Mainland oligarchs are throwing Europe´s Founding Fathers under the bus as to appease a rogue warlord on Britain, says Dr. Bastian Al Abgar, who has advised the Greek government on anti-austerity issues. It´s the nose of disintegration entering the tent sugar-coated with the ideological syrup of neoliberalism. But though Cameron is munching of Thatcher´s dish, he is distracting from the “Iron Lady´s” sudden death over her learning of the international law decreed upon the failed confederacy and its collaborators. The Europeans could easily grab that madman at this rusty ring, push him back and put the lid on the barrel so toxic that even the flies avoid it. But the two sides are complicit in the events immediately preceding the heartache.
Neoliberalism actually is not a political framework of ideas, says Abgar, but a misunderstanding of the role of money in human society. It does not understand the inner workings of currency, which is the monopoly of a violent mob exploiting its users, but takes the effect of that violence as magic. Magic? Indeed. Just imagine you lost the key for your bike and borrow a tool to remove the defunct lock. What is it that prevents you from using a shoelace instead? It´s the violent monopoly that does establish the otherwise useless technique of the lock by punishing both unsolicited removal and through the ensuing shift of unsolicited demand its symbolic replacement as well. Money is a technology only gradually different from other admission systems, says Abgar, and neoliberalism is an ideological superstition.
According to Abgar, this discrepancy of rational and ideological views of money expresses itself in many forms. The crassest incarnation thereof shows up when it comes to debt, that is the corrective the monetary system offers against a lack of money. Abgar: “People like you and me each one are on their own way, while the business whores all are marching down the same road. We view debt as a hole in the ground that should not have been dug in the first place, and needs to be properly plumbed to declare it closed. They imagine debt as a bridge that would carry them into some kind of future. In our view, such construction is a waste of credit and credibility. In their view, the gap is between the past they live off and the future they intend to steal from us. In our view, the gap is between what they think they were and what they are.”
They – these who ultimately trust in currency – the neoliberalists – due to their superstitious view of that technology are fooling themselves more than they are defrauding us, says Abgar, even as they make themselves be better off than us in terms of money. “They are seeing social welfare amounts as their response to a specific ringtone they expect us to produce, which goes like: I am a labour market whore prostituting myself to the working man society. We think of social welfare as a dialtone without which the entire thing does not have the slightest bit of a right to exist. Although I have to admit that the comparison is not perfect. The dialtone goes away once you make a call. The social welfare is meant to be available unconditionally, or else there is no right to exist for a shared structure and it degenerates into neoliberalist bureaucracy.”
“You will hear a particularly crass and grotesque example thereof in a minute. But first let me show to you that absurdity is the normal condition of neoliberalism. This is what their so-called magic boils down to: After Gewindeberg weighed the hypothesis that the Dollar Central Bank could be imagining him as the proverbial Golden Calf of its policy, they cautiously began to turn around the steering wheel indeed. But of course Gewindeberg had not sided with them, how could he without lying – they merely pretended he had, because they imagined if they did that then he might do so. But everybody knows that Gewindeberg uses the dollar for no other purpose than to fire up chimneys. Consequentially, no actual financial u-turn arose from it. If you know Gewindeberg then you know that it is stupid to try in the first place, but that alone is not yet why we are calling it superstition.”
“Before Paris I advised Cameron on anti-pollution policy. You know, the crazy guy takes his beloved plutonium under the pillow every night, but even if you are hell-bent on false substitutes you can reduce your geo-biotic footprint. But when the leaves came down it turned out that he would not come to reason: The best way to reduce pollution is to make room for prototypes that work entirely without pollution. That can be taken from the government´s unused assets, because there is not much else that could be done with them. So I proposed I would personally administer their according assignment.”
“He declined with the condition to put an official at my side. Then I proposed him a choices and operations plan for the task. He declined by avoiding to pick up and criticise it. Finally I proposed him one of his own senior officials to do the administration without being bound to my proposals. He declined by shunning that man. Then I said I feel no longer responsible for treating your effort, you can give me back my pencils from the drawer in your desk before it is being taken out of your hands if you like to do a gesture of good will. They are still there, and he is still trying to imagine I would do anything else than disown him and put the pollution reduction under new management. That is the level of stupidity and ignorance resulting from sleeping on top of plutonium.”
“At the same time, Cameron asked his neoliberalist advisers for proposals how to reduce the amount of social welfare handed out by government officials. I never got to see their names, but the loudest voice suggested that bureaucrats could defraud everyone who cannot afford a lawyer, while it could openly exclude these who could cover excessive legal cost, and harass the former for relying on the latter to hammer out legal precedents, as parliamentarians would make legislation to okay the practice. It argued that these people were vulnerable to criminals anyway, so it would only be an appropriate punishment thereof if officials were to defraud them. On top of it, the shrillest voice added that the abuse should be extended to people who choose pinko commie lawyers because they do not wine and dine with prosecutors.”
“So the proposal was systematic fraud and harassment against these who cannot afford lawyers and these who prefer dissident lawyers. Of course, once the dissident lawyers learned of it they immediately decided to beat them all out of the scheme regardless whether customers or not. They did so by painting the parliamentary discourse with a pattern of leaks that made Cameron cancel the two projects before blowback was to escalate. Now he is trying the same again with the mainland oligarchs. I only learned afterwards that he liked to link our efforts to each other, which is kind of odd since the reduction of air pollution and the reduction of social welfare are contradictory goals. To achieve the great leap to a sustainable economy overcoming fossil excesses, unconditional social welfare is the only feasible stepping stone.”
“However, if you think only Cameron was inhumane and greedy to the extent of bordering madness and beyond, then you have to admit that this cannot be said of that man alone. The neoliberalist craziness has befallen the entire European Union, and the first and foremost example is Europe´s war against the Mediterranean boat people. Have you noted those scientists talking about space vehicles for multiple launch? They are fed up of discarding a rocket after only one single use and strive to be more efficient. The European Union is exactly the other way round. They sink refugee boats, so that any vehicle still worth a round trip or more is too valuable to use, and customers will only be able to buy seats on throwaway boats in need of repair.”
“Then their soldiers and sailors locate and sink those boats, claim they had rescued the people whom they in fact endangered with their investment-hostile and demented policy, and blame the transport providers to be criminals because they do not invest into safer boats. That, my dear visitors, is terrestrial neoliberalism in a nutshell: Distort the message and blame the messenger. What does neoliberalism claim? It was helping these in need. What is the reality? It gratifies itself over compensating a tiny part of the consequences of its own superstition.”
“There is no future in European Union, and the reason is that European Union in the view of its representatives is more of a nation state than a regional group in United Nations. There is no future in the nation state either, but that is much more obvious. Whether there is a future in United Nations depends upon the amount of neoliberalism therein. To understand neoliberalism, just put Clausewitz – the military theorist of symmetric warfare – from his head back on his feet: Neoliberalist politics is the precursor of war by other means – exploitation, destruction, militarism.”
“There is no future in neoliberalism, it´s bridging technologies reach into nowhere and leave nothing but toxic assets. The home town of neoliberalism lost its tram lines to private investors buying up public services only to discard them. More precisely, the future of United Nations depends upon the awareness and understanding that neoliberalism in its entirety is a rule of lies, and as we overcome it nothing is to remain from it. Please consider, when the mercenary talks of nice weather to distract you from your wallet then he is still lying even if the weather just happens to be really nice, because the truth is that he likes the booty not the beauty.”
According to Abgar, this discrepancy of rational and ideological views of money expresses itself in many forms. The crassest incarnation thereof shows up when it comes to debt, that is the corrective the monetary system offers against a lack of money. Abgar: “People like you and me each one are on their own way, while the business whores all are marching down the same road. We view debt as a hole in the ground that should not have been dug in the first place, and needs to be properly plumbed to declare it closed. They imagine debt as a bridge that would carry them into some kind of future. In our view, such construction is a waste of credit and credibility. In their view, the gap is between the past they live off and the future they intend to steal from us. In our view, the gap is between what they think they were and what they are.”
They – these who ultimately trust in currency – the neoliberalists – due to their superstitious view of that technology are fooling themselves more than they are defrauding us, says Abgar, even as they make themselves be better off than us in terms of money. “They are seeing social welfare amounts as their response to a specific ringtone they expect us to produce, which goes like: I am a labour market whore prostituting myself to the working man society. We think of social welfare as a dialtone without which the entire thing does not have the slightest bit of a right to exist. Although I have to admit that the comparison is not perfect. The dialtone goes away once you make a call. The social welfare is meant to be available unconditionally, or else there is no right to exist for a shared structure and it degenerates into neoliberalist bureaucracy.”
“You will hear a particularly crass and grotesque example thereof in a minute. But first let me show to you that absurdity is the normal condition of neoliberalism. This is what their so-called magic boils down to: After Gewindeberg weighed the hypothesis that the Dollar Central Bank could be imagining him as the proverbial Golden Calf of its policy, they cautiously began to turn around the steering wheel indeed. But of course Gewindeberg had not sided with them, how could he without lying – they merely pretended he had, because they imagined if they did that then he might do so. But everybody knows that Gewindeberg uses the dollar for no other purpose than to fire up chimneys. Consequentially, no actual financial u-turn arose from it. If you know Gewindeberg then you know that it is stupid to try in the first place, but that alone is not yet why we are calling it superstition.”
“Before Paris I advised Cameron on anti-pollution policy. You know, the crazy guy takes his beloved plutonium under the pillow every night, but even if you are hell-bent on false substitutes you can reduce your geo-biotic footprint. But when the leaves came down it turned out that he would not come to reason: The best way to reduce pollution is to make room for prototypes that work entirely without pollution. That can be taken from the government´s unused assets, because there is not much else that could be done with them. So I proposed I would personally administer their according assignment.”
“He declined with the condition to put an official at my side. Then I proposed him a choices and operations plan for the task. He declined by avoiding to pick up and criticise it. Finally I proposed him one of his own senior officials to do the administration without being bound to my proposals. He declined by shunning that man. Then I said I feel no longer responsible for treating your effort, you can give me back my pencils from the drawer in your desk before it is being taken out of your hands if you like to do a gesture of good will. They are still there, and he is still trying to imagine I would do anything else than disown him and put the pollution reduction under new management. That is the level of stupidity and ignorance resulting from sleeping on top of plutonium.”
“At the same time, Cameron asked his neoliberalist advisers for proposals how to reduce the amount of social welfare handed out by government officials. I never got to see their names, but the loudest voice suggested that bureaucrats could defraud everyone who cannot afford a lawyer, while it could openly exclude these who could cover excessive legal cost, and harass the former for relying on the latter to hammer out legal precedents, as parliamentarians would make legislation to okay the practice. It argued that these people were vulnerable to criminals anyway, so it would only be an appropriate punishment thereof if officials were to defraud them. On top of it, the shrillest voice added that the abuse should be extended to people who choose pinko commie lawyers because they do not wine and dine with prosecutors.”
“So the proposal was systematic fraud and harassment against these who cannot afford lawyers and these who prefer dissident lawyers. Of course, once the dissident lawyers learned of it they immediately decided to beat them all out of the scheme regardless whether customers or not. They did so by painting the parliamentary discourse with a pattern of leaks that made Cameron cancel the two projects before blowback was to escalate. Now he is trying the same again with the mainland oligarchs. I only learned afterwards that he liked to link our efforts to each other, which is kind of odd since the reduction of air pollution and the reduction of social welfare are contradictory goals. To achieve the great leap to a sustainable economy overcoming fossil excesses, unconditional social welfare is the only feasible stepping stone.”
“However, if you think only Cameron was inhumane and greedy to the extent of bordering madness and beyond, then you have to admit that this cannot be said of that man alone. The neoliberalist craziness has befallen the entire European Union, and the first and foremost example is Europe´s war against the Mediterranean boat people. Have you noted those scientists talking about space vehicles for multiple launch? They are fed up of discarding a rocket after only one single use and strive to be more efficient. The European Union is exactly the other way round. They sink refugee boats, so that any vehicle still worth a round trip or more is too valuable to use, and customers will only be able to buy seats on throwaway boats in need of repair.”
“Then their soldiers and sailors locate and sink those boats, claim they had rescued the people whom they in fact endangered with their investment-hostile and demented policy, and blame the transport providers to be criminals because they do not invest into safer boats. That, my dear visitors, is terrestrial neoliberalism in a nutshell: Distort the message and blame the messenger. What does neoliberalism claim? It was helping these in need. What is the reality? It gratifies itself over compensating a tiny part of the consequences of its own superstition.”
“There is no future in European Union, and the reason is that European Union in the view of its representatives is more of a nation state than a regional group in United Nations. There is no future in the nation state either, but that is much more obvious. Whether there is a future in United Nations depends upon the amount of neoliberalism therein. To understand neoliberalism, just put Clausewitz – the military theorist of symmetric warfare – from his head back on his feet: Neoliberalist politics is the precursor of war by other means – exploitation, destruction, militarism.”
“There is no future in neoliberalism, it´s bridging technologies reach into nowhere and leave nothing but toxic assets. The home town of neoliberalism lost its tram lines to private investors buying up public services only to discard them. More precisely, the future of United Nations depends upon the awareness and understanding that neoliberalism in its entirety is a rule of lies, and as we overcome it nothing is to remain from it. Please consider, when the mercenary talks of nice weather to distract you from your wallet then he is still lying even if the weather just happens to be really nice, because the truth is that he likes the booty not the beauty.”
