risks, lost and then went to the management and asked for a refund. In our society though, its the norm. If I lose, I ask for a bail out, often getting one, and then jealous of the winner, cite them as evil in some way, in a fantastic display of my jealousy of their wealth and bitterness about losing in a game In which I was well aware of the rules and risks.
This is where reform movements and action groups step in to the fray. The motive of these groups is to create a logical and rational framework in which to explain the above neurosis. To make selfishness and ignorance a virtue and a winning tool, at least in terms that can be used to win arguments with any wise old man who comes unprepared. To escape from the observed facts and to help other escape too. The celebrities of these groups become the best suited politicians no matter whether left or right, anarchist or communist. The one who can employ their intellect or talent in a way which most convinces the most people that the selfishness and ignorance of the great masse is really a virtue, become the highest seated professors, pundits and media leaders.
I myself have tried harder than anything else to be one of the mortgaged winners. And when I lose, which is the usual case, I throw shit at wealth and power because I know it will stick very well indeed. Why does it stick so well. Why am I so confident my allegations will hold? Because there are 8 billion others standing right behind me, who will back me fully. I'm very confident. We are all gamblers who when we win forget about the losers we leave behind. And complain when we lose, expecting to be bailed out which usually happens.
Imagine the situation where its not just me, but 8 billion other people, gambling hard in this quasi-casino, for the same spoils. Plenty of winners, and billions of losers. Why are we so surprised about the effects? We asked for it all when we signed the contract, implicitly. And we got all of it. It was ME who done it! Not the bankers, politicians, professors, and pundits, they just backed us. Me. And I asked them to do it all, not just with my vote. But with every economic exchange I've many times daily for years. And also by who I chose to buy from and work for. I asked for it to happen, absolutely.
By this I do not mean to say I deserve it as if it were Gods punishment. I mean to say I asked for it and have forgotten that I asked for it, rendering it into my unconscious. Jung called this my 'shadow'. I cannot see my own shadow easily. Except in the 'shadow projections' I make onto other people - when I spit hate at someone I do not agree with for the exact reason above my shadow is hiding from. Really the other person is a mirror of what I have buried away, deep - my selfishness and ignorance. But only the extremely observant can see this after a great deal of effort and failure.
In social organisation there are groups of religions with their high priests too. Their purpose is to help the billions uphold the activity. Usually led by the most intellectual among us. It needs enormous intellect to make this collective activity sound perfectly rational.
These religious groups do not need a God. How could they today. For we have already killed Him. We can use the terms ideology, worldview, narrative, doctrine, politic to describe the forms of these religions. They are very powerful obviously - they help the 8 billion proceed with the collective gambling pathology. The words they teach are so compelling and difficult to dispute logically. They are filled with common sense and rationality. *Note3
Religion today often takes a parallel form of a 'duality'. Where there is always just one enemy, for whichever side you take. Left versus Right for example. If you are not with me on the Left, you are either an evil far right nazi racist. On the right a genocidal malthusian communist. There are multiple types but all are the same meaning. If I walk away from this duality I am quickly cancelled as a conspiracy theorist - how can I be trusted if I have no religion at all? The motive is that I am simply not in the game any more and both sides can simply ignore me.
I am saying that God's will is not done on earth. This simple incite, snippet of knowledge, I should grasp hold of tightly. Until I have re-grounded my own self on earth to the observation that we are all gamblers, complain like spoiled children when we lose. And psychopathically, sometimes using genocide, and quite without a care are ready to commit the millions to death, even sometimes our own children, if we do not get our way in the game.
I'm saying if I can grasp this incite I will have taken the first step to changing my attitude toward the suffering in life which social organisation creates. Yes, thats right. Society creates our world of suffering by its very existence. I'm not saying society is a good or bad thing. I'm saying in its current form it has this tendency, precisely because I asked for it to be this way. It was me who asked for it I can no longer blame the bankers alone. Can it be changed? Yes, if "I" change. It cannot be changed by asking "they" to change first because I do not have the power to change another persons mind. If you disagree, are you saying i have telepathic powers? Because I would like that sort of power certainly.
Title Note: We always get what we want - especially in a democracy, yet also under a tyranny. When the people have become corrupt, everything is lost. In such a democracy, the vote will reinforce the corruption of course. A democracy with a perfect voting system where the election has NOT been stolen, the corruption and fall will be reinforced even more intensely. A tyranny can easily take over now, and for a while will improve things. For a while. For those who say I didn't vote for them, I say, do you 1) go to the casino knowing the rules, losing, and approach the management for a refund? 2) will you give back all you have ever made and will eventually make by not voting for the winners? 3) or, will you accept that gods will is not done on earth and face the consequences of your actions, finally, changing your attitude to the suffering as a way to start improving yourself?
What is the answer? Instead of complaining stupidly when you played a big part in it willingly, look at how you can change your attitude to the inevitable suffering of a world in which God's will is not done.
That way you have the greatest chance of surviving it well. And then you will eventually start to get what your really want.
Note1: Refer to the Department of Justice for repossession rates. Rented tenancies have a turnover of about 5% annually. Mortgagors, about 2%. This means there is no guarantee over the mortgage bonds' lifetime(~20 years), the party has a high risk of default.
Note2: The inevitable effect of taking out of the economy, more than is put in, is that it will collapse naturally. This is what is known as a de facto recession (not the metrics professor and government use to describe a small short term trough in greater cycle). A de facto recession is easy to see. More directly millions of first world households will default with a high proportion of those ending up with a divided family. The third world effects will be that a significantly higher proportion of people will die of starvation related disease. Particularly if first world nations attempt to bail out the homeowners by printing money to cover the debt. The first world will indirectly but without doubt, be killing millions through government intervention, much like the pandemic.
Comments
Post a Comment