Liberal Socialism & What is to be done, Part 2

The concept of the Big Lie; Psychology, Economics, & a little Game Theory

Evie’s note: some of Katrina’s subscribers have objected to the overuse of the pronoun ‘you’ in some of these diatribes. On the one paw, this is Katrina’s somewhat abrasive style (it must be said - she’s a Sagittarius, if that explains it), on the other paw, she really doesn’t mean to include those of you for whom all this stuff is self-evident. That’s to say, those of you who don’t need to be told. So – please do not think she is including you in this generalised ‘you’, and please don’t feel insulted or accused there. Perhaps think of ‘you’ in your mind as ‘most people’. Or the generalised ‘one’ even.

Anyway – here’s her part 2, in which she apparently – but not really – digresses into a bit of psychology and economics. But it’s all very important background in the end. So pay attention, class. Pay attention.

Oh, and for Part 1, click there.

---

Welcome to the LSE

So now let’s bring in this psychology and economics aspect. Like I said, it’s important to the parasite ruling class that you do not understand these two subjects. If this sounds like a conspiracy theory then good. Except it’s not a ‘theory’, it’s a historical fact. Of course it applies to a myriad other subjects, as varied as history and physics, but for our present study, psychology and economics are the key ones.

If you wanted to – ironically – identify a culprit (or scapegoat, even) for the suppression of general understanding of psychology, then the most obvious is Sigmund Freud. I use the word ‘ironic’ here, because Freud is the one who embedded the biggest lie of all into psychology and thus established that lie as the ultimate scapegoat. I am talking about ‘the unconscious’. Here’s the truth – there is no unconscious! You probably find that shocking, right? Well that’s my point. That’s how they get away with the big lie. ‘Everyone’ assumes the unconscious exists because ‘well, everyone just says so don’t they?’. It’s become some generalised cultural assumption so one doesn’t even think to question it.

This stems from the textbook statement ‘Freud’s discovery of the unconscious’. You may not have noticed the subtle deception in that choice of word. Because if you use the word ‘discovery’ then the implication is that there was something to be discovered. It’s like, say ‘America’, in the sentence ‘Columbus’ discovery of America’. Like, of course America exists. It’s a physical object. So when you hear ‘the discovery of the unconscious’, you read the meaning of the word ‘discovery’ in exactly the same way as the Columbus statement. And so the implied assumption is ‘the unconscious exists’, and only an idiot would deny it, as if it’s somehow already been established. Well, it doesn’t exist. So I am sorry to have to tell you this now, but you are no longer able to shift the blame onto some hidden scapegoat.

No, Freud did not ‘discover’ the unconscious. He invented it.

And a whole load of other rubbish besides. Like ‘the ego’ and ‘the id’ and all the rest of that twaddle. Although I should say – in quite an irony, considering it’s coming from me – that it is possible to have an ‘unconscious’, but only if you have a dissociative condition, like I do. A lot of psychologists in my world today do concur with a diagnosis of Freud having a dissociative condition, caused by serious childhood abuse at the hands of his father. But what Freud did, during the time it was repressed from his conscious awareness, was project that diagnosis onto others. He normalised it, in other words. Normalised his own disease. Countless millions have suffered as a result.

And I do have to add, despite otherwise being something of a fan of Carl Jung, that the same reasoning applies to the so-called ‘shadow’. Normal human beings don’t have a shadow. Why would they? In what possible way could such a thing be of any evolutionary benefit?!

Here’s the thing about ‘psychology’ and ‘psychiatry’ – it studies humans in an unnatural, sick environment and deigns to proclaim it has understood human nature. It ignores the environment. No, it’s not normal. Perhaps, then, if ‘normal people’ today really do have shadows and unconscious and suchlike, then perhaps that is a measure of the abusive nature of this unnatural, modern society, characterised as it is by the monotheistic ideology, amongst other soul-destroying methods. Perhaps in that environment, a fragmented, dissociated psyche is, as it happens, a survival adaptation? Perhaps it is the modern world which created ‘the unconscious’, and the ‘shadow’ and all that.

A fragmented psyche is not normal for a human being. That fragmentation only happens in dissociative conditions. I may have an unconscious, in the sense you think of it as an active ‘other’, but you don’t. Count yourself lucky in that respect perhaps, because it means you’re not conflicted. On the other paw, it means you need to take responsibility for your own choices.

One of the great, consequent lies espoused by psychology, until Liberal Socialism came along (but is still prevalent in your world of course) is the extremely abusive way in which psychiatry blames the individual. Short of having some kind of brain damage, or chemical imbalance, normal human beings do not have mental illnesses. All mental illnesses are caused by some external influence. Usually of an interpersonal – or social – nature. Hence we get the axiom ‘it is not healthy to be well-adjusted to a sick society’. Freud espoused the Victorian idea which refused to acknowledge the sickness of the society, let alone its detrimental effects on a normal human being.

Or, naturally, the influence of a bad government.

Ask an intelligent woman forced to live in a patriarchal, Victorian society – ironically the kind of ‘patients’ Freud saw, and dismissed as ‘hysterical’, or ‘in love with their father’ – and if you allow her to be honest, then she will explain it to you.

---

What’s this got to do with Liberal Socialism, you ask. Everything, really. Because Liberal Socialism, unlike every other political party, does not lie. And it cares. It seeks to create a healthy society, based on providing everyone with the chance to fulfil their entire spectrum of needs (or ‘hierarchy of needs’, if you want to follow Maslow). It immediately embarks on a profound reordering of the education system to – literally – lead out the people. Think about Plato’s allegory of the Cave for further illustration.

This accounting for the spectrum of needs is an excellent way to grasp the meaning of Liberal Socialism. The fulfilment of the ‘basic’ needs (food, warmth, shelter, physical survival etc.) is publicly owned and for most things free at the point of use. That’s the ‘socialist’ aspect. The remaining needs (private, interpersonal, feeling valued by your community (a social role, that is), culture, spirituality, self-actualisation etc.) are not interfered with by the state. So that would be the ‘liberal’ aspect. Remember too, that with regards to economics, every single one of these human needs can be ‘monetised’ in some way – because a ‘need’ is a ‘demand’ (in economic terms), and thus open to ‘being supplied’ – economics, at its simplest level, is about human beings agreeing/negotiating a ‘price’ for ‘supplying the fulfilment of a need’. The higher needs, then, are ‘open to the free market’. Versus ‘base needs’, which have a fixed, regulated price.

An individual’s ‘role’ in a social group is to provide for at least one of those universal human needs. In modern parlance, we would call that a ‘job’. And given that all these needs can indeed be ‘monetised’, then that’s the basis for your ‘economy’. I’ll talk in more detail about Liberal Socialist economics later, but for now, I’m just implanting that general principle in your head.

---

So, economics works in the same way as psychology. Especially with regards to the scapegoating policy. Notice how the people in power, along with their ‘economists’ are constantly shifting blame to some ‘impersonal law of economics’. A concept like ‘inflation’, for example. Or ‘recession’. By repeated use of these words, you are left with the underlying assumption that there really are indeed ‘impersonal laws of economics’ – i.e. beyond human control. Same with the ‘supply and demand’ as it relates to ‘price’. If they can convince you that these laws exist, and most importantly, independently of human agency, then you will continue to be deceived by whatever scapegoat excuse they give you for why you can’t have prosperity and security and the hope of fulfilling your aspirations.

No, there are no ‘impersonal laws’ of economics. Remember, I am the richest girl in my homeworld (well, unless my other incarnation there has given all my money away by now), so trust me when I tell you I know what I’m talking about.

Here’s an example, about ‘inflation’. The real truth is this. ‘Prices don’t put themselves up. People put prices up.’ See? And what is ‘price’ anyway? It’s just a number, isn’t it? The fact that it’s a different number in different currencies should prove to you how arbitrary that number is. Ultimately, it is not based on ‘supply versus demand’ – this is the big lie. It is actually – or should be, in a healthy economy – based on ‘costs of production’ – and for private enterprise ‘plus reasonable profit margin’. This is what’s known in the jargon as ‘the bottom line’ for a company.

Again, I’ll give you a deep dive into Lizzy economics later.

So what all this really comes down to then, is money. This is what I found so profoundly shocking when I learned more about your world. None of you understand money! Thus, when your politicians say stupid stuff like ‘there’s no money left’ or ‘there’s no magic money tree’ or ‘we have to make cuts to public spending’ or ‘we have to raise taxes’ – and a whole range of variations on that deceitful theme – they are making those excuses in the full knowledge that you don’t understand money.

Because if you did, you wouldn’t believe a damn word of anything they, or their collaborationist economists, ever tell you.

So, now we get to the fundamental economic pillar of Liberal Socialism. If there is one policy you need to understand the most – and, ironically, the one policy that ruling social group fear the most – it is this very simple one. Public ownership of the money supply. That’s to say, the national bank.

What is shocking for me is how people can’t seem to grasp how giving control of the country’s money supply/creation into the hands of private sociopaths is the most monumentally stupid thing you could possibly ever do for an economic policy. If you are a benevolently minded person, that is. Obviously, as we have established, the ruling social group are not benevolent (to you – to themselves, yes, they are) – so for their purposes, private ownership of the money supply and banking system is a great thing. Just not for you.

Think about it this way – if you, let’s say you are indeed a ‘benevolent government’, for argument’s sake, want to have some more money for public spending or investment (in the infrastructure, for example), then in your current system that government has to go cap in hand to Mr Rothschild and ask him for a loan! ‘Please Mr Rothschild, can I have some more?’ You what?! But surely it’s your own fucking country and your own fucking currency, isn’t it?!! Why don’t you just take control of your ‘Bank of England’ or your ‘Federal Reserve’ and print the fucking money yourselves!

Of course they have worked out, especially after your ‘quantitative easing’ rubbish, that more of you today do realise you can create money out of nothing – with something called a ‘printing press’ (or typing in a number in a bank’s computer, is a more modern version). So they have to cover for that one with their second big lie of economics, which is ‘increased demand equals increased inflation’. Increased demand occurring if more people have more money to spend.

And people just lap up that shit.

Remember, the ultimate ‘price’ of something is based on the ‘costs of production’. It doesn’t matter how many people want to buy it. It still costs the same to produce. Prices don’t put themselves up simply because more people want something. A cow doesn’t change the amount of grass it needs to eat to produce a pint of milk just because more people want some milk, does it? Yes, there is a standup routine in there, but I’ll spare you that for now.

This lie is fundamental to them in order to maintain their musical chairs version of economics. Which is designed not as some healthy, functioning economic system, but as a system of social control. Achieved through control over the supply of resources (which includes money) and restriction of the availability of those resources.

The musical chairs analogy is crucial for understanding economics, by the way. Think about the cost of production of a chair. It doesn’t change, does it, depending on how many players there are or how many chairs there are. It’s still the same amount of wood and the same labour time and energy of a carpenter. The perceived value of a chair, however, does change. Take ten players and ten chairs and the perceived value is precisely one. Add another ten players, but no more chairs, and the perceived value is now two. Take ten chairs and five players and the perceived value is now a half, but everyone now has a choice. This is how the ‘supply/demand versus price’ graph is constructed. You can immediately understand, now, what a big lie it really is. In order to maintain social control, the cabal arbitrarily decide to match price to perceived value. And given they own the chair-manufacturing company, they can artificially restrict the availability of chairs so it’s always fewer than there are people. I’m sure you can understand the effect on social behaviour in such a global game of musical chairs?

And notice how well-behaved children are when they play that game?

See, in a real business, if you perceive increased demand in the economy, because more people can afford what you are selling, then the worst thing you could do is increase the price. It not only makes you look like a sociopathic parasite (and reputation counts for a lot in business, believe me), but stupidly allows your competitors to be suddenly undercutting you. So everyone takes their custom away from you and to your rivals. So you go bankrupt. Obviously if you have a monopoly (like neoliberal oligarchs in your world), it’s a different matter.

The better business strategy, however, is to simply increase supply to meet that new demand. You sell more stuff and make more money. You can even lower the price a little – to compete with your rivals and make yourself look good – and you still make more money. Selling ten chairs at one pound to ten people equals ten pounds. Selling twenty chairs at 80 pence to twenty people equals 1.60 – so that’s 60% increase in profit. See?

Your competitors will have to take note of that, and most likely copy you. So it benefits the consumer. Lowering the price also means even more people can afford it. Maybe I can now sell thirty chairs at 80 pence, meaning 2.40. Maybe that means I can lower it even more (and definitely improve everything for my employees, thus reducing alienation and increasing productivity). And so on. Once you and your competitors reach the ‘equilibrium’ level, which is ‘costs of production plus lowest possible profit margin’ (‘the bottom line’), that’s where competition necessitates quality increases, innovation, expansion of product range, and so on. Equally benefitting the consumer.

Notice also how this expresses common sense psychology – also known as ‘enlightened self-interest’. Doesn’t matter if it isn’t altruistic, reducing that price (although it is nice if the businessman also feels a shot of warmth about pleasing his customers, other human beings, that is). This idea also expresses one of the fundamental psychological principles in Game Theory, namely that a player will always act, based on the information available to him, to maximise his own outcome. This is somewhat obvious when you consider the converse, in which one doesn’t act in one’s own interests, or knowingly makes a second-best move. My own personal favourite aspect of game theory is the Nash Equilibrium, which essentially states that the more information each player gives to the other, the more transparent and honest you are, the more both players’ benefit is increased. Have a think about that one. It’s normal human psychology.

Also known as ‘socialism’ – or ‘cooperation is more beneficial than competition’.

Anyway - that’s the real free market. That’s how it functions. So now, I hope, you understand that you don’t have a free market system!

---

A game of musical chairs

Big lies are always the simplest. They work, psychologically, because normal people simply couldn’t comprehend that anyone could be so outrageously bold to even think they could get away with it. Normal people never tell outrageous lies, because they know they’d get found out. So from a certain point of view they assume that outrageous lies don’t exist – because they can’t exist.

But clearly, they do exist.

And now you know this, because I have introduced you to several of the most outrageous and blatant ones of all, you are very much ready to understand your own political history – and present, for that matter, both national and international – and the Liberal Socialist philosophy and manifesto itself.

So that’s where we’re going in the next part…

---