Free Markets 1

“Survival of the fittest” implies that the aristocrats (who popularly style themselves as the capitalist rich; some of them Marx’ bourgeoise, and a small portion of them genuinely skilled or lucky capitalists) earned their place by the only possible method, when in fact much of the ownership of capital was established before the pretension that free markets (capitalism) had begun.  The “Big Bang,” or the story of a creation that utterly began things, accordingly implies that nothing unfair could have been there before.  The bad people—thieves—who established a game board really, really want no one to investigate the possibility that the game is loaded in that way; was rigged since people began officially playing it.  

(“Survival of the fittest,” and the story of evolution by random mutation, are very popular in societies dominated by, and decreed to be the correct way of thinking by, today’s wealthy and powerful humans.  It seems secular, but is in fact a very loaded religious argument.  Sort of like, if an official saying were, “Things have turned out great!  The crop yield is greatly increased under the latest five year plan.  Our leaders are so wise.”  If that were the official saying, it would be exceedingly clear that the controllers of a society were instilling a political message about how good they are.  “I am the best and the leaders I have are the best too.”)  

In fact, Ists hold, the “free market” religion was as not free as its mundane counterpart.  Just as were liars the Jesusian Christian dreadlords who became official nobles after the destruction of the warrior bands of Europe, the Bangist Christians today are wrong and/or lying.  Things such as “the 1700s” had existed before the robber barons, and much of the capital, media, and political power that allowed the oligarchs to rule had been there before.  Rich families, and rich individuals today, often control legacies of things taken during prior mass murder and incredibly disgusting wrongs.  Great Grandpa controlled the mill that got Grandpa to hold the housing complexes that got Dad to have those investments that etc.  There was a difference between how some people got to be wealthy and how some people had to labor; the nonsense of Jesusian and Marxist "rich people suck" has its origin in usefuls recognizing that something is often vulgarly wrong.  

This chain of success was very often (totally?  If you go far back enough, yes.) horribly inspired.  I.e., it came from the horrible things that the great grandpa’s great grandpa did.  He made sure that the ladies of the enemy families did not have the children who would have owned the land and had the reputations which made laws about the mill.  This is why the democratic targeting of civilians is so frequent.  If the U.K./S. unfortunately makes some “mistakes” and 10,000 women die, the consequences are gigantic.  That is why deadly “mistakes” keep happening.  

The institutions of the late 1800s American West were captured by thieves, not built by capitalist laborers.  Famous oil and railroad kingpins didn’t gamble on land, taking chances that turned out well, but did dirty things.  Those things were about where the government would march the army, who would “manage” the land thus taken, and who could be credited with establishing necessary peace.  Most of the people and families that are now rich are that way because they never had to take risks, invest, or work hard.  

(Don't be tricked into thinking that this essay is arguing that any given ethnic group lacks wealth because people were meanies before.  This is about how hite people [the W is so small you can't see it] were deceived by others.)  

Because the army was paid for with taxes, and because taxes were assessed on people who mostly did not benefit from what that army did, things were much like today.  There was no specific investment of the robber barons to gain control over the resources that made them very rich.  It was done like the way the government supports rich family lines now: selling blood for money, blood taken from those compelled to give it; claims of everyone’s welfare used to sell the taxes that pay for the armies.  The descendants of those dirty plutocrats use their immense wealth and inborn connections to create the curricula and mores that make the children of several nations believe that things happened a certain way.  (Those plutocrats deny that they’re plutocrats just like most people now deny that they’re Christian, even though they follow the same precepts of creation via cosmigasm, African origin, brotherhood of man, and that Passion thing we just can't figure out.)  That’s wherefrom the money comes; where it still is.  It is dirty and it is wrong, and the conjunction of how that family wealth was built and the horrible way governments create private wealth now are the same.  As Christianity ruled before and rules now with people thinking things are very different, so it was and is now with wealth accumulation.  The extra susceptibility of hite people for doing things like that is still there: it is why current hite idiots sometimes get excited about murdering people to socialize things.  

It was disgusting that some bloke long ago could get his buddies in the government to have the Army force a few settlers away, cordon off the area, and establish ownership of some new areas in that bloke’s name.  His descendants can then be very wealthy and influential, and later people can just think it was from lucky investing and some risks paying off.  What is happening to the worth-less population—providing soldiers to the military, and providing also the majority of the money to pay taxes to fund the Amerindians' per capitas—is an exploitation that continues.  There is nothing random about it, and it is clear why people with riches would want it to be considered random.  I.e. rich people today want you to think that their money came from completely random good luck not from thoroughly planned filthy cruelties.  Just as quite a few leaders of the U.K. and U.S. should have been/be hanged or in prison for life for deceiving their constituents into wars, many fortunes should be seized, but they of course will not be.  

Much like evolution, environmental correspondence was there.  There was air, therefore there became things that breathed air.  Saying that the things which breathed air got there from random survival of the fittest is wrong as well as loaded.  There were substantial natural resources, therefore there became things that owned those resources.  Saying that the things which owned those resources began owning them from some combination of luck and business acumen is incorrect, as well as loaded.  

Consider your perception of the wealthy and successful using this model.  In the U.S., the Sulzberger/Rockefeller/Carnegie/etc. families became very wealthy and influential not because they were lucky and good businesspeople, but because they benefited from the army in that way.  I.e. from the taxes imposed on everyone.  Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, became very wealthy and influential this same way.  It was not because he was inventive/lucky and a good businessman, but because he benefited from 50 states’ worth of courts, welfare agencies, county recorders, etc. using his system.  

By the same token, consider the Harry Potter stories.  The message for citizens to read is purchased en masse by all tax-funded public libraries in the English-speaking world.  In addition, all booksellers informed of the soon-to-be massive popularity—almost always via plausibly deniable messages about industry speculation—make purchases.  Within days, the media reporting of the massive popularity of a new work convinces many consumers to make purchases themselves.  

Advertising becomes genuinely true, and at every part of the process, people can not only explain their actions to others, but to themselves, believing that family money/advertising had nothing to do with it.  If Supergum is heavily advertised, and people then buy Supergum and chew it, the advertiser can believe privately that people really wanted to chew Supergum.  The reviewer and the reporter can truly report that their insider services turned them onto a genuine hit.  Retail purchasers can believe they made their decision not based on popularity, but upon the interesting summary, on the jacket of the book, or upon what they heard about it from friends or that helpful radio program.  

It is not merely with the Harry Potter series that this model has been successful, but other entertainment project as well.  Fictional “author” figures such as Tom Clancy and R.L. Stine eventually admitted “themselves,” but many others are planned not to.  I.e. it was made to be known that Clancy and Stine were not actually people, but figures produced to market novels; brands who were supposedly alive.  One must be a fool to know about things like the Zimmerman Telegram and then believe it possible that one can ever know what the U.S. government is really doing based on what it says it is doing.  Information is clearly fabricated and then released to the people to achieve an objective.  To believe in that information being true is like to argue about what Tom Clancy and R.L. Stine really prefer for breakfast.  Not just absurd, but doubly so—utterly absurd.  

Continued in Free Markets 2.