The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of THINKING. It keeps us busy debating thesis and anti-thesis (a concept of Hegelian Dialectic), without realizing the fact that reality lies beyond our illusions and assumptions.
What you believe to be true, is it true? Or do you just believe that it is true because you were taught that it was true and you never looked any further?
People are unable to get themselves out of the paradox created by the social engineers. They cannot see beyond these “isms” because they have lost the ability to think. All we see is fake intellectualism and absurd theories. Left, right, capitalism, communism, political parties, political figures … that’s our mental limit.
So many thinkers have criticized the system based on greed and self interest. Many experts from various schools of thought have pointed out the flaws of the system, but people having no knowledge of their own are more inclined towards the common opinion created through social engineering and indoctrination. This system is simply a game, and in a game, there are winners and there are losers. Not everyone can be the winner, however the media, the society and the social engineers have given everyone a dream and hope of winning.
Individuals like Naom Chomsky, Jean Jacques Rousseau, William Blum, Arundhati Roy, Elizabeth Warren, Margrit Kennedy and many others have been criticizing the system on the basis of logic and reason but people are more interested in discussing political figures, trying to justify greed, self interest and a false illusion of becoming rich, using dictators as symbols of any possible alternate, avoiding logical debate limited to the system itself.
A clear example of conventional view:
A lot of people use the terms like “Demand and Supply“, “profit”, “economic growth” etc. and they fully support the idea of getting rich through talent. For them, profit is not bad, but the same individuals enjoy criticizing corporations and banks when they use strategies like “leverage” to create monopolies, multiply profit and use it to increase their assets including land and resources, in order to maintain a constant growth or in other words “growth on top of growth”.
If an individual can think about owing properties, earning profit or becoming rich, then what’s wrong if a corporation or a bank uses the same thinking to create profit using all available privileges? The corporations are owned and managed by humans after all. If competition, profit, property ownership and economic growth are seen as legitimate goals, then these apply to both individuals and corporations, since they both are a part of the same market and no one should protest. If self interest is the main motive behind our economic activities (as stated by Adam Smith) then this concept applies to the governments, the politicians and the bureaucrats too. They too have the right to follow their own interests in form of getting favors from corporate entities and providing undue favors in return. The truth is that we are all are following the idea of being “Too smart for own good” which not only exemplifies our ignorance but is clarification of the cause to humanity’s destruction.
As a matter of fact, “Demand and supply”, “profit and growth” are merely theories created in economics to justify absurdities. Such hypothesis has got nothing to do with the ground realities, rather it represents a small percentage of global population that has access to the resources, while completely ignoring the vast majority of “have not’s”, suffering from hunger, poverty and starvation. We have been desensitized and living in a state of “commodity fetishism” whereby our social relations have been transformed into objectified economic relationships such as producers and consumers, buyers and sellers, service providers, while those who does not fit into this framework are completely ignored.
There was no demand for iPhones and iPads until they were invented and marketed using PR. The fact is that only a small percentage of global population is participating in consumerism, which is being used as a scale to determine economic growth. Perhaps even smaller percentage of people are able to even think about buying things like iPhones, laptops and other expensive things. Owing cars is perhaps a privilege restricted to even fewer people. Majority of population is struggling to meet the very basic requirements of life such as proper food, shelter and healthcare.
According to the statistics provided by WHO, more than 6 million children die from starvation each year and over a billion people suffer from malnutrition. Where do these people fit in the theories of “Demand and supply”, “consumption and production”, “profit and growth”? What have we achieved as a society and what’s the use of all the technological advancements, when such a huge fraction of humans are living miserable lives?
Restricting access to basic necessities like food, shelter and healthcare, naming it as “demand” and then leaving masses to suffer the scarcity at the expense of abundance for few who see it as profit. This is the real picture. If it was possible, humans would have restricted the air and sunlight too, naming it as “demand” and supplying it to those who are willing to conform, obey and work.
Who was the first person to claim a piece of land on earth as his personal property, who assigned him the right to do so and when did it happen?
A major cause behind all the miseries and misfortunes, a total fraud, yet completely denied. We are living in a state of denial and a sincere ignorance towards the fact that division of properties has already taken place centuries ago when imperial forces claimed ownerships over the lands and natural resources, defining rules to protect their rights of ownership. The same properties were later on gifted by the so called “landlords” and the royal families as token of appreciation for subservience, adding up more names in the list.
Assigning monetary value to land and resources and then measuring it on the scale of fiat money, has created a whole new paradigm, where those having power to create money out of thin air can own as much of the property as they want and there is no law, no rule to prevent this.
One doesn’t need to be a genius to become rich. It only requires a person to be lucky being born in a rich family. Getting rich is more like a game of chance and the cases of individuals becoming rich through talent are very rare.
Look at the case of Nicola Tesla a Serbian scientist. His invention, the AC or alternating current system was associated not with his name but with that of George Westinghouse, who funded his research. Both Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse were ruthless businessmen who took credit for Tesla’s work. In the end, Tesla was living in poverty, while royalties for his life’s work went to Edison and Westinghouse. He accepted small sums as buy-outs for his work. Even Marconi made use of a patent filed by Tesla in 1897. Tesla was the real “father of radio” but received no money or credit for this invention.
The truth is that no one can get rich on his own. One can come up with ideas but cannot produce anything in bulk all alone. One cannot fulfill the demand of masses without the help of many others investing their efforts to make it possible. Mass production requires skilled labor which is not the property of that person, rather it is provided by others. Likewise in a society, everything needs protection. Tangible assets cannot be left open and unprotected, or else they will be gone. The person needs many others to provide protection and security. More importantly means of transportation, roads and infrastructure is required to get the goods to consumers. A single individual does not own the infrastructure therefore cannot manage all that. In short, a lot of efforts from various people are involved behind every new idea that brings fortune for few, but they somehow manages to get away with the big chunk. If the output is shared according to the efforts invested by various people, no one would be able to get extra ordinarily rich.
What we need to understand is that self-interest, competition and gaining profit at the expense of others is not a stable paradigm at all. We must try and see things out of the box instead of circling around the paradoxes created for specific purposes and getting involved in Hegelian dialectics, discussing left-right politics, capitalism and socialism. We must stop following blindly the ideas originating from the research which is sponsored by foundations and think tank, funded by the top 0.1%.
Corporations are there to do business, earn profit and maintain growth. Worrying about societies, people and their problems is not their concern. Non-profit Organizations that pay no Taxes, serves as stores of wealth for the businesses, receives unlimited funds to manipulate public opinion and enforce specific agendas as demanded by the financers (the top 0.1%s) who sponsor both the opposing sides in a conflict.
Take the example of the mainstream view regarding “climate change”. It’s being sponsored by various think tank and NPOs, funded by the elites, the top 0.1%. On the other hand the opposing view that is “denial of climate change” is also being sponsored and funded by NPOs, corporations and businesses owned by elites. Same applies to the “leftist” VS “rightist” agendas or “government control” VS “Freedom and Liberty movements” or let’s say “Capitalism” VS “Communism”, where both the sides are being supported by NPOs and think tank representing various corporations and elite businessmen (once again the top 0.1%).
What’s the point in leading from two opposite ideologies or let’s say “thesis” and “anti-thesis” and why are the 01% spending all their money on that?
Here is a quote from Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (a Russian communist revolutionary, politician and political theorist) who said;
“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”
The quote provides a complete understanding regarding the political objective behind creating two opposite ideologies and then leading both sides of the conflict.
If one is in the top 0.1% and has the power and privilege to make the rules, rig the game in one’s favor, and handsomely reward the priestly ministerial caste to devise dubious, self-serving economic theories, models, and policies or to control both sides of the conflict, to keep the game rigged, there is absolutely nothing “wrong with this picture” for the top 0.1%. It’s designed to be right for the top 0.1% and the next 0.9%, but “wrong” for the bottom 99%.
As stated earlier, games are for winners and losers. In a winner-take-all game, the top 0.1% winners rig the game so that the 99.9% are losers, while sharing enough of the plunder with the next 0.9% so that they think they are winners when compared to the bottom 99%.
A system that rewards only the top 0.1-1% winners ensures that everyone else loses, including being incapable of subsistence at a socially acceptable level of material consumption and psycho-emotional well-being.
But again, if one is a winner and can rig the game, who cares about the bottom 99% losers; after all, they’re losers. Let them eat “austerity” and excrete hope.
How long will it take us to get out of this illusion created by the self proclaimed “owners” of the society?
For how long we will keep acting as pawns on this game of chess being played?
For how long we will keep debating and fighting on non-issues created merely to divert our attention from real issues and keep us busy fighting for survival according to the terms and conditions defined by those who are on top of the pyramid?
If we continue to follow the same implanted programs through conditioning and indoctrination fortifying the old broken paradigm, then we will continue to get the same results over and over again. What we do not learn from is what we shall repeat, shown in our own individual experiences, history, and lives.
It is so important to peer beyond the various levels of illusion programmed into the mind in order to break these very cycles, for all experience is necessary to show us the symptom of our problems. There have been many tools used to program the conditioned into a fixed and limiting mindset to keep perception range at a minimal, while using these very tools to keep us in the illusionary state of fragmentation.
There may be a whole new world, a whole new thought process waiting for us if we somehow manage to get ourselves out of this box and start thinking on our own, instead of following the status-quo and living a shallow escapism without confronting the bigger picture.
This reminds me of a Buckminister Fuller who said;
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”