The Extractive Nature of the Liberal society

[Hugh Johnson]

"rent-seeking and extraction are fundamental characteristics of a Liberal society, which is precisely about reducing (and complexifying) all aspects of life into a series of rules and regulations that require specialist educated groups to interpret and argue about them."

The Rise of Extractive Politics

It's about having small expectations.

aurelien2022.substack.com

I want to hear opinions on this. It seems true, and explains a lot about why all the "experts", usually full of nonsense, manage to command such high wages for essentially nothing.

 

[BRMarshall]

Yes, everything is being reduced to time/area commodification schemes...everything is a hustle

One of the major factors for this, relative to basic living economics, is that money has been put before wealth, starting with raw materials, particularly food wealth, which is purposefully sold at a loss to the farming sector, which then is provided with subsidies to keep the scam afloat.

The scam is that with loss in revenues from production of wealth in the raw material production sector of the economy, the loss of revenues is made up by borrowing at interest....to which individuals and nations then are beholden to credit ratings, etc...that establishes pecking orders and all of the artificialities associated with consumer society.

Of course rents are a form of primitive accumulation, they are part of a franchising of society, where the rented space is a franchise.

It is the rentier class which runs the legal system under Equity Law, and there we have pure schizophrenia at work, of all sorts of lies that ultimately serve the banks that are the greater custodians of the rentier economy with mortgaging etc....

The evil of the system is that is colonialistic and requires wars to keep power games afloat as we are seeing relative to the behavior of the west and its wars.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Yes, everything is being reduced to time/area commodification schemes...everything is a hustle

One of the major factors for this, relative to basic living economics, is that money has been put before wealth, starting with raw materials, particularly food wealth, which is purposefully sold at a loss to the farming sector, which then is provided with subsidies to keep the scam afloat.

The scam is that with loss in revenues from production of wealth in the raw material production sector of the economy, the loss of revenues is made up by borrowing at interest....to which individuals and nations then are beholden to credit ratings, etc...that establishes pecking orders and all of the artificialities associated with consumer society.

Of course rents are a form of primitive accumulation, they are part of a franchising of society, where the rented space is a franchise.

It is the rentier class which runs the legal system under Equity Law, and there we have pure schizophrenia at work, of all sorts of lies that ultimately serve the banks that are the greater custodians of the rentier economy with mortgaging etc....

The evil of the system is that is colonialistic and requires wars to keep power games afloat as we are seeing relative to the behavior of the west and its wars.

Funny, I was just reading something else by Aurelian (Will The West Eat Itself?) and he mentioned how some have argued the Western culture is schizophrenic:

That reminds us, perhaps, that the left-brain/rational approach is inherently suspicious, even paranoid, because it cannot make the leap to see the big picture. Thus, organisations these days spy on their workforces and desperately try to enforce ever more stringent rules. But it’s actually been argued by writers such as Lous Sass that modern culture is in effect close to schizophrenia—not in the popular sense of a split personality, but rather the inability to integrate things and events and understand their relationship, and a suspicious and hostile relationship with life and with others.

 

[akgrrrl]

"rent-seeking and extraction are fundamental characteristics of a Liberal society, which is precisely about reducing (and complexifying) all aspects of life into a series of rules and regulations that require specialist educated groups to interpret and argue about them."

The Rise of Extractive Politics

It's about having small expectations.

aurelien2022.substack.com

I want to hear opinions on this. It seems true, and explains a lot about why all the "experts", usually full of nonsense, manage to command such high wages for essentially nothing.

Thomas Sowell wrote a book on this 30 years ago trying to sound the alarm. I regret I cannot link, but recently watched a rare interview with Sowell and Mark Levin as he recapitulates exactly this. We were warned, but the "spectator" programming overrides...

 

[Nick]

Ivan Illich is one of the deepest thinkers I have read on this subject. For example, the books "Disabling Professions" and "Rivers North of the Future" as well as the classic "Medical Nemesis." The overlap with Thomas Sowell is funny since people would tend to categorize Sowell as conservative and Illich as radical left, although Illich said something along the lines of that he was actually so conservative that people think he's radical.

Illich wanted to preserve what he called vernacular and subsistence ways of life from destruction at the hands of modern "development" "professionalization", beurocratization, and systemitized "virtue" that are packaged together as progess, the religious idol of liberal progressivism.

 

[David G]

I have a theory on why so many people who seem smart, accomplished, witty, etc. can be so stupid about a lot of things. From a basic cognitive psychology standpoint, I believe there are fundamentally 2 types of people, first the more common who are more oriented toward language, communication, the conscious mind, and like to talk about people; and second, those who have more of a broad, spiritual, holistic outlook, who prefer more to experience life, through all the senses. (I'm definitely the latter type. Many people wouldn't know this because I am often a great conversationalist, but I'm not a true conversationalist or extrovert in the sense of someone to whom talking is a primary interest and strength.) It could be called the age-old battle of the atmospheric thinkers vs. the conversationalists. The conversationalists are everywhere, and their cognitive psychological makeup is all about verbal communication (and written communication when it mimics verbal communication), which is the main thing that makes them emotionally fulfilled. They are so wrapped up in this modality that they are not really aware that some other modality of thought and being might be equally valid. They then create around them a topological hierarchy of individual connections and can find it overwhelming to act outside of it. This is the basis of herd mentality, that then allows society as a whole to be easily manipulated into irrational, insane behavior, with little interest in truth or real progress.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

I have a theory on why so many people who seem smart, accomplished, witty, etc. can be so stupid about a lot of things. From a basic cognitive psychology standpoint, I believe there are fundamentally 2 types of people, first the more common who are more oriented toward language, communication, the conscious mind, and like to talk about people; and second, those who have more of a broad, spiritual, holistic outlook, who prefer more to experience life, through all the senses. (I'm definitely the latter type. Many people wouldn't know this because I am often a great conversationalist, but I'm not a true conversationalist or extrovert in the sense of someone to whom talking is a primary interest and strength.) It could be called the age-old battle of the atmospheric thinkers vs. the conversationalists. The conversationalists are everywhere, and their cognitive psychological makeup is all about verbal communication (and written communication when it mimics verbal communication), which is the main thing that makes them emotionally fulfilled. They are so wrapped up in this modality that they are not really aware that some other modality of thought and being might be equally valid. They then create around them a topological hierarchy of individual connections and can find it overwhelming to act outside of it. This is the basis of herd mentality, that then allows society as a whole to be easily manipulated into irrational, insane behavior, with little interest in truth or real progress.

I've been on an Aurelian binge, and this might interest you:

The second is Iain McGilchrist, psychiatrist and philosopher, best known for his weighty tome The Master and his Emissary, and author of a still more weighty sequel, which I have to confess I have not yet read. The subtitle is “the divided brain and the making of the western world” and McGilchrist traces in fascinating detail the steady ascent of the left-brain to dominance over the right. He is at pains not to over-simplify the argument, using the latest discoveries in psychology about the relationship between the hemispheres. But his basic argument is that, nonetheless, the left hemisphere, which developed as the “emissary” of the right has come to usurp its role in recent times. The right brain sees the big picture and the left brain does the detailed work. Through much of human history, McGilchrist argues, there has been a fruitful cooperation mixed with tension between the two hemispheres, but since the Industrial Revolution, and more particularly in the last century or so, the left hemisphere has come to dominate. The result is fragmentation: all detail and no vision, all process and procedure but no context, all rules but no purpose. However, McGilchrist remains optimistic that some fruitful combination can be found again.

It’s obvious that the two authors were thinking along similar lines (though McGilchrist doesn’t give any indication of knowing of Gebser’s book.) Both identify the problems of over-reliance on rationality devoid of context, and both believe something has gone badly wrong with the way we look at the world.

Will The West Eat Itself?

Yes. It's derivatives all the way down.

aurelien2022.substack.com

 

[ThinPicking]

"rent-seeking and extraction are fundamental characteristics of a Liberal society, which is precisely about reducing (and complexifying) all aspects of life into a series of rules and regulations that require specialist educated groups to interpret and argue about them."

Absolute nonsense, the author isn't referring to liberalism, they're referring to corporatism. I can't even give them enough credit to call this linguistic butchering deliberately deceptive. The "west" isn't "liberal" in a socioeconomic or political sense. It's almost entirely cultural and at this point consumed by the "progressive" (says who) end if it. The "progressive"/"collectivist" type with a brain cell or two might try to paper over this iteration of fascism by calling it "liberal" or "social" corporatism", but they'll be understanding their own bull**** as they do.

The powers that be are very adept at reattributing language. So if we are to reject the idea a society should be based on rights of the individual (living, breathing ones, not legal fictions, corporate or otherwise), liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law, letting it run to one end and denying the other might be a good way to go about it. If you reject the idea yourself Mr Johnson, you may wish to tell us exactly what you're advocating for.

The only fault of liberalism I can see is the abject failure of its purists to see and more importantly call out the enemy at the gates. Swiftly removing its head and throwing it back to in to the sea.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Absolute nonsense, the author isn't referring to liberalism, they're referring to corporatism. I can't even give them enough credit to call this linguistic butchering deliberately deceptive. The "west" isn't "liberal" in a socioeconomic or political sense. It's almost entirely cultural and at this point consumed by the "progressive" (says who) end if it. The "progressive"/"collectivist" type with a brain cell or two might try to paper over this iteration of fascism by calling it "liberal" or "social" corporatism", but they'll be understanding their own bull**** as they do.

The powers that be are very adept at reattributing language. So if we are to reject the idea a society should be based on rights of the individual (living, breathing ones, not legal fictions, corporate or otherwise), liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law, letting it run to one end and denying the other might be a good way to go about it. If you reject the idea yourself Mr Johnson, you may wish to tell us exactly what you're advocating for.

The only fault of liberalism I can see is the abject failure of its purists to see and more importantly call out the enemy at the gates. Swiftly removing its head and throwing it back to in to the sea.

Corporatism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Would you explain the terms you use. You clearly do not use commonly accepted definitions for words such as "corporatism" or "liberal".

 

[ThinPicking]

Would you explain the terms you use. You clearly do not use commonly accepted definitions for words such as "corporatism" or "liberal".

I use definitions, codified definitions Mr Johnson. "commonly accepted" says who.

You can make up a new word to describe the liberal society you'd be happy living in if you like. Alternatively, you can reveal yourself.

 

[David G]

Extractive business models have little to do with "liberal" anything. Liberal is an overloaded term that shouldn't be used so carelessly. Extraction is a business model, which works fine in some cases (eg. oil, gas, energy), but is short-sighted and stupid in other cases where innovation and long-term value creation would result in more optimal outcomes on the whole. Tech corporations for example will create some new product that is innovative but then after it starts making money, rather than continue to innovate they start looking at how to manipulate markets, lock customers in, restrict competition, and set up cartels or monopolies. And corporations like defense contractors or big pharma are 100x worse.

Similarly, the act of renting is not in itself bad if it provides value and is done in a free market. But the article is correct that all the layers of complexity and bureaucracy created by governments is indeed rent-seeking that makes it more expensive and difficult to do anything, prevents competition, and makes markets much less free. This is largely a result of globalist Billionaires and Trillionaires funding every jackass politician they can find, with the result that most countries and states are now run by WEF-annoited shills whose end goal is nothing less than an all-powerful unaccountable globalist technocracy.

Corporatism has a simple definition, it is corruption of the state by corporate interests, resulting in cartels, corruption of all kinds, the loss of the free market, and eventually fascism. It doesn't care about left or right - only about power. Though it is easier to mask bad intentions under the label of "progressiveness". The scamdemic was the perfect example, of a scheme planned years in advance by the globalists and big pharma, who owns or control the majority of media and politicians and who were then able to lock down half the planet and force BS "vaccines" on the population who had no choice or would lose their job or not be able to go to school. They are continuing to work very hard to set up a medical security police state where you'll need a digital passport to be allowed to do anything. Unfortunately 90% of people are too stupid to see through the BS and love big government and all the "safety" it promises to provide.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

In The Lion and the Unicorn Orwell suggested that a truly Socialist government, which he hoped to live to see in England, would abolish the House of Lords but keep the Monarchy. He was aware of the enormous symbolic importance and historical resonance of the office, and hoped it could be detached from the class system he so despised. Which brings us to the obligatory reference, I suppose, to the Coronation of Charles III, and the spitting, jeering, sneering attitude of much of the Liberal media and intelligentsia towards it, as well as their astonishment that so many people came out in the rain to watch. But in may ways this political contempt was just an unacknowledged way of laughing at ordinary people and calling them stupid, as Liberals have been doing since about the time of John Locke. Liberalism is fundamentally solipsistic after all: everything is about Me, My Rights, My Privileges, and all reality is essentially a projection of my own ego. The wish to identify with other people in a wider community, and to collectively identify with something beyond your own ego is impossible for Liberals to understand, because it requires the Hungry Ghost which is at the origin of Liberalism to shut up for a bit.

The Coronation (and I speak as a lifelong republican) was a giant act of collective resistance to Liberal ideology, and I think largely perceived as such, which is why the Liberal elite became so hysterical. For entire hours and days, nobody was trying to sell you anything. There was no sponsorship, no advertising, you couldn’t buy a place next to the King, no matter how much money you had. Ordinary people could watch without paying, and get closer to the King than the vast majority of them could ever hope get to some media personality, or even many elected Presidents.

We Are All Civilisational States

It's just that some people don't realise it.

aurelien2022.substack.com

 

[ThinPicking]

"Thus far, the argument has been that the technical forms of government adopted in the twentieth century in the West, and perfected over the last generation, or so, are the only correct and inevitable ones, and that all nations will find their way to such forms sooner or later."

"Such political systems are in practice governed by oligarchic elites, albeit that the formal configuration may look slightly different in each case. So is this the political system the ideal one and is a state or a political party which doubts its universal validity automatically wrong?"

"Liberalism has always tended towards a kind of blank, managerial efficiency, bereft of any of the characteristics that make us human. It regards beliefs, loyalties, friendship, and social bonds of any kind as at best inefficient, preventing the smooth functioning of the market economy, and at worst as symbols of darkness and superstition, to be driven away by the pure light of reason."

This person is such a moron they're actually quite funny. Thank you Mr Johnson.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

"Thus far, the argument has been that the technical forms of government adopted in the twentieth century in the West, and perfected over the last generation, or so, are the only correct and inevitable ones, and that all nations will find their way to such forms sooner or later."

"Such political systems are in practice governed by oligarchic elites, albeit that the formal configuration may look slightly different in each case. So is this the political system the ideal one and is a state or a political party which doubts its universal validity automatically wrong?"

"Liberalism has always tended towards a kind of blank, managerial efficiency, bereft of any of the characteristics that make us human. It regards beliefs, loyalties, friendship, and social bonds of any kind as at best inefficient, preventing the smooth functioning of the market economy, and at worst as symbols of darkness and superstition, to be driven away by the pure light of reason."

This person is such a moron they're actually quite funny. Thank you Mr Johnson.

Thank you for providing us a perfect example of liberal "arguments".