#theworldtocome pt. III


Capitalism is not about supply and demand according to a billionaire.

That’s quite a statement. Not to say it is wrong, but it is quite a statement.

This billionaire, Nick Hanauer, also believes a nation’s economy cannot grow without a strong Middle Class.

According to him, supply and demand are not the foundation of an economy – but rather, human innovation and the ability to reduce our ‘problems’ in society.

[link to article here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/why-capitalism-has-nothing-to-do-with-supply-and-demand/]

The question that came to my mind was: what are these ‘problems’ he speaks of?

I believe we have to separate problems into three categories: individual & collective, and a combination of the two: IC.

The individual (who believes it or knows it) respects prosperity as the sum of individual innovation and poverty as individual failure.

The collectivist respects prosperity as the sum of sharing resources.

The moderate respects prosperity as the sum of sharing resources in order to correct fallacies in human choice and to maintain a state of social equilibrium that permits individuals to compete and feel fulfilled.

Here is an excerpt from the article highlighting the author’s emphasis on the importance of a thriving middle class:

So middle out economics is essentially a 21st century way of understanding how an economy works – not as this linear mechanistic system — but as an ecosystem, with the same kinds of feedback loops. The fundamental law of capitalism is if workers don’t have any money, businesses don’t have any customers; that prosperity in a capitalist economy is a consequence of a circle of feedback loops between customers and businesses, which means that a thriving middle class isn’t a consequence of prosperity. A thriving middle class is the source of prosperity in capitalist economies, which is why a policy focused on the middle class is and has always been the thing that drives prosperity and growth — not pouring money into rich people, which simply makes rich people richer.

The first question that pops into my mind is – don’t people want to get ‘out’ of the Middle Class?

Perhaps not everybody – the argument here is that some people are content living average-income lives as long as their minimum requirements are met.

For me, personally, I thrive on my ambition to be financially fulfilled as much as spiritually fulfilled…in the mind of a conservative; whose primary focus is money (and not perhaps fulfilling his spirit; expressing himself), this Middle-Out Economics theory would seem nothing short of communism – an attempt to keep individuals where they are at in an economy.

In the eyes of the heroic libertarian, there is always a conspiracy against the individual, his enterprise, his intellectual property, and his ambitions in life to achieve success and fortune.

Perhaps the source of this paranoia is the potential for human beings to desire ‘vanity’ – that is, to desire to be regarded as exceptional beyond standard human capacity to such an extent that freedom and happiness are only awarded to those exclusive human beings.

At the end of the day, in a functional democracy – human necessities are met; but unfortunately, capitalism does not serve these means. Just as communism concentrates wealth at the top preventing individuals from obtaining a level of freedom; so to does fundamentalist capitalism.

So it goes to show that Mr. Hanauer is not far off in his critique of the dogmatic model of capitalist economics. A mixed economy, or a Middle-Out Economy, as he calls it, respects individual ambition, competition, as well as the dignity of human beings by assuring them of healthcare, housing, and a decent wage.

Wages are largely determined by supply and demand with minor interference from public factors; and the assumption in capitalism is the man who strives can create his own wealth. But this assumption is grounded in a human fear: there aren’t enough resources for all of humanity to live ideal lives; some human beings prefer to be slaves to power and economy-control; originality will be compromised.

Why must we rely on money to survive? This system has convinced us that it is the only rational one – that capitalism and supply and demand and the exchange of currency is the natural mode of human affairs; scarcity, that is, is the reason why capitalism is necessary. The USSR told us that the lies and shortcomings of capitalism vindicate the necessity for communism as its replacement.

But why is it always one or the other? Why must we worship concepts? DEMOCRACY. COMMUNISM. CAPITALISM. These are not my gods. These are the gods of the extremists; the fundamentalists; the hypocrites; the power-grabbers; the usurpers of freedom; the IMPERIALISTS.

In the East, they don’t believe in God. In the West; they believe they are God.

Somewhere in the Middle (the Middle East), are those who trust in the Infinite. The Infinite the God which we worship; permitting us to take from concepts like capitalism and communism without becoming hostage to any one of them entirely – allowing for a mixed economy so to speak.

So what does that say about the course of history as taught in the East and West? What does that mean about the twentieth century narratives? How have the East and West successfully torn apart the Middle East? How have they used these extremities to divide individuals all across the world? How have they been able to secure their empire at the expense of a moderate individualist-collectivist hybrid sovereignty?

The enemy is imperialism and its symbols and gods are evident. Its enemy is the golden rule – the straight path – the anomaly – the infinite. Instead of a mixed economy, and a national boundary – these guys want ISMS and expansion.

They succeeded in the Middle East by creating a new version of Islam which can be more appropriately labeled as wahhabism, salafism, etc. and by introducing self-idolatry and paranoia into our societies. The establishment of a zionist state in 1948 only furthered this objective by further implanting a power-house of fundamentalism, religious exclusivity and imperialism in the center of the Middle East, crashing any hopes for sovereignty, independence and prosperity for the Middle Eastern people.

Who are the victims? All the moderate secularists, liberals, and moderate monotheists who are struggling to secure their peace.

How does this translate into our tangible reality? The House of Saud and Israel as well as every other monarchy in the Middle East have allied themselves together with every brand of islamism and zionism and have secured a support system with the West (US, UK & EU) as well as the East (Russia, India & China).

There are two forces at war: imperialism (hubris) and sovereignty (equality). Choose your side.

Advertisements

Israel?


Israel?

Is the two-state solution, like the entirety of the concept of a ‘Modern Israel” – a farce? Demographics, as well as rational science, as well as religion, altogether, show that Palestinians not only outnumber Jews – they are living under apartheid-like conditions; without sovereignty, dignity, and and natural human rights. The tale is that this is the Jews’ home. Even if that is true – why demand the existence of a 5000 year old zionist state? It is not only scientifically bewildering but even theologically inaccurate – according to both ancient Jewish, Islamic and Christian religious texts.

The horrors of the holocaust are now only being repeated in Palestine, which only serves to paint a new picture where the inhumane Nazi extermination plan eventually fulfilled the creation of another fascist state – Israel. The British ensured the creation of Israel, when the Jews could have merely enjoyed living as nationals in other countries, celebrating their religion – I mean, the Nazis were defeated eventually, were they not? You see, unlike the ‘concept’ of Israel, Palestine is a secular country belonging to all religions. Zionism, au contraire, is the new Nazism folks.

[LINK TO FP ARTICLE BELOW]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/02/america_plan_israel_two_state

What is ‘True?’


Ignorance is convincing yourself of what isn’t true. 

Crushing Liberalism in the Middle East: Foreign Intervention, Religious Fanaticism, and Freedom


 

The Middle East is lacking strong, secular, liberal leadership. Everything is extreme. Its either nun or libertine.

Where have all the liberal forces gone?

Let us not forget that they exist, although most religious and fundamentalistic forces would not mind if we did, and that they are currently facing extinction in the Middle East. This is mostly visible in Syria, in what seems to be another attempt by global forces to support unknown and possible extremist entities overthrow a secular dictatorship. It is also visible in Egypt, where Morsi and his supporters continue their Islamic campaign, and in Turkey too.

Since 1979, the country of Iran has been held hostage by the world, forcing it to be an artificial clerical theocratic democracy with no real ability to redistribute wealth due to its isolation.

In fact most of the Middle East is unable to redistribute wealth in the region democratically and in a fashion that protects western-like values such as individualism and natural rights. This is mainly due to the collective forces of religious fundamentalism and ideological fanaticism and their entanglements with foreign schemers.

Liberal forces brought Hafez al-Assad to power in Syria in the latter half of the twentieth century. I would argue that part of this was possible because of a collective Syrian identification with secular and diverse culture.

This culture of Alawites, Christians, and mainly Sunni muslims would become the subject of a rather subversive government for forty years, however, during this reign, the country remained stable, religious fundamentalism was squashed, religious minorities were protected and the economy developed. However these liberal forces were only allowed to go so far, as is usually the case in the Middle East and, arguably, the whole world.

The Middle East, and especially Syria, considering its geopolitical relativity, is in my opinion unable to take full strides towards liberalism as the West has been able to. I attribute this not only to mere differences in culture — namely the conservatism and religious significance of the Middle East — but moreso to the political landscape: on both ends of the world lie two self-interested great powers, the U.S. & China; just neighboring it are what appear to be modern Western satellites, or extensions of power and influence in the region, namely Israel, Saudi, the rest of the Gulf, Iraq (or whatever is left of it that is still under Western influence), and Turkey.

All these countries have one thing in common: very powerful religious forces which, if played right, can fall right into the traps of Western governments who easily use them to coordinate colonial plots.

How the hell are social liberal forces and economically liberal forces — which are not mutually exclusive in my opinion — going to exist in the Middle East — how is true happiness, freedom and social justice — these liberal values — going to prevail in a part of the world dominated by religious extremism and a constant foreign agitator?

How can democracy, individualism and the pursuit of happiness be implemented in a Middle East rampant with such ideological mayhem and economic disparity?

One begins to think that certain forces in the West, mainly corporations like oil companies, and the military industrial complex, are together working to influence their own democratic governments, like ours in America, to vote in favor or blindly support foreign initiatives such as invasions or supplying armed militants/terrorists.

There are individuals in this world who don’t care. They cooperate in order to reap the benefits of global wealth, such as oil and gas. Their enemy? Freedom.

So why have the liberal forces of the Arab world been crushed? It is because of foreign intervention and their little pawns. Foreigners will have the world believe otherwise, but of course, only those who wish to be their slaves.

Imagine


Imagine a world where you can be free and do whatever you want to do, and you be as happy as possible. How would that world be different from the real world?