Cryptocurrency: The Breaking Point and Death of Keynes

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 03:58:17PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 18:54:41 +1000
> Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > As in, what does he care whether his fiat is printed by the Reserve Bank, or whether it happens to be an "old style fiat" or some fangled new "digital fiat"?
> > 
> > Joe Bloggs does not care one way or the other - he really does, not, care.
> 
> 	and that's the result of 'education' at the hands of his parents, the 'religious' 'authorities' and the state. 
> 
> 
> > Mr Bloggs must first identify that his self sufficiency ("vertical integration" at the household and/or community level) is in his interests.
> 
> 	problem being, 'adults' who have been mass-producded by the current SCIENTIFIC system are mostly hopeless. 
> 
>  
> > And to do this he must completely cast out the Marxist lies which lull him into any sense of entitlement or envy.
> 
> 	and now you've discredited your own reasoning by being a stupid partisan. So a couple of  points : 


that's non sensical



> 	1) by naming the piece of joo shit, herr marks, you're just promoting 'marxism'. You could refer to him as merck for instance. Or better yet, completely ignore him.


your allusion that my words "Marxist lies", supposedly means I'm "just promoting 'marxism'", is not logical


HOWEVER, it could be granted that even naming "herr Marx" at all, even "Marxist lies", actually 'gives reality to' those "Marxist lies".  A possible problem with subscribing too heavily to any principle that we "should not name Marx, nor use Marxist terminology, is that our language is made poorer/ less succinct.

Impoverishing our language, is a fundamentally "Marxist" tool/ tactic/ intention.

Perhaps it could be unwise to "submit" to such 'language impoverishment'?

The "positive" intention to 'not promote Marx' is logically a good intention which is easy to support.

Fwiw, I think in this instance that the use of this 2-word conjunction "Marxist lies", sufficiently conveys that "Marxism" is not being used 'in a positive light' so to speak - but thanks for the heads up, it is often wise to double check our language to make sure we mean what we think we are saying (or trying to say).



> 	2) central banks are a quintessential RIGHT WING, MONARCHICAL, CONSERVATIVE 'invention'. Look up "bank of sweden' and "bank of england" for starters. Merckists want to control central banks (see merck's 'manifesto') simply because central banks are a key 'institution' in totalitarian social systems. And yes of course right wingers 'invented' central banks to serve their totalitarian ends.


Well yes, it does seem that "Jewish forefathers" were the ultimate right wingers :)

"Our" kings und queens of yore were led/ enticed/ blackmailed into usurious banking, "central" or otherwise.  Apparently in direct opposition to the clear and unambiguous injunction from this one "temple money-table flipping", enigmatic in ways, rebel anarchist (afaict) named Jesus Christ.

No point highlighting "he had to have been a Hebrew" since that only emphasizes the significance that the "Hebrews" hung him on a cross to die.

No "system boy" that Jesus lad, no sir-ee.



> > The truth that "plain old" central banking fiats are more than sufficient (and a hell of a lot more energy efficient, not that Mr Bloggs cares anyway), is a truth which the average techno-anarchist seems strangely oblivious to - "he cannot see what his 'livelihood' depends on his not knowing" perhaps?
> 
> 
> 	yes, government 'money' is more efficient in a few ways, and cash is more anonymous than most or even all 'cryptocurrencies'. The only distinct advantage that something like BTC has is that the supply isn't directly controlled by govcorp. 


seems so, yes


> > Once again we appear inescapably drawn to that fundamental - except that a man contributes directly, at least in some small way to his own survival (i.e. unless he cultivates such an intention within himself), then he shall remain enslaved.
> 
> 	however, division of labor doesn't directly imply slavery. Division of labor does have drawbacks but it can work in a decent fashion given the propper cultural/political outlook.


true, division of labor doesn't directly imply slavery

it seems we could collectively use better educated "fellow humans"...

similar to technology - not "bad", merely a tool, except that most tech ends up used against us... I got a sneaky suspicion that usurious banking has a bit to do with this problem, but that our (collectively speaking) primary opposition or problem is "other humans generally", thus "education", "inculcation of better/clearer thinking"...


Word Of The Week:   inculcate



> > And "morally" we can say that this is not only the _natural_ way of things, but how they _should_ be (but note that we do not need the moral argument, where the natural or observed pattern of reality suffices as sufficient explanation.
> > 
> > 
> > So where does this leave us?
> > 
> >    1) Fostering self sufficiency.
> > 
> >    2) Educating others.
> > 
> > (And when we say "educating" others, we mean "inculcating those intentions which bring about the better/desired result - as in, awareness of the dependency/slavery dichotomy, and its antidote.)
>