The solution to Untieing the Gordian knot is a task which at times can seem so near and yet so far but when the cue ball kisses behind the black and your opponent grins and says get out of that, this
is a rather different situation to the one that is faced by entrepreneurs today.
Turn him to any cause of policy,The Gordian Knot of it he will unloose,Familiar as his garter
— Shakespeare, Henry V, Act 1 Scene 1. 45–47
The intractable problem faced by entrepreneurs or merchants in today’s economy is that there is not a defined set of rules, the rules of snooker by which he started the game are not the rules that apply to his world champion
opponent. There is a different set of rules and they are the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)rules which achieved some notoriety back in 2015-2016.
Every snooker match effectively has two referees playing to a different set of rules, holding the opposing players to a different set of standards.
The Trans-National Corporations have ISDS snooker and the Independent entrepreneur Trader has the set of rules dangling from the scoreboard, the rules of the local jurisdiction.
How far does this analogy stretch? In some ways, it doesn’t really even get off the ground because in essence, the ISDS system is a system of making laws on an ad hoc basis, otherwise known as making it up as you go along.
Meanwhile, interested spectators watching at home, “For viewers reading this in Black and white, the cue ball is now nestled behind the Pink”, or catching up in the sports pages the next day how do the Hacks of the fourth estate go about
recounting the drubbing handed out to the great snooker hope of Main street at the hands of Wall Street?
For this, we need to play. ” Which species of Inversion is this?”, Simple or Explanatory?
“Thus, the major output of the modern international Mass Media consists of only four categories:
1. Good presented as bad
2. Bad presented as Good
(That is to say simple inversion)
3. Good presented as Good for a bad reason
4. Bad presented as bad for a bad reason
(That is to say explanatory inversion)
These four categories, which can be summarized as either simple or explanatory inversion, account for all sustained and high impact modern major Mass Media stories without any exceptions.”
Addicted to Distraction: Psychological consequences of the Mass MediaA complete online book by Bruce G Charlto
FreeTrade Vs Free Markets. The Camera Obscura of the Elite Propaganda discombobulation.
A Camera Obscura was a device used by 17th-century artists to paint according to the new single-point perspective discovery. A grid was superimposed over an inverted image captured by a Lens, the artist would use their own eyes and skill to do what was later replaced by a Photographic plate. The artist would of course turn the image the right way up, not so with the modern media narrative and ELitist narratives since time immemorial, as evidenced by the story of Plato’s cave, Modern images of “Truth” do not turn images the right way up indeed, as Bruce Charlton says in addicted to distraction, the images are left either the wrong way up or described as the opposite of what is being represented.
Free Trade as a category has been through the Camera Obscura it is not free trade at all. What is refers to is Open Markets to unfettered exploitation my Transnational Monopoly Corporate interests, Like NAFTA, international Free Trade impoverishes the people who live in the Franchise areas we once called nations.
The driving motivation behind the accelerated rush to a Techno Fascist Feudalism has been occupying my mind for the years leading up to the Repo Spike in New York in September 2019.
In the Financialised economy and with the CBDC push tied to DIgital Id’s, we see a symptom of the appearance of what the system is trying to preserve, namely itself and its Monopoly ingroup. The real Economy is put in the position of trying to make bricks without straw, a misallocation of resources, and the Credit tokens to acquire those resources.
The Dominant Resource tieing the Financial system’s potential to the potentials of the real economy is the Flow of Energy and Primary resources through the economy. It would seem that a Hard limit on available energy to sustain the present industrial output of the global economy has been hit ( this is merely a temproary situation if production potential is expanded with proper investment), what seems inexplicable is the Priorities touted in narratives regarding Why our largest Energy Sources the Hydro Carbons, Gas, Oil and Coal, and the largest potential replacement for them Nuclear are being demonised? It is more properly described as being stood down, why? Climate Change, The Climate Crisis, The Plague of Humans. (1)
“The purpose of the 4th Industrial revolution is to stymie the development of energy resources and to control Population and growth and instigate rapid population decline”
.
If Energy production from Hydro Carbons has Peaked and is also potentially going to decline going forward then production of other Energy will be required if prosperity is to be within reach of the whole of the human population.
This is a Distribution problem and one which the existing debt-based money system is failing to address, even assuming it would be capable of addressing the challenges.
The monetary system and Governance systems are not a product of natural biophysical laws, Political Economy and Democratic processes are the correct fora in which the alternatives should be addressed.
The Sortition process and psychological nudge manipulations being shoehorned into place along with a far-fetched mendacious narrative do not guarantee an optimal outcome. Regulatory Capture and a general dumbing down induced by Group think and obedience to “The Science”
The problems in Political Economy as it stands presently and the question of future Political Economy based upon future Energy realities are I think helpfully separated which is something Prof. David MacKay is very successful with, in his presentation of the question.
The Problems are only weakly related with respect to future solutions and breaking the process into 3 parts is useful rather than lumping them all together. It is clear that the existing Form of Market economy and political economy is not able to solve the problem at stage 3 ( I.E Post 2050 post-Oil Economy)
Stage 1 requires a reform of the existing paradigm which involves facing up to the broken debt-based money system. Pension provision, the sovereign debt crisis and Public debt crisis are all addressable and will see improvements even within the deteriorating Cost of energy inputs as a share of output. We could call this stage let’s fix what we know is not working.
Stage 2 covers the Post Financialised ( Big Bang Experiment) period to the oil running out in 2050.
This requires a much more long-term investment horizon and complicating the energy mix by overstating the ”Climate Change question** seems to be counterproductive, again I like the way Prof David Mackay dealt with the question including stating the necessities of **Clean Coal and Nuclear”. In this stage, we will be implementing ideas previously barred due to the denial inherent in clinging to a failing system.
Stage 3 Post 2050, This part is much easier than Stage 2 and stage 1, in my opinion, the myth-busting and leveling out inherent in solving the political problems at stage 1 and the challenge to vested interests in stage 2 are by far and away the largest obstacles to getting down to Brass tacks in my opinion.
The Control of Oil. The Energy/Exchange Cartel. (Who Shot JR?)
” in the long run the antitrust approach offers greater protection to the public
interest than any conceivable form of regulation. In mutual dislike
rather than in mutual understanding there is strength. Moreover, by
making an industry’s behavior depend on the judgment and actions of
many buyers and sellers, the competitive approach minimizes the harm
that can be done by any small group of individuals, thereby making
influence and corruption more cumbersome, expensive, and of most
importance, ineffective. “
In Writing this short blog I do not accept many of the starting assumptions which used to inform my earlier world view. I doubt for instance that oil is not a renewable resource It more or less goes without saying that I am at the very least skeptical about even the greatest certitudes of the current age. In many of the matters in which I have a level of expertise and training I know that the main tropes pedalled to folk outside of my own particular field are nonsense and those who claim expertise and training in those fields believe much of the nonsense they spout quite sincerely.
As Richard werner says in his latest appearance on The Renegade Economist, in answer to the question What should one do?
introduced
it’s
time to speak up
====================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Climate_science_is_a_%22Zombie_science%22
Dr. Bruce G. Charlton recently (2012) wrote an informed and polemical book entitled “Not even trying… The Corruption of real science”. [1] In this book, Dr. Charlton defines what he calls “Zombie science”.
I submit that Dr. Charlton’s definition of a “Zombie science” eminently applies to today’s climate science. I predict that today’s climate science enterprise will, in some future, be universally adopted as a textbook example of Zombie science by historians of science, who will emerge in a next generation of honest academics.
Here is the definition of Zombie science given in the on-line version of Dr. Charlton’s book: [2]
When a branch of science based on incoherent, false or phoney theories is serving a useful but non-scientific purpose it may be kept-going by continuous transfusions of cash from those whose non-scientific interests it serves.
For example, if a branch of pseudo-science based on a phoney theory is nonetheless valuable for political purposes (e.g. to justify a government intervention such as a new tax) or for marketing purposes (to provide the rationale for a marketing campaign) then real science expires and a ‘zombie science’ evolves.
Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down. It keeps twitching and lumbering around so that (from a distance, and with your eyes half-closed) zombie science looks much like real science.
But in fact the zombie has no life of its own; it is animated and moved only by the incessant pumping of funds.
Real science is coherent – and testable (testing being a matter of checking coherence with the result of past and future observations).
Real science finds its use, and gets its validation, from common sense evaluation and being deployed in technology.
Real science is validated (contingently) insofar as it leads to precise predictions that later come true; and leads to new ways of solving pressing problems and making useful changes in the world.
But zombie science is not coherent, therefore cannot be tested; its predications are vague or in fact retrospective summaries rather than predictions.
In a nutshell, zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda; trading on the prestige which real science used-to have and which zombie science falsely claims for itself.
Zombie science is deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally. It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses rhetorical attempts to shape opinion.
Furthermore, most zombie sciences are supported by moral imperatives – to doubt the zombie science is therefore labelled as wicked, reckless, a tool of sinister and destructive forces.
To challenge zombie science is not merely to attack the livelihoods of zombie scientists (which, considering their consensus-based power, is itself dangerous) – but opens the attacker to being labelled a luddite, demagogue, anti-science, a denialist!
For all its incoherence and scientific worthlessness, zombie science therefore often comes across in the sound bite world of the mass media as being more plausible than real science; and it is precisely the superficial face-plausibility which in actuality is the sole and sufficient purpose of zombie science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._William_Engdahl
this hit job in wikipedia on William Engdahl basically could be titled
the current times in a nutshell.
5 thoughts on “Snookered, A dead end , Mirror written to Camera Obscura .Which species of Inversion is this.”