The secret economy

Conspicuous consumption exists and has an effect on people.  It has a big effect on people and on the world.  This is the realm of the ego, where our better judgment is tempered by the demands of the subconscious.  This is where the subconscious over-rules the rational, awake mind.  The secret economy of materialism, the hidden, largest part of the iceberg ice that lies below the surface, the elephant in the room.

Removing yourself from this secondary, secret economy is easier said than done.  This economy is a tax on all our activities – each generation provides a tabula rasa upon which advertisers – the active, knowledgeable group that is consciously manipulating these economies – inscribe the definitions of things, the base, acceptable modes of existence i.e. what material things are required if you want to be an American, what it means to be a man, a woman, a child, any actor of any sort.

This falls within the purview of the discussion recently held between Dr. Nafeez Ahmed and Chris Martenson on the latter’s Peak Prosperity podcast.  Martenson clarified a question he feels people are trying to formulate but are unable to put words to: “Our cultural narrative is broken.  How do we begin going about re-writing it and implementing a new narrative that comports with the realities? (min 23)  We need to be talking about new ways of living.  What is the thread we would need to pull to unravel the current system?

I would like to put forward the pessimistic answer – directed change is prevented because we are human.  Is political change possible?  Is it possible to create a new narrative, as Martenson mentions above?  Yes, I guess it is possible but the biggest barrier people meet on the path to achieving new ways of living is themselves.  And advertisers and politicians know this.  And advertisers and politicians make money because of this.  And therefore I would amend the affirmative answer above with a “No”, no, it is impossible to consciously affect change on our economic system.  Same goes for our political system.

One big necessity is being met all the time.  This is the primary, evolved need to simply stay alive.  Whether you are Republican or Democrat doesn’t matter as long as you are alive.  Whether you believe in God or are an atheist doesn’t matter as long as you are alive.  The primary demand of the species is not how to live but simply to live.  Behind all our actions there is the little voice that keeps saying, “Stay alive”.

Every way of living an answer to the question of ethics: how are we supposed to live?  If people feel that we need to find a new way of living whatever new way is found will simply satisfy the necessary category of “finding something novel which some people need in order to keep living”.  “Right” and “wrong” ways of living are both acceptable as long was people remain alive doing either.  The “right way of living” then in this case is any form of living that perpetuates the human creature.  This may seem redundant or obvious but is an important philosophical understanding.  This idea is put forward so well by Camus in his “The Myth of Sisyphus” – we humans, at a fundamental level, “choose” to keep on keeping on, an unspoken and unconsciously confirmed acceptance of imperative, perhaps built into us by our biology, the history of evolution which is our bodies, our selfs.  If you are alive now you are affirming life constantly by being alive.

That world of un-thought, of needs that form the second, secret economy and the world of unspoken affirmation are overlapping realms within which meaning is found.  And both of these worlds are manipulated by outside forces.

Tell me lies. Tell me sweet little lies.

A little lie, here and there.  Just, ya know, tweak the truth a little bit – for money of course.  If we justify actions by reference to money then those little lies can be ignored, swept under the rug.  No harm, no foul.  Lies become commodities and we take the blame.  Someone in a powerful position lies and that lie becomes a product with its attendant accessories of guilt.  And we buy the lie and we accept the guilt and the person in power is therefore absolved.  In the immortal words of Thom Yorke: “You do it to yourself, you do.  And that's what really hurts”.

All this against the backdrop of a raging sea (don’t forget Robert: “I opened up my eyes/And found myself alone alone/Alone above a raging sea”), fixed landmarks gone, focus kept on small truths that are ready at hand just to maintain some coherence.  Little lies are easily accepted to maintain this coherence, to bolster coherence: we agree with the stitch quality and color of the Emperor’s clothes not from placid, well-kept and well-lit streets but from ships passing in the dark on those turbulent seas, spotlighted for chaotic seconds, agreements made not out of luxury but out of the belief that all will be lost if these dubious concordances are not met and sustained.

These little lies amass and soon we do not see that we accept and/or ignore murderous wars overseas, that we submit to being poisoned by our accepted diet at home, that one Emperor’s cloak of words woven, spun with a silver tongue are acceptable while the latest Emperor’s orange flax façade is (justifiably) unacceptable, a call for action based on aesthetics and not any substance – Trump initiated his rule with murder in Yemen exactly as Obama did.

The freedom and sovereignty of our own consciousness has been removed via the lies of the war on drugs – states of consciousness have been made illegal.  Are certain thoughts illegal too?  Will the phrase “we are murdering people overseas” land one in jail just as the possession of a joint already does?

Yet we are free to consume soda – actively encouraged to do so by the little lies of advertising.  It is Susan Neely’s job to prevent children from drinking soda while encouraging its consumption among adults – the tasks of the President and CEO of the American Beverage Association.  How to square that circle, but Neely does so mostly unflinchingly – what do you expect form the woman who helped create that little organization called the Department of Homeland Security.  Kudos to her.

And that building bombs should be recognized primarily as a source of jobs – little lies amass and we end up not giving a fuck about the use of those bombs.  Makes one wish that church attendance would correlate to a basic understanding of the concept of murder.  Or that the magnanimity of Jesus’ New Testament lessons wouldn’t have to be put through a logic meat-grinder creating an American moral-meat with too high a content of nitrate-lies.

Let’s all wash death-brats down with the science experiment that is high fructose sodas, an ample feast to consume whilst living our lie-permeated existence.  Salud!

Monetized morals

The use of our budgets – individual budgets, household, city, state and nation (global?) – is varied.  On a basic level we spend money in order to survive – think of good old Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, I guess.  But just as it doesn’t take long for the association of income with happiness to decouple in the upper income brackets, money quickly breaks the gravitational pull of bare survival and becomes an expression of beliefs, a palette with which to express aesthetic choices.

So, topically, how do you feel about spending more on consumer goods typically bought from Mexico in order to put up a wall between that country and the US?  One rebuttal has stated that Americans will end up effectively paying for the wall through increased consumer goods products.  Now, obviously not everyone supports the construction of this (un?)aesthetic perimeter.  Of those that do, how many would up-front agree to paying more for cars, trucks, avocados and beer?  Would this expense be accepted by those in favor of the wall?  I would say yes, some people would find a rallying cry in this expense, especially with (or in anticipation of) their new-found spending power since the wall would (assumedly) limit contests for jobs.

That one would spend more on goods to promote something they want is akin to people going out of their way to purchase organic foods – a positive thing, wrought by one’s values.  But this voting with one’s dollar takes a turn for the pragmatic when you consider the willingness we have to promote violence just to provide jobs – which lets people have money to spend on those avocadoes, organic or otherwise.  That we have military contractors that are big employers is something everyone is familiar with.  And limited our military actions overseas is kind of equivalent to the choice we may make to build a wall. 

Rambling, I know.  But one thing every American should hear, understand and make their peace with is the comments of Wolf Blitzer during an interview with Rand Paul which you can read about here.  The headline reads “Wolf Blitzer Is Worried Defense Contractors Will Lose Jobs if U.S. Stops Arming Saudi Arabia” and that says it all.  Another aesthetic choice.  An aesthetic choice of work to complement the aesthetic choice of how we spend our money.  If the more expensive avocadoes provide food for thought then the choice of mil. contractor jobs perhaps fucking-countries-up-overseas for thought.