 |
| Mount Recycle-more |
"Two days until the G7 summit begins in the seaside village of Carbis Bay, and in this corner of Cornwall – a holiday idyll fast resembling a military Green Zone – rumours are rife.
One doing the rounds suggests surface-to-air missiles are to be installed somewhere behind the local cricket club. Another has it that American warships will soon join the British naval vessel which has already appeared off Porthmeor Beach. There’s a story that one chip shop has received an order for a thousand fish suppers on Friday night*.
Leaders of the world’s seven biggest advanced economies – including US president Joe Biden and Germany chancellor Angela Merkel – will be here and in neighbouring St Ives for diplomatic talks this weekend."…
“One complaint, in particular, is raised time and again: the sheer incongruity of so much taxpayer money being lavished on a three-day event in what is, despite pockets of affluence, the poorest region in England. Almost a third of children in St Ives live in poverty, while, across Cornwall, annual wages are £4,000 below the national average. Against this backdrop, the summit’s security bill alone is estimated to top £70 million: some 5,500 police officers and hundreds of army personnel will be here.” Rumours swirl and disquiet grows as locals says G7 is ‘last thing Cornwall needs’
*Yeah their only customers will be huge and all called “Brad” or "Bret"!
This being just another pill-to-swallow having been pre-medicated with the trope that; “socialism is communism”, quote; “That we now see how America continually, “makes its war on its children” should also give credence to the notion that the New World never did truly sever its links with the old but simply substituted a dictatorial republican hierarchy for a monarchical one” (go to: "Arafel": Part. 2 #WashingtonPost #FloridaSchoolShooting ). Since Reaganomics in the U.S and Thatcherism in the U.K the notion that one may conflate socialism with communism has been promulgated with increasing vigour and enthusiasm by the data-vampires and opinion formers giving the idea the appearance of a meme, ignorance is no defence under law, however, the populace may better understand the dangers of such conflation if the results are made clear to them.
 |
| #makingshoeswhatdoesitlooklikeImdoing? |
The photo above is of E.F. Schumacher (both the college and the institute which bear his name are located in the West Country not a million miles from the venue for the G7 summit, go to: https://www.schumachercollege.org.uk/ & https://www.schumacherinstitute.org.uk/), a “mixed economy” man who expounded the theory that the individual, communal and social realms need to be in balance, each with equal “weight” and import being ascribed to them, within an economy that perforce is dynamic. Thus capital, community and society form an equilateral triangle that provides the stability necessary for the emerging economy and the “cross-pollination” that can occur within such a system ensuring the biodiversity that is the engine of sustainability. A good exemplar of the principle is the fuel supply issue for, as we are now experiencing, over-reliance on any resource creates a monoculture (brittle and hugely destructive when they fail), introducing massive instability, therefore, it is surely sensible to attempt to diversify in terms of energy production. It’s an old story, in order to make use of more sustainable (and concomitantly less environmentally destructive), resources initial investment in infrastructure is essential, cleaning up our mistakes after we have made them being, of-course, a horribly inefficient option, however, these problems only occur when we attempt to exploit resources not when we use them sensibly.
It is in order to continue to exploit resources of all kinds that the
attempt has been made to convince the global electorate that a socially
dominant economic model is the same as a communal one. It’s called
“divide and rule”, which in this case means “freedom or slavery", and is sold to the people as
a simple choice between the reassuring gewgaws of the neo-liberal
state or enslavement in a drab totalitarian one (anarchy being “Bellum omnium contra omnes”, the terrible “war of all
against all”, is Khaos of-course).
Quote; ““Either/or democracy is the dalliance of the totalitarian”” Go to: https://www.arafel.co.uk/2020/11/yugoslavia-nato-brexit-europeanunion.html
Socialist systems rely on the institutions of the state (many of which being pre-existing), to run the economy, communist systems rely on communes to dictate to (and often form), state institutions. The notions are very different, for a socialist there is no “communal filter” between the individual and the institutions of the state but for a communist the state doesn’t exist without one (the capitalist, of-course, their actions being anathema to community, doesn’t believe in society at all). This exemplifies the veracity of the maxim; “the trouble with “-isms” is that they are full of “-ists”!”
 |
| #Bolshevism |
The fact that neither Lenin or Stalin understood the difference is also an exemplar of the problem it does not discredit either socialisation or commun-isation as necessary aspects of the emergent "economic" (see definition below), model.
Schumacher and emergent economic theory allow for no dominant political ideology. So where is democracy? Well for one thing it ought to be clear by now that politics al.la the Industrial Revolution model is on its last legs, the G7 summit will be tackling the global problems of environmental damage, lack of biodiversity and sustainability issues that barely got a mention in the mainstream media (MSM), a hundred years ago. This macrocosm shines a light on the microcosm of our individual politics, whereby, we will become aware that democracy is process, it must always be thus for should we ever manifest “true democracy” we will have achieved totality, quote;
“Hence “lack of dimension” is only apparent regarding individual #BlackHoles because lack of totality denies them dimensional non-existence…the (SO-CALLED!), #EmergenceTheory guys won’t like that but other universes CAN ONLY EXIST AS POTENTIALS THEY MAY NOT MANIFEST #timesarrow”
“Why that’s important is? Because of their #Gravitational effects…!”
“Thus black holes retain their? “Gravitational effects” even #Hawking had to begin to move away (re: “radiation”), from “singularity” (”'coz there’s lots of 'em"), totality doesn’t have the problems because (esp. given #relativity), it can remain UN-manifest…"
“…and is known ONLY by it’s effects and only when #Quantum is applied (no work it out), as opposed to black holes which are? Black #darkenergy #darkmatter, totality allows of NO continuum (of-course), …”
Nb. Therefore black-holes partake of singularity and pertain to totality.
“We” are no longer removed from the equation this is the legacy of quantum research…Currently we constantly look for answers “outside”… paralleling the (unsustainable), extraction of our economic (and political), answers from “without”… (in-fact -of-course-, the science, politics and economics -et.al-, are all aspects of the same problem)" Go to: https://twitter.com/Williamtheb
Our focus therefore becomes on “democratisation” not as an enforced process but as a principle the benefits of which are made manifest by entering into dialogue with all the organs of the body politic. This is consistent with the notion of “emerging economy”, quote;
““unsustainable economy” is an oxymoron” No? I thought about this…many would argue (and many on the “left” also), that “short-term” “profit-taking” exploitative economies exist…but do they? Can we truly call them “economies”? For one thing; “how long is your piece of string?” We define economies by describing relationships (they are “relative”), there is a chronological imperative concerned, one cannot (surely), argue that a 5 year “un-sustainability” is an economy whilst a 3 month one is not!
Economy, of-course, also can be “of effort”, in other words efficient…there is no “economy of effort” in an inefficient system, therefore, we can argue that any economy that is not sustainable does not exist!
If one “economises” one makes one’s actions more efficient…literally one creates an economy.One can argue that the economy existed for a five year period…but one cannot say it was “un-sustainable” for the same period…period…
…and, therefore, sustainability is a necessary component of economy…
The system is “open ended” (#opensource), it is emergent…
Quote; "Words Based on the Eco- Root Word
Following is a list of words based on the Eco- Root Word:
1. Ecoactivist: One who actively opposes the pollution or destruction by other means, of the environment.
2. Ecobabble: Using the technical language of ecology to make the user seem to be ecologically aware.
3. Ecobiology: The study of the relationships of organisms to their natural environments.
4. Ecobiosis: The conditions pertaining to a mode of life within a specific habitat
5. Ecocatastrophe: Major damage to the environment, especially when caused by human activity
6. Ecocentric: Centering on the environment
7. Bioecological: A reference to the interrelationships between plants and animals and their abiotic enviro ments.
8. Bioecologist: Someone who favors, or specializes, bioecology; such as, an ecologist.
9. Bioecology: The science of organisms as affected by the factors of their environments.
10. Ecocidal: Designed or tending to destroy the environment.
11. Ecocide: Destruction or damage of the environment
12. Ecoclimate: The climate as an ecological factor; the climate of a habitat.
13. Ecocline: Reflecting ecological conditions in general.
14. Econometrician: A student of, or specialist in, econometrics.
15. Econometrics: The branch of economics concerned
with the application of mathematical economics to economic data by the
use of statistical methods.
16. Economics: The study or the social science of the
production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with
the theory and management of economies or economic systems which
include material goods and financial resources.
17. Economist: Someone who studies, works, or is an expert in the field of economics." https://wordpandit.com/eco-root-word/ Here we can see how closely related the notions of ecology and economics
really are, this seems to indicate that the Industrial Revolution
(esp.), saw a perversion of the language describing transaction/exchange in order
to underpin a Socially Darwinistic model of human evolution, allow this exploitative model to gain ascendancy and fulfil (esp.), capitalism’s imperial and “manifest destiny”. It
may, therefore, be the case that a misapprehension of the nature of
economic theory has stemmed directly from the exploitation of
non-renewable resources.
Go to: https://forum.5filters.info/t/declining-sperm-counts-natures-answer-to-overpopulation/1227/10
Democracy must be “open source” (Mr.Gates), only then can it be open-ended.
People are, however, desperate to save the shibboleths of the old paradigm take crypto-currencies for instance surely a true case (Mr.Keiser), of “The Emperor's New Clothes” (this yesterday from “Moon of Alabama”, quote; "Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism had christened crypto currencies “prosecution futures”.
Crypto currencies are not money. One can not pay ones taxes with them." Go to: MoA - The End Of Crypto Currencies), quote; "
“The skyrocketing value of Bitcoin is leading to soaring energy consumption. According to one widely cited website
that tracks the subject, the Bitcoin network is consuming power at an
annual rate of 32TWh—about as much as Denmark. By the site’s
calculations, each Bitcoin transaction consumes 250kWh, enough to power
homes for nine days.
Naturally, this is leading to concerns about sustainability. Eric Holthaus, a writer for Grist, projects
that, at current growth rates, the Bitcoin network will “use as much
electricity as the entire world does today” by early 2020. “This is an
unsustainable trajectory,” he writes.”…
…“Bitcoin mining—the process that generates new bitcoins while
maintaining the network’s shared transaction ledger—is a secretive
global industry. No one knows exactly how much energy it consumes*.
However, we can make some educated guesses. For starters, we know the
industry’s revenue: Bitcoin miners currently generate 75 bitcoins per
hour, which, at the current price of around $12,500 per bitcoin,
translates to $937,500 per hour, or more than $8 billion per year.
Moreover, the industry is highly competitive, and electricity is one of
its biggest costs. So when the price of bitcoins rises, we can expect
miners to spend more and more on electricity until electricity costs are
roughly on par with revenues.” Go to: Bitcoin’s insane energy consumption, explained | Ars Technica for full article.
This may seem insane but the truth is desperate people do desperate
things. It has surely been such desperation that has lead to a blind-eye
being turned throughout the British media and wider society to the true level of the exposure of our financial system to the Credit Crunch that the LIBOR scandal attempted (and still attempts),
to obfuscate."…"this is where Emergence Theory comes in. So far, however,
those scientists studying emergence have not linked the disciplines
together to form a “whole picture” but this is what a paradigm shift
away from the exploitative model of economics requires, “biodiversity is
the engine of sustainability” and its pursuit and protection are
antithetical to; mono-cultural, short-term, “quick-fix” profit taking enterprises.
“Posturing is the method (or “vehicle”), by which denial transfers the shame that is its genesis.”
Quote; "Bitcoin is the exemplar of that divorce of wealth from production. Its value appears to be derived from two features: the mathematically elegant blockchain code, which is a distributed accounting system supposedly impervious to government meddling. And “mining” Bitcoin using colossal amounts of electricity to churn the blockchain code, a simple dissipation of energy. What is actually produced by these operations? A promise that a set of digits residing on countless flash drives around the world equal X-amount denominated in national currencies, which are themselves spun out of nothing by a process far less complex than the exertions that produce Bitcoin.
It may be true that Bitcoin’s distributed “ledger” is difficult for governments to crack, but governments can just abolish Bitcoin in a few keystrokes by criminalizing the trade of it and confiscating any theoretical profits from it. They have probably refrained so far because the traffic in Bitcoin is still relatively tiny compared to the trade in stocks, bonds, and their derivatives, and because they prefer to keep the Bitcoin model running as a demonstration project in preparation for their own entry into national cryptocurrencies, with all its advantages for tracking individual transactions and targeting tax liabilities.
Let’s spell out the more blatant shortcomings of Bitcoin: The
blockchain may be theoretically bomb-proof, but the exchanges that
Bitcoin trades on can be fiddled, hijacked, and erased from the
universe, and Bitcoins with them. Remember Mt. Gox? When it went tits-up
in 2014, 850,000 Bitcoins vanished (out of the 21 million that can ever
be “mined” under the system as designed). Bitcoins were worth under
$1000 when that happened. Also, keep in mind that Bitcoin is meaningless
without reliable electric service and the Internet that runs on it. How
many Bitcoins were bought-and-sold in Texas those dark days a couple of
weeks ago when a blue norther rolled in and the lights went out? Of
course, trading Bitcoin might be the least of your problems when the
pipes freeze and all the sheetrock in your house gets prepped for a
black mold experiment. But just sayin," Go to: https://kunstler.com/
Nb. Similar to particle-beam accelerators crypto-currencies are destructive their only purpose being to aid in widespread denial re: our rapidly diminishing unsustainable resources (in other words the continuance of the neo-lib/con delusion). Crypto-currencies are a desperate response and in-fact represent, quote; "the plebs scrabbling in the Roman dirt beneath the emperor’s balcony for debased currency!"* also both requiring and enabling a WiFi "economy" that itself is false.
*Go to: https://www.arafel.co.uk/2014/08/the-philosophy-of-loss-leader-re.html Also see: https://twitter.com/i/events/937997845344473088
Quote; "Stakeholder Capitalism as Newfangled Fascism
Let’s now turn our attention to the second weasel word in “stakeholder capitalism.” If you are confused about whether national socialism (a.k.a Nazism) is indeed a form of socialism, you should read more.
Socialism means the abolition of private ownership of the means of production in favor of mythical “collective ownership,” but the brutal reality is that it is a system of forceful centralized control.
In the same vein, “for fascism the state is absolute, individuals and corporations [are] relative” said Mussolini. Either way, the holders of centralized power, by controlling production, control your life. They become the solitary “stakeholder” in all decisions involving material resources.
As Ludwig von Mises showed, without real private ownership there is no buying and selling and therefore no market price system, so the planners have no way of knowing what people value. They are flying blind, creating chaos in place of economic coordination. For his scathing but inescapable insights Mises had the honor of being intellectual enemy number one of both the Nazis and the Soviets."
“Weasel words”? Oh really? Public ownership should be under democratic control, the accusation that nationalisation is totalitarian can only be made if the democratic process is subverted by allowing one of the realms (individual, communal or social), to assume dominance. I notice there is no mention of democratic process. Monetary value to the individual is not necessarily the prime concern of those in favour of (true -democratic-), public ownership, rather the health of society, community and the individual are (as expressed by the phrase “public happiness”), to claim other-wise is dangerous neo-liberal propaganda. The author does not accuse socialism of perverting public ownership, instead, they conflate public ownership with state control, thereby, denying the possibility of a mixed economy, Schumachians reject this characterisation."..."Where do they dig-these people up from feudal England?" Go to: The Lifeboat News: Neo-liberal Propaganda...
Nb. My goodness the neo-liberals needed state intervention when they were “too big to fail” though didn’t they?
As I am sure the neo-liberal data-vampires are well aware to reduce politics to a simplistic choice between “laissez faire” or
social/communal totalitarianism both destroys the Schumachian model and
prevents the emergence of an economy, it’s a case of “the elephant in
the room” for failing to acknowledge the problem’s existence will only
result in getting squished. The conflation exists in order to polarise,
the truth is that none of the “-isms” are up to the job and should be
consigned to the past. It’s indicative of the “dumbed down” nature of
our public discourse that the socialism = communism trope has been
allowed (esp. in the U.S), to gain such traction, however, it is vital
that this state of affairs not be allowed to continue for the life of
our species will be “nasty, brutish and short” otherwise. #DumbleDimandDimbleDumb #BiodiversityistheEngineofSustainability #TimeisoftheEssence #LoS
