Dystopia through Perpetual Debt

“Hey there Thomas you’re a grown man now, it’s time to start thinking about taking out a mortgage on a house!”

Woah woah wait a second there Jimmy, why would I want to do that and get stuck with debt for decades to come? Wouldn’t it be more efficient to save up the money and just buy the house?"

"But this is the way the economy works Thomas, you don’t understand! You buy things before you can actually afford them so that the people who make and build things like houses can set up new ones faster and it gives them a job! If you didn’t take a mortgage out on a house, and instead waited a few years to save up the money yourself, the people who build houses wouldn’t have jobs!

I’ll have to correct you on your logic there Jimmy, it was precisely people buying things before they could actually afford them that crashed the markets and led to the recession we’re experiencing today.

“But Thomas, now I’m so confused, my whole life I’ve been lead to believe that taking out massive loans and putting myself in debt for decades was what we’re supposed to do.”

Well now you see Jimmy, relying on the assumption that you’ll still have the same job for 30 years in a world that is inherently chaotic and unpredictable is a very silly proposition. The reason that you think that taking out loans is what you’re supposed to do in life is the same reason we call tissue paper Kleenex: clever advertising tactics. Convincing you that taking out loans is normal is all a part of their sale’s pitch. Banks and the associates of banks profit off of keeping people in debt - this process is called “perpetual debt”. By strangulating the economic flow of money such that more money leaves the pocket of the average working class person than what will ever return to it, they keep them stuck as consumers, and prevent them from ever being able to own or operate their own small businesses or manage their own investments. This gives large corporations all the power in the economy, and since large corporations are a bank’s best customer, their plans go hand in hand.

Excluding lower class commodities (things like “toilet paper”, or “food”) which are kept expensive to keep pressure on draining the pockets of the working class, the things which are actually valuable in the world, like real-estate, now suddenly cost less money – which means that dollar per dollar, money is now worth more - and who has all the money now? The banks and large corporations. They succeeded not only in hoarding the majority of the money, but making that money more valuable! But how could that happen? How could they just dilate the entire economy like that? It’s all because of a little thing called the federal reserve, and the fact that we’re not still on the gold standard. By not being on the gold standard, money only has an imaginary value, and the federal reserve continually prints off more money, causing inflation.

Otherwise, as the population of the country grew, a static number of currency would deflate, since it would have to be spread out between more people, and a dollar would be worth more.

So, by printing off more money and causing inflation, they initially stir up a consumerist frenzy in the working class so they spend money on goods and services ecstatically, and this is subsequently followed by a crash as the market adjusts for inflation. Once the middle class begins to recover, the fed will simply print off more money to trigger the process all over again. They will continue this cycle until the amount of imaginary value the corporations have accrued is ridiculous and nonsensical.

And this way they hold all the cards and have total control over the economy, and will pretty much be able to make people do anything they want.The simplest way to end this nightmare of perpetual debt is simply to stop buying worthless plastic shit. People need to stop doing business with any producer which only pays its workers minimum wage, and no matter how badly they plead with people they’ve changed their ways and are a respectable company once more by redecorating their store or using commercials that have a different approach, REFUSE to do business with them; DEMAND that they pay their workers more before you’ll even consider doing business with them again. In recent years, the flurry of corporate stores/restaurants being remodeled is nothing more than a ruse to try and mend their failing public image.

We also need some other new ground rules:

  • stop voting for the same two political parties; demand an end to the federal reserve.
  • stop watching TV; stop listening to advertisements. By escaping the paradigm which corporations provide you with, people will be able to come together and create their own.
  • save money. Don’t buy worthless plastic shit, just save your money. Even when times get good and it seems like you have all this money to spend, never subscribe to a life of loans, monthly payments, and endless debt. Never touch a fucking credit card. Stop using your debit card and when certain places refuse to accept hard currency, insist that you will not do business with them again until they do. On every bill it says “legal tender for all debt public and private” - so when they do not accept hard currency, they are actually refusing to accept payment.
  • avoid getting into debt at all costs.

We also need to acknowledge something:
there is no upper class, middle class, and lower class – there is only the working class and the parasitic robbers trying to mug you for a quick profit.

Things will never get better until we reclaim the wealth that has been slowly leeched from us, and the only way to do that is to first change ourselves. There is nobody we can turn to blame to ease the burden this will have on ourselves as we move to fix things; there is no type of person or race of people responsible. It is all caused by the greed of just a few individuals, desperate, consciously or otherwise, for total control of everything.

If everyone in America stopped subscribing to their bullshit and just saved their money instead, can you imagine the shockwaves it would send throughout the economy? In just a day or two, the results would be heavily felt – gas prices would skyrocket for a few days as the gas companies tried to scare people into submission, then if people remained resilient through it, they would crash to a mere fraction of what they are now.
The business models of fast food restaurants would no longer be sustainable, and we would see a return to the traditional dining restaurants. Over time, population density would disperse, cities would no longer be crowded and void of business, but would once again be the regional hub of industry.

With the return of wealth to the American working class would come a new age of innovation; we would once again be a prosperous society full of entrepeneurs, inventors, and thinkers with horizons full of new opportunities. If we could only realize that as human beings, we are capable of so much more than being stuck in front of a television despising those who are different from us.

I fear that we won’t have the collective will to follow through with this until we’ve hit rock bottom, and by then it will be too late; the economic system will be entirely broken, and we’ll be nothing more than a population of zombie consumers enslaved to our corporations - a dystopian police state. Who would benefit from that?

This is “the great settling down”, and whether our future is a dystopia or a golden age is entirely up to us. We could let the corporations completely take over, let the government do everything for us and watch our every move, and have no freedom to make our decisions. Or we could return the wealth and the power to the people, where it belongs - at least then we’d know freedom and self-respect. Are we really so foolish that we’d give up the very thing we’re trying to protect?

A note for the businessmen: Your customers shouldn’t be thought of as a means to an end, but as your partners. What’s good for them is good for you. And the same goes for your workers, who if you haven’t forgot, are also your partners.

You’re correct on debt with the exception of mortgages for homes. Ideally you’d save up enough to purchase a home for cash. Practically, unless you have an income of many hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, that’s almost impossible to do in a reasonable amount of time. Practically you’ll be paying rent while you save up to buy a home. If it takes you twenty years to save up enough to purchase a home outright then you’ve payed someone rent for twenty years, paying off their mortgage instead of yours. Rent increases yearly to keep up with rising taxes, maintenance an inflation in general. So you might start off paying $1000/month and after twenty years when you’ve finally saved enough to buy a home, you’re now paying $3500/month rent. In many cases, of course everyone has a different specific situation, the most practical and economical course is to save a large down payment, over 20% to avoid excess fees and insurance requirements, and take a mortgage. The reasoning for this seemingly unwise choice of taking on massive debt is that while rents will rise yearly due to inflation, and your income likely won’t, at least as quickly, your mortgage payment will be the same for the full term of your contract. So, while rents might increase from $1000 to $3500 over the course of your mortgage, your mortgage payment will stay at $1800, or whatever it is, and at the end of your contract your income will likely have risen well above what it was at the beginning, putting you far ahead of where you’d be if you rented. With financial discipline you can pay off the mortgage faster by making extra payments annually, thus cutting down your interest and shortening the term considerably.

So yes, while debt is slavery, so is rent. And rent is worse. One way or another you will be giving some money to the “robber class”. It’s simply unavoidable unless you live in the forest or are very wealthy already. The process detailed above will allow you to pull yourself out from beneath the foot of the robber class. Perpetual rent will never make that happen. Otherwise you’re right on the money.

Not anymore; my friend I went to high school with went out to North Dakota (which is booming right now) and worked on the railroad for a few years, came back home and bought a house with the money he made. Other kids I know my age (I’m 22) have saved up as much as 100 grand; it’s not hard to save up money, unless you’re maxing out credit cards, taking out loans, or pissing it all away gambling or whatever.

Let me draw you a sketch: ask your family if you can live with them while you save up money, or if you don’t have family or aren’t on speaking terms with them, band together with other people who are in similar situations. Cooperate; no one’s asking anyone to build up from the bottom up with nothing - it’s not possible, and even when it is, it kills a person’s spirit fast.

That’s a great ideal. I hope more people can do that. I’d love to see the banks go out of business. That alone would drop the prices of homes to reasonable levels.

That would require cooperation and probably a degree of sacrifice.

…what are the chances. :confused:

Not good.

Where do you live that homes have not dropped to reasonable levels right now? Houses that were once 120 grand in the early 2000s have dropped to a pitiful 40-60 grand. Of course, everyone is making less money now. It’s because corporations now have everyone by the balls; we had an opportunity to shift their power, and that was the internet. But we are failing the internet.

London.

I agree with your point entirely: banks said ‘take out a lot of loans to buy new stuff’, and most people did it. But I think you’ve yet to fully understand that this is because most people are stupid. Most people don’t have the self awareness to realize that when they are buying designer clothes with a credit card, they are the victims of several layers of manipulation and control. Nor are most people ever going to realize. If you shout and scream about it, they’ll just think you’re a weirdo who should shut up, read vanity fair and buy a new pair of shoes to make yourself happy.

Has there ever been a point in history when the vast majority of people were not being manipulated by an elite few? It’s no accident that the various ‘revolutions’ that have taken place have ended up simply with a different elite group in control. It’s the natural order of things.

Once you have realized these facts, you have a few options. You can purposefully live outside the system to as much an extent as possible and create your own world in which you are happy and empowered. This is more than possible, in fact its mainly a matter of having no debts, buying and owning a house, finding a job that you enjoy and which allows you some form of independence (lecturer? teacher? manager of a small restaurant? vet?). You have already identified that the main means of control is financial, ergo liberating yourself financially will lead to a lack of outside control over your life. Once you have realized you don’t need all the expensive stuff that you are told to need, you suddenly have enough money to do pretty much anything you actually want to do.

Another possibility, the more ambitious route, is to attempt to rise to a position where you are part of the elite in control. This is also possible, but you would have to sacrifice everything to get there, which means you would have to consider exactly what could be gained from making the sacrifice (historically, one method of this has been to be a successful revolutionary, although I personally think that this is a waste of time considering what you would be up against in the modern world).

However, if I were you, I would avoid the route of simply sitting around being angry about the situation and half believing in some sort of impossible revolution. It will only lead to a feeling of despair and powerlessness. Look at Das Experiment, for example. Trapped in a position he sees as ‘slavery’ but unable to envisage a way out of it, giving lip service to anarchism and anti-capitalism, but simultaneously showing distinct signs of feelings of chronic powerlessness such as the need to manipulate others at the lowest levels. You don’t want to end up like that.

Or who should shut up and use some Huxlian ‘ap’ to find a new sexual partner…

I was wondering when you’d try to hit back and just how low you would need to go in order to hit back. Now I know.

In any case, you have no idea who I am. I did not use the term ‘revolution’ in my anarchy thread for various reasons, so you’re simply wrong about that. Furthermore, I don’t give lip service to these things, I live my life in that way. As I’ve said, in recent years I’ve worked for a charity (a welfare organisation beyond the corporate state) and alongside that created two investigative films, two original websites and published a book, all off my own back, all my own time and effort, all of them met my realistic yet hopeful expectations of how well they would do. You think I feel powerless when in fact I cannot keep up with the number of requests I get from people for help, advice and contributions to what they are doing. In a couple of weeks I’m going to France to teach some academics about Open Source Intelligence, even though I barely have an undergraduate degree. Why did they ask me? Because I’m fucking smart, and I actually do stuff.

Meanwhile you’re helping your friends find people on the internet to give them blowjobs. And boasting about it. I would much rather be living my life than yours…

The need for a new pair of shoes is an artificially created desire, used as a method of control. The need to have sex is a fundamental human instinct. The latter was not implanted in me by big co orporations, but is a part of my natural being. Therefore, I shun the former whilst openly satisfying the latter. Thus following the path of applying rationality to action, no?

In my view, no and here’s why:

  1. The ‘need’ for a new pair of shoes has been around for a lot longer than shoe manufacturers with big advertising budgets. People have been wearing shoes far, far, far longer than there has been such things. So it isn’t an artificially created desire.
  2. Even if it were artificially created it could be based on something quite natural. For example, women are sold shoes in the same way they are sold almost everything - as some sort of vagina/womb supplement/replacement. Women like stuff you can put things in to keep them safe, because one of the most natural instincts a woman has is to fill spaces with things that are then protected. Without that basic phenomenological instinct none of us would be here. So, things you can put things in to make them safe - such as shoes, handbags, cars and houses - are quite easily sold to women not through an artificially created desire but through the supplanting and manipulating of a perfectly natural desire.
  3. Indeed, I’d say there’s no such thing as an artificially created desire.
  4. The ‘need’ to have sex is not a need, but it is a fundamental human instinct. Nonetheless, quite a lot of people find ways to live without having sex, and quite a lot of people aren’t half as excited by sex at 40 as they are at 20 and feel less inclined to define their life by their sexuality.
  5. Even if the desire for sex is a fundamental human instinct that does not defend or justify all forms of sexual expression. If I raped a donkey and used that premise as my excuse then you’d presumably find that not only stupid but also obviously wrong. Now, you may not be doing anything quite as bad as raping a donkey, but that doesn’t mean what you’re doing is good, healthy, rational. As I say, natural instincts can be manipulated by big nasty corporations (and governments, though you gayers are almost all statists it seems) and turned into something quite different. The instinct to protect the tribe is natural, but it is turned into the justification and motivation for war. The instinct to gather food is perfectly natural, but it is turned into shopaholism.

Read Brave New World - technological consumerism+drugs+casual sex is perhaps the most perfect, most scientifically sound system of control ever devised. Also listen to Huxley’s lecture on ‘The Ultimate Revolution’. This is a lot more complex than your post above assumes it is.

No, but you’ve yet to supply any rationale for thinking that it is not healthy or irrational, and on my own I can think of no reasons why it might be less healthy than other forms of sexual expression.

Well, I think you took that out of context. I wasn’t talking about the need to wear shoes in general, I was talking about the desire to own excessive numbers of expensive shoes, and particularly to own shoes of certain exclusive brands.

Why bother trying? Why not just have it? If 40 year olds want sex less, then they can have it less, that’s up to them. If they still want lots of it, they should keep having lots of it, surely?

I do understand your general point, that the desire to have sex could be manipulated and used as a means of control. However, I am still a bit hazy on how or why you think Tindr is an example of such manipulation, or why it is an unhealthy sexual behavior in the wa that raping a donkey is an unhealthy sexual behavior (we are agreed on that).

I feel like you’ve made allusions to arguments, but have yet to make any actual arguments.

That’s pretty much how I live anyway, other than the ‘vote for a third party’ part, and even that might change soon.

   I think you're mistaking a both/and for an either/or there.   it's entirely possible (and I would argue, true) that your need to have sex is a fundamental human instinct that has nevertheless been artificially manipulated/created to be something it never otherwise would have been by advertising, culture, politics, etc. 

   For comparison, think of the the need for a new pair of shoes as a mutated, degraded and warped iteration of the need for shelter.  People have always had the need for sex. They haven't always expressed that need with the words, actions, and attitudes that we see around us at present.
  1. As I made clear on the other thread, if you see nothing wrong with it then I don’t really see why I should waste my time trying to explain it to you.
  2. My argument on this thread is not necessarily that you’re doing something wrong, but instead that it being inspired by a natural instinct doesn’t necessarily make it right. You are trying to move the goalposts.

Actually what you said was:

How was I supposed to know that when talking about ‘the need for a new pair of shoes’ you weren’t actually talking about ‘the need for a new pair of shoes’?

Or is this just you trying to move the goalposts again because I’ve demonstrated how stupid your original statement was?

‘Why bother trying to have it?’ would be their rebuttal. Plenty of asexual people lead fulfilling lives. I know you’re a young male homosexual in London and therefore you’re bombarded with media and other gays telling you that sex is absolutely vital, sexuality is the fundamental component of identity, if you aren’t having lots of sex you’re a failure, if you haven’t chalked up X number of partners then you’re not living your life, etc. but it’s bullshit. If you can’t recognise that it is bullshit then I can’t really be bothered explaining to you why it is so. Your life, and particularly your sex life, just doesn’t concern me enough to try to get you to realise you’re being fucked in the ass (both literally and metaphorically).

This wasn’t an argument about what they should do, but about how fundamental the sexual instinct is. Stop trying to redefine the terms of the argument every time you’re confronted with something that proves what you previously said is wrong.

Do you think it is healthy to have sex with a plastic doll that looks like Katy Perry (or indeed, to have sex with Katy Perry)? Do you think it is healthy to have sex with someone who, while technically an adult, has the brain of a child (such as Katy Perry)?

That’s because you’ve said one thing, I’ve contradicted it with an argument, and then you’ve tried to redefine what it was you said in order to try to avoid the contradicting arguments. I imagine Katy Perry would do the same thing.

The ‘context’ was talking artificially created desires which are the drivers of consumerism. ‘Shoes’ is a fairly common go-to example for this kind of consumerism. I don’t think it was cryptic, and am suprised you found it so hard to understand. Still, misunderstandings happen, no point dwelling on it.

Yes, but as you might notice, I already said: “I do understand your general point, that the desire to have sex could be manipulated and used as a means of control”, meaning that I accept the point you are making here.

I don’t think any goalposts have been moved. I said that I follow my natural desires and eschew the artificially created ones. Your argument was that my desire to have sex could have been artificially manipulated, because some natural instincts have been manipulated, and I agreed with this. However, I still maintain that actually my desire to have sex has not been artificially manipulated and is not being used as a means of control. I also maintain that it isn’t in any way wrong. So far, there has actually been nothing directly contradictory in what we have been saying to each other, because although you’ve established that it theoretically could have these properties (by proving that behavior founded on a natural desire could be wrong, or a method of control), you haven’t given any argument to the effect that these things apply in this case. Therefore, my original statement, that me acting on these desires whilst eschewing the desire to buy shoes is a fete of rationality, still stands unscathed. Despite this, you also said that my actions were not rational, and promised to provide an explanation (“In my view, no, and here’s why:”). So, you set your own goalposts, then failed to score by making an argument that something could be happening, rather than an argument that it actually was happening.

Although, apparently you have some kind of argument that my (ex) sexual activity is both wrong, and a ‘huxilian’ method of control being used upon me, which would actually contradict or ‘prove wrong’ some of my assertions, however for some reason consider providing these arguments a ‘waste of your time’.

I know I set up a trend of making unfounded assumptions about personal lives on this thread, but really there is no need to continue it. Is the basis of the argument you are hiding from me? A string of completely false beliefs about my personal life and my mentality?

No, don’t tell me, you have excellent quality arguments and stuff, but you don’t want to waste your time!

Look at what you actually wrote - you claimed the desire for new shoes was artificially implanted in you by corporations. I pointed out that people have been wearing shoes for much longer. It’s not that what you wrote was cryptic - it wasn’t - but that it is bollocks. Just because shoes has become the go-to consumerist item for people in your crowd (women and homosexual men in London) doesn’t mean everyone sees it like that, and the fact that people have been wearing shoes for much longer shows that even if shoes are seen like that, that is in itself a deception of consumerist culture.

In short, wearing shoes is as natural as having sex, so I reject entirely your distinction and attempted justification.

And yet you’re posting about a bit of software designed by someone to try to get you behave in a certain way, and boasting about how you behave(d) in that way and encourage others to behave in that way. You think that’s ‘free from manipulation’? Seriously?

Those who don’t even recognise the manipulation never do think that their resulting behaviour is wrong. They always think they chose that behaviour freely.

Except that it’s is textbook Huxley, which if you’d read the book I mentioned and listened to the lecture, you’d realise is actually a very good argument for why such behaviour is ‘wrong’ and very much a sign of being carefully socially engineered by complete bastards who hate you. But you couldn’t even be bothered to do that, so why the fuck should I bother to elaborate?

Your self-delusion would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic.

I referred you to the work of a very important man in the history of social engineering. You were too thick to even recognise that as an argument. I demonstrated that the distinction you made between having sex (in any form) and desiring new shoes was utter bollocks, and the rationale for the distinction was also utter bollocks. You were too thick to even recognise that.

Would you bother trying to explain to someone who is stabbing themselves in the bottom of the foot why it was wrong if they told you there was nothing wrong it, they enjoyed it and chose to do it freely and that unless you give them an argument that totally satisfies them they will claim that you’ve given no argument at all, why they should stop stabbing themselves in the bottom of the foot?

I cannot be bothered. I’ve given you multiple arguments and you just deny them because you’re thick and don’t want to even consider that you’ve done something wrong. So fuck it.

I’m judging you entirely on what you’ve posted here, I have nothing else to refer to. You have admitted as much, publicly, on the shitty thread in MB, and on this thread.

With some halfwit spineless fuck puppet? No, I don’t. I’m amazed you’ve even sustained my attention for this long, but that’s it now.

In BNW open promiscuity is used as a tool to eliminate the personal need for families and procreation. It allowed for social engineering. However, I don’t see what this has to do with dating aps. They don’t do this. And no, you haven’t actually argued that they do.

Calling something ‘huxilian’ is not an argument that that thing is huxilian. Is that really the level of thought that you are working at? I didn’t recognize it as an argument because it wasn’t one.