The whole thing is about objectifying
the imagination of men, which You rightly point out, by a series of deliberate counterpunches to the politically sensitive identity politics.
Who are You? The fear of social cohesion by object manipulation , reverts fear of identity branding in it’s self, or, self valuing, to coin St
James, by objectives imposed by material criteria.
It cuts away essential values referring to historical needs to an accumulation of wants peripheral to the personality.
Alienation may be de-infused with ever emphatic regression to illness.
Susan Sontag, ‘Ilness as a metaphor’ ,
and other has been social architectural vehicles- ’ The Ugly American’ ’ Black like Me’ … et al ; all sellers in the socially changing world of the ‘60’ s.
But can’t You just smell the contradiction between a NWO type Capitalism trying to cohese with a new type of nationality of identity?
It is so obvious, but it is more of a prolegmina to those infected with the European virus.
There’s actually an ecological law, known as the “Competitive Exclusion Principle” that describes exactly how the Classical Liberal economic theory of markets cannot work in practice.
We all know how “Perfect Competition” describes the ideal conditions for the market to function as intended, and the further away you get from that towards monopoly the more corrupt it becomes. Well the CEP shows exactly why perfect competition conditions cannot endure. I’ve only come across one theory that explains when it can endure: under conditions of extreme poverty and scarcity. Reason being that there is so little to gain from getting any degree of competitive advantage that it doesn’t provide enough of a competitive advantage to destabilise the balance. So basically to keep markets fair, you have to starve them, otherwise they become a victim of their own success and tend towards monopoly - like we have now. Then the media machine and politicians just blame this monopoly on attempts to fix it…
The CEP is at the very core of marketing theory: that you need to distinguish yourself from your competition in order to survive and thrive i.e. make your own market to monopolise.
Adverts are designed to facilitate the perception of competitors in the same market as being unique.
Hereby adverts are a direct affront to Free Market theory as well as its values.
It is exactly a systematic brainwashing and hypnotism by design - the “creativity” that those who work in marketing flatter themselves with is the very means by which they tie themselves and everyone else down towards unfree market conditions.
The term for this is “Supernormal Stimuli”.
Humans and other animals alike still haven’t transcended their weakness to be seduced by exaggerations of reality. Like those who work in marketing need an education in economics and ecology, there is a need for self-awareness to wake people up to their pscyhological weaknesses that adverts so clinically abuse to disrupt the “free” market.
You get the same response from working class supporters of Capitalism (rule by those with what they do not have: capital) - they buy into an image and a lifestyle made to seem associated with their mundane lives, and thereby support the means by which others gain from their foolishness. Their wishful thinking, and usually a dash of narcissism is used against them.
And yes, these people play out the theatre of competiting to have their weaknesses used against them - and seeing who does it the best!
I love the cynicism here. Yes, if the companies were concerned with distributing all the info on the product, they’d do it - but look at that twist on values: they’re doing the customer the value of leaving it to themselves to actually do the research. Can you feel the freedom? And at the same time, in the name of attracting you to a known business entity they provide more like the absolute opposite of knowledge about the advertised business - to instead trick you not into thinking they are something they aren’t, but that the viewer can be something they aren’t.
There’s layers and layers of deception here - and all to uphold the conditions of your own submission. Just dress up submission in a sense of control and domination and voila - a working empire.
as a nihilist i’m a very dark person, mags. the beliefs and ideas most take for granted that keep them in such good (superficial) spirits, i do not share. so i thought that maybe some bright colors might lighten the unsavory existential aura that surrounds me. i’m actually wearing at this moment a neon green scarf with yellow paisley print, and so far three people have nodded at me today. this is progress.
i… i just… god I DON’T KNOW. maybe i got them laced too tight? or maybe i just need to look inward… do some sole searching and find some inserts.
Progress, or, a charade? a charade into making others think that you’re inner light is shining, or, perhaps these new interactions will trigger your inner light and so lessen the nihilism in you.
Neon green and yellow paisley…? this too is questionable, but if it’s having an effect you feel you are benefiting from, then it’s definitely a thing… a thing that is working for you… work it baby.
Lol at all of the above…
I would prescribe that you simply swap said Asics for something more you, less not you… perhaps something with touches of colour, but not so… colourful.
Choosing the right trainers is definitely a philosophical matter, regarding their matter and reflection of you thereof.
you need government regulation because without it excessive liberal freedoms will be abused and you’ll end up shooting your eye out, ralfy. happens every time.
So you can still have a “free market” when coercion is maximally privatised?
If so, “free market” would seem a misleading term just because the unfreedom was decentralised.
I’m guessing the implication is that with minimal government regulation, we reach minimal coercion by definition?
This would, of course, place a great deal of faith in Classical Liberal economic theory - that tending towards perfection competition minimises coercion through monopoly and oligopoly etc.
I’ve explained that through the “Competitive Exclusion Principle” we know that perfect competition is not stable unless poverty is so great as to negate the advantage gained by success. The point is for the Free Market to get us out of this state of poverty so that we no longer need it, which means that with the physical restrictions of poverty no longer around to actually enable perfect competition to keep the Free Market in line, other means are needed. I’m not certain that only government regulation can satisfy that requirement, but it is certainly one way to do so if done properly. Anything that overrides the authority of decentralised markets could potentially fulfill this requirement, though in practice with too minimal government regulation or with government working too in line with markets and not to keep them in line, government will not suffice in this regard.
So what then? This is the only relevant economic question of our age. We know the market solution is limited and we know pre-Information-Age totalitarian governments with can’t keep up with populations beyond a fairly small size.
Until that is answered, we are left with hack solutions such as enforced advertising just to maintain the illusion of voluntary trade when the Information Age makes so much so freely available. The more we progress into this age, the less viable these hack solutions become.
The infusion of advertising even permeates into the information age, and some say it consists of the very opposite You are describing. It may consist more of a build up of pressures of the very complex forces of the market, which, like earthquakes, we can not really understand by prediction.
Great transformations have to naturally occur along pressure points, to be able to understand the under lying forces that shape the forces which drive the effective ingredients.
Distribution patterns suggest the effects to be contrary to curves expected, and that was behind the last past great recession.
The e caption to the rule is more manifest in economic history then the rule, and I gather, this exceptional and repetitive phenomenon has already been somewhat factored in, or rather, been devoured my the market.
If the great crash were ever to return, would market in extreme situations be for ed to view an ultimate shakeup like another world war to straighten it up, would it require it’s implementation? Certainly !
That is why minor quakes naturally are instituted to relieve pressures on major faults.
The point of a general depression of a universal scale can never again be permitted to occur, and that is the final arbiter of limits to authoritarian forces bearing down on market no events, the level of poverty can not ever negate successes.
So if Conservative were to say that return to the era of a great America would entail child labour, cessation of if social programs including cutting social security , who would listen?
Well some would, and they would argue on the basis of retransforming society into less complex, less visually promoted eras, where smaller family of resembling circles of affinity drove societal needs.
If this type of retransformative awareness became dominant force, would advertisement lessen the impact of cautionary voices of those, who warn that what you see is not always to your best satisfaction?
In fact , it diminishes your need to understand the idea of why you even considered buying it in the first place.
The infusion of advertising even permeates into the information age, and some say it consists of the very opposite You are describing. It may consist more of a build up of pressures of the very complex forces of the market, which, like earthquakes, we can not really understand by prediction.
Great transformations have to naturally occur along pressure points, to be able to understand the under lying forces that shape the forces which drive the effective ingredients.
Distribution patterns suggest the effects to be contrary to curves expected, and that was behind the last past great recession.
The exception to the rule is more manifest in economic history then the rule, and I gather, this exceptional and repetitive phenomenon have already been somewhat factored in, or rather, been devoured my the market.
If the great crash were ever to reoccure , would markets in extreme situations be forced to observe an ultimate shakeup like another world war to straighten things up? Would it require such extreme implementation? Certainly !
That is why minor quakes naturally are instituted to relieve pressures on major faults.
The point of a general depression of a universal scale can never again be permitted to occur, and that is the final arbiter of limits to authoritarian forces bearing down on marketable events, in which case , the levels of poverty can not ever negate successes absolutely.
So if Conservative were to say that return to the era of a great America would entail child labour, cessation of of social programs, including cutting social security , who would listen?
Well some would, and they would argue on the basis of retransforming society into less complex, less peripherally promoted eras, where smaller family of resembling circles of affinity drove societal needs.
If this type of retransformative awareness became dominant force, would advertisement lessen the impact of cautionary voices of those, who warn that what you see is not always to your best satisfaction?
In fact , it may even diminish the need to understand the idea of why competitive buying was considered in the first place.
That is, competitive buying based on peripheral levels of attributing value.
Ok if you say so, but relative ones had in the original marketplace, where there was some village recognition of who was trading with whom, and what was being traded.
Unawareness came later, and anything advertised en-mass, was instantly a generic success.
Sure, monkeys see and do out of rote.
Valid? Ask the man who has
to steal to eat to survive, if he can’t trade. He is no less true.
I did just changed the terms, but meaning changes apart from a personal matter to get out of fallacy.
Situations change, what if it was a true Irishman, forced to abandon the village because of the potato famine?
Nothing in this world is free or even free from coercion. There’s nothing free in the free market other than the ability for those that control it to steal other people’s labor, time, and livelihoods under a variety of false pretenses.
If I tried, you’d call them all no true Scotsman - that’s the point of the fallacy.
Your response to Meno_ was actually the point of the thread - indeed nothing in this world is entirely free, as there is necessarily another side to the same coin wherever freedom can be identified.
This is absolutely clear as soon as you exemplify one person being completely free in one way, since another person is logically not free to do differently to what that person wants to do out of their own freedom.
This is probably your whole point as well, so I don’t want to come across as hostile or averse to your point - in fact I want to agree with it, just in the most correct terms that I can.
But more than merely a general point about freedom, I simply meant to apply it specifically to the market model that is characteristically central to Western economics for the purposes of this thread. I explain how the facade necessarily becomes increasingly untenable the more we advance into the future, and specifically why it will do so.
Ideally I intended to open up discussion concerning the future of the “Free” market model, as foundationally unfree as you rightly identified it to be.
My point still stands, there has never been a free market and free market economics is a fantasy or a kind of fairy tale people lull themselves with into believing even though it fundamentally has nothing to do with reality.
There is no reforming the current social, political, and economic system where this will become abundantly clear within two years or less.
What comes next is western civilization’s violent and brutal downfall or collapse. It will be the most spectacular sight to behold once civil war, rioting, martial law, world war, and violent chaos engulfs the entire west. [And the entire world.]
We cynics and pessimists tried to warn the world but nobody would listen to us calling us crazy from the start. Well, now everybody gets to witness what we were talking about in horrific real time. Enjoy!
