Topic: when it comes to NWO machinations, how awake do you think you are?
Wow. At this late hour of one-world encroachment, it appears that everywhere one cares to look, including the mirror, one can find Useful Idiots pretending to know what’s going on. Indeed, everyone is a Useful Idiot about at least one or two NWO agendas — the problem is that far too many have gone “all in” on what Goebbels would call the biggest panoply of lies ever to be scripted.
“The banksters are behind it all.”
“Snowden is a hero.”
“More market regulation will help.”
“Putin is a hero.”
“Closing borders protects those within.”
“Paul is a hero.”
Note the tendency among that tiny sample of Useful-Idiot-speak. It’s a clue for comprehending how the NWO operates its programming factory: deliberate falsehoods about big picture things like markets and banking and Nation States, interspersed with deliberate falsehoods about so-called people’s heroes whom the NWO wants you to consider as champions of the downtrodden, as demigods known to be proletarian supermen who can defeat all titans and gorgons. Just turn those few quotes above into thousands, and then mix them with some fava beans for a guarantee that the vast majority of people will be tricked into believing at least half of the lies. Then you have yourselves the makings-believe of a thing called Social Contract.
In the fictionalized universe of NWO mind control, during an era that promises only a subsequent era of absolute dominance over all lives for those who pretend to have veins coursing with dragon blood, Zeus will always defeat Kronos. This is the way that the NWO lies to the masses about being able to achieve permanent stability: by stopping time. Hey, what serf wouldn’t want such a caste arrangement, with no opportunity ever for self-improvement or for shaping a future that their descendants might appreciate? The NWO expects each of us to rely on the Great Man theory to win, without even trying, the everyprize for the everyman.
Moving on, there are bound to be reactionary assurances from those who claim to see through all Great Man swindles.
“Be sure to homeschool.”
“Be sure to grow your own.”
“Be sure to vote out ‘dem bums.”
“Be sure to pump the economic engine with appropriate purchases.”
“Be sure to avoid economic speculation.”
“Be sure to use encryption.”
That last one is most amusing. Each quote is something that would emanate from an activist, from someone who wants to take action — with or without help from so-called Great Men — to assure a better tomorrow. Since so much criticism about misguided activism focuses on the many NWO-controlled movements advocating collectivism and egalitarianism, this particular part of this particular correction targets conservative types, who as individuals cover a broad range of conservatism from big-government yahoos to minarchist apron clingers. Just as many conservatives would use one of those statements above as would a self-professed leftist. Some self-styled libertarians even pretend to qualify for paradisaical fantasies like Galt’s Gulch: the commune where truly great men and women can reject the Great Man theory.
Then there are those several billion people who simply know that the hippest of the FMSM (Former Mainstream Media) and EMSM (Emerging Mainstream Media) tell the truth about how bad market freedom is for — well, there isn’t anything that such people think could ever be market-friendly. They know such things because the FMSM/EMSM made it all seem so … simple.
“Greed destroys Gaia.”
“Greed is omnipresent.”
“Corporations are trying to steal water supplies.”
“Greed is eternal.”
“<Insert desire here> is a right.”
There are, of course, no such things as rights, but rather there are occasions during which one might be obligated to remind someone who is trying to restrict trade in firearms or whatnot that they have no rights on which to base their threatening assertions. Similarly, greed is indeed eternal (which is why “make it nice & legal” government is always less trustworthy than a typical business), while this planet doesn’t even notice the presence of mankind let alone accept a man-made moniker or tragedy-of-the-commons stewardship over its surface blood.
Seriously, step for a moment outside the parameters of autonomic Total Recall mode regarding incessant NWO agitprop about water supplies, and accept the fact that water is like everything else: doomed to rationing and low quality whenever bureaucracy arrogates to itself “important” regulatory services. Water is that very kind of precious commodity which bureaucracies vow either to own in totality or to destroy utterly — hence the impending “Water Wars” between various States. Clarify thinking. Compare private housing with so-called public housing, private distribution of food and clothing with “to each according to his needs.” Do you allow your friend to put his feet up on your car’s dashboard the same way he puts them up when riding transit? Well, then, contemplate the obvious: water supplies are in danger precisely because bureaucrats pretend to be protecting them from some unknowable bogeyman called “greed.” Gordon Gekko was correct and Ayn Rand was incorrect, for self-interest represents good greed (in that markets force the greedy to satisfy consumers while maintaining the quality of their fixed assets for future production) while selfishness (to be merely self-ish is to never know the self at all) remains forever a character flaw of bureaucrats and aspiring bureaucrats and the cronies hoping to hitch their wagon to a luciferian star.
That brings this emendator to the very “star” of the show …
“Money is made up of M1/M2/M3/Mn.”
“Money is created out of thin air.”
“Money is a yoke that ancient meanies inserted into society.”
“Money, or the love thereof, is the root of all evil.”
“Money is the modern god.”
There cannot ever be any such thing as a money junkie. Here’s a kindergartner lesson that will help: no one seeks what they deem to be money in order to sit atop a pile of what they call money. People desire the things that a medium of exchange makes easier to acquire through trade.
After absorbing that remedial lesson, consider the following advanced information: as with the concepts of Divine Right or Social Contract or Intellectual Property, the concept of money is imaginary. All trade is accomplished by way of direct or indirect barter. All tradeable things amount to either commodities or contracts. All potential media of exchange, therefore, whether they are simply the two items being exchanged during a direct barter or some intermediate item that each party to an indirect barter agrees to use for that particular exchange, amount to either commodities or contracts.
As for studying imaginary things, Ludwig von Mises managed to create a spiffy regression theorem to describe the origins of mankind’s tendency to favor one medium of exchange over another. The imaginary nature of so-called money, see, presented a problem for economists of the last few centuries. NWO-controlled economists felt the need to assist Fabianism by denying the existence of earned profit, so they called attention to the apparent double standard whereby “money” supposedly has an impossible set of properties that include both a price for the “money” as commodity/contract and a price for the “money” as medium of exchange. Liberal economists (true liberals as opposed to the Americanized misdefinition of the term), on the other hand (i.e. the right hand), understood that only offers of socialist intervention ever need denying, so they denied the denial of the Fabians and circled the wagons of supposed logic regarding the nature of “money.” As Mises put it down on pages 393-394 of his book Human Action:
Economic analysis cannot help reducing all items of cost to value judgments. The socialists and interventionists call entrepreneurial profit, [as well as] interest on capital, and rent of land “unearned” because they consider that only the toil and trouble of the worker is real and worthy of being rewarded. However, reality does not reward toil and trouble. If toil and trouble is expended according to well-conceived plans, its outcome increases the means available for want-satisfaction. Whatever some people may consider as just and fair, the only relevant question is always the same. What alone matters is which system of social organization is better suited to attain those ends for which people are ready to expend toil and trouble. The question is market economy, or socialism? There is no third solution. The notion of a market economy with nonmarket prices [for example: with government price controls] is absurd. The very idea of cost prices [prices that are real, objective and unchanging] is unrealizable. Even if the cost price formula is applied only to entrepreneurial profits, it paralyzes the market. If commodities and services are to be sold below the price the market would have determined for them, supply always lags behind demand. Then the market can neither determine what should or should not be produced, nor to whom the commodities and services should go. Chaos results.
That didn’t stop the vilest socialists from trying to get away with precisely such fraud. Indeed, Mises needed to go farther in the paragraph above, rather than ending with “Chaos results.” The doctor would recommend a ghost-written revision: “Chaos results, leading often to an authoritarian crackdown.” Just feast your starving Political Economy eyes on what Lenin accomplished after he declared that no prices or media of exchange were necessary in the gloriously non-profit proletarian utopia known as the USSR.
Keep in mind that the NEP represented desperate backpedaling on the part of the Bolshevist criminals who had destroyed so many lives. As Murray Rothbard explained in a 1979 article published within the Libertarian Review periodical:
Until World War II, Soviet Russia was the only example of a Communist regime. And even it had gone through remarkable changes. When the Bolsheviks assumed power in late 1917, they tried to leap into full “communism” by abolishing money and prices, an experiment so disastrous (it was later dubbed “War Communism”) that Lenin, always the supreme realist, beat a hasty retreat to a mere semisocialist system in the New Economic Policy (NEP).
Forgive Rothbard for using the term “money” to describe media of exchange. Until recently no one knew any better — the point being, the concept of money is now known to be imaginary. Mises’ regression theorem encouraged people to trace back anything they thought of as money to its original use as a commodity. Try the reverse direction through history to gain new insight. After centuries of direct exchange, with simple barter trades between people who owned one commodity but wanted another, certain items started becoming more popular than others as in-between exchanges intended to make it a lot easier to acquire the commodity one actually desired. For example, instead of good old Joe spending hours searching the Khan for a vendor who owned a chair that he was willing to trade for the guitar that Joe was carrying, the average modern Joe went straight to the gold merchant to trade his guitar for gold — all because it had become common knowledge that most typical chair vendors would be willing to trade a chair for some gold.
That was the beginning of indirect barter, of indirect exchange. No one invented any commodity for specific and deliberate insertion into society as a mechanism of control, gold (and its equivalents) simply became popular as in-betweens among traders. Here’s the deal, though: at no time since then has it ever been necessary to start referring to even the most popular commodity used for indirect barter (i.e. the most popular medium of exchange) as money.
Sure, market-based prices are irreplaceable for even simple barter, and at least one commodity or contract must become popular as a medium of exchange to realize advanced, indirect barter. That doesn’t mean that a medium of exchange must have utility for people only as a medium of exchange, which would be the sole reason to ever relabel a commodity or contract as money (that is to say: when something becomes a popular medium of exchange its properties become amended but not transformed completely). You could, for instance, use a gold coin to place underneath an uneven table leg, and you could do the same with a dollar bill that you folded in half several times. Each has utility other than as a thing to use for making trade easier, the difference being the illegitimacy of the so-called Social Contract underlying any Legal Tender law.
Even Mises himself, the trailblazer of monetary analysis, struggled on page 395 of Human Action to convince people about the nature of so-called money:
A medium of exchange which is commonly used as such is called money. The notion of money is vague, as its definition refers to the vague term “commonly used.” There are borderline cases in which it cannot be decided whether a medium of exchange is or is not “commonly” used and should be called money.
No, Lu, there are no such borderline cases, because referring to even the most popular medium of exchange as money is never appropriate. You might offer to trade that dollar bill in your pocket to someone who uses only gold for exchange, simply because that person needs kindling to light their stove for supper and you fancy their cooking. That’s a fair trade, a piece of paper for a promised meal — but was any money involved?
Nope. In that particular transaction, one commodity and one contract remained a commodity and a contract until each was consumed utterly (by fire and by receipt of a promised meal). For one brief moment, at the exact point of exchange, each had its properties amended to include “medium of exchange,” but right after the exchange each reverted to being a mere commodity or contract (a piece of green-ish paper and a promise to provide one meal).
Mises suspected as much. Almost immediately, on page 395, he demonstrated that he had a better clue.
But this vagueness in the denotation of money in no way affects the exactitude and precision required by praxeological theory. For all that is to be predicated of money is valid for every medium of exchange.
… which is why the term “money” is superfluous. There’s a big lesson to glean from this emendator. Think about “public” anything. “We all own it” is how the typical excuse for plunder goes. That means, of course, that no one owns it and no one takes on the responsibility of ownership and the “public” thing in question deteriorates with neglectful rapidity. Well, it’s similar for so-called money. If money’s properties are the same as those of any medium of exchange, then everything is potential money (e.g. the dollar bill to light afire as well as the promise to use that fire to provide a meal). If everything is potential money, then nothing can be removed from that aggregate set of commodities and contracts to be categorized as the money — unless government uses its coercive mechanism of Social Contract fraud to invent a make-believe Legal Tender law representing “public money,” which by extension would be just as fraudulent and would experience the same rapid deterioration as any imaginary “public” thing.
Aspiring A++ scholars must appreciate how the commendable reliance that old-school Austrian scholars continue placing on time and time preference also applies to the nature of barter and optional intermediary media of exchange. Yeah, there’s the key term: intermediary. As in, one has confidence that a thing one just traded for another thing will be accepted almost everywhere else in trade for something else. That is, as in, you just got some silver for your day’s work, you’re pretty sure you can use that silver to buy most things you might care to buy, and therefore you automatically suspend disbelief for a period of time regarding the question of whether that silver stopped being a medium of exchange at the completion of the earlier trade (i.e. after the boss gave you your day’s pay).
A final thought, or rather, a correction within a correction. Recall a hypothetical quote from an earlier section of this emendator about how “Money is a yoke that ancient meanies inserted into society.” Well, guess what. That quote is on the money, so to speak. Oh, to be sure, the existence of indirect barter and media of exchange stem from the natural progression of society and in no way represent artificial tools of those seeking to enslave and control. What the control-seekers desire is to program people with all sorts of imaginary concepts, such as IP or Social Contract or Divine Right or … money. Society, for example, is a real phenomenon, but the concept of Social Contract is a deliberate canard. The exact same analysis applies to media of exchange versus so-called money.
So, who’s awake? There’s more to be said about this topic … for a price.