Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Some Big Lies of Science

by Denis G. Rancourt

“[T]he majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.”
– Harold Pinter, Nobel Lecture (Literature), 2005
The maintenance of the hierarchical structures that control our lives depends on Pinter’s “vast tapestry of lies upon which we feed.” Therefore the main institutions that embed us into the hierarchy, such as schools, universities, and mass media and entertainment corporations, have a primary function to create and maintain this tapestry. This includes establishment scientists and all service intellectuals in charge of “interpreting” reality.

In fact, the scientists and “experts” define reality in order to bring it into conformation with the always-adapting dominant mental tapestry of the moment. They also invent and build new branches of the tapestry that serve specific power groups by providing new avenues of exploitation. These high priests are rewarded with high class status.

The Money Lie

The economists are a most significant example. It is probably not an accident that in the United States at the end of the nineteenth century the economists were the first professional analysts to be “broken in,” in a battle that defined the limits of academic freedom in universities. The academic system would from that point on impose a strict operational separation between inquiry and theorizing as acceptable and social reform as unacceptable [1].

Any academic wishing to preserve her position understood what this meant. As a side product, academics became virtuosos at nurturing a self-image of importance despite this fatal limitation on their societal relevance, with verbiage such as: The truth is our most powerful weapon, the pen is mightier than the sword, a good idea can change the world, reason will take us out of darkness, etc.

So the enterprise of economics became devoted to masking the lie about money. Bad lending practice, price fixing and monopolistic controls were the main threats to the natural justice of a free market, and occurred only as errors in a mostly self-regulating system that could be moderated via adjustments of interest rates and other “safeguards.”

Meanwhile no mainstream economic theory makes any mention of the fact that money itself is created wholesale in a fractional reserve banking system owned by secret private interests given a licence to fabricate and deliver debt that must be paid back (with interest) from the real economy, thereby continuously concentrating ownership and power over all local and regional economies.

The rest of us have to earn money rather than simply fabricate it and we never own more when we die. The middle class either pays rent or a mortgage. Wage slavery is perpetuated and degraded in stable areas and installed in its most vicious varieties in all newly conquered territories.

It is quite remarkable that the largest exploitation scam (private money creation as debt) ever enacted and applied to the entire planet does not figure in economic theories.

Economists are so busy modeling the ups and downs of profits, returns, employment figures, stock values, and the benefits of mergers for mid-level exploiters that they don’t notice their avoidance of the foundational elements. They model the construction schedule while refusing to acknowledge that the terrain is an earthquake zone with vultures circling overhead.

Meanwhile the financiers write and re-write the rules themselves and again this process does not figure in macroeconomic theories. The only human element that economists consider in their “predictive” mathematical models is low-level consumer behaviour, not high-level system manipulation. Corruption is the norm yet it does not figure. The economies, cultures and infrastructures of nations are wilfully destroyed in order to enslave via new and larger national debts for generations into the future while economists forecast alleged catastrophic consequences of defaulting on these debts…

Management tools for the bosses and smoke and mirrors for the rest of us – thank you expert economists.

The Medicine is Health Lie

We’ve all heard some MD (medical doctor) interviewed on the radio gratuitously make the bold proposal that life expectancy has increased thanks to modern medicine. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Life expectancy has increased in First World countries thanks to a historical absence of civil and territorial wars, better and more accessible food, less work and non-work accidents, and better overall living and working conditions. The single strongest indicator of personal health within and between countries is economy status, irrespective of access to medical technology and pharmaceuticals.

It’s worse than that because medicine actually has a negative impact on health. Medical errors (not counting misattributed deaths from correctly administered “treatments”) are the third leading cause of death in the US, after heart disease and cancer, and there is a large gap between this conservative underestimate in the number of medical error deaths and the fourth leading cause of death [2]. Since medicine can do little for heart disease and cancer and since medicine has only a small statistical positive impact in the area of trauma interventions, we conclude that public health would increase if all MDs simply disappeared. And think of all the time loss and stress that sick people would save…

One of the most dangerous places in society is the hospital. Medical errors include misdiagnoses, bad prescriptions, prescriptions of medications that should not be combined, unnecessary surgery, unnecessary or badly administered treatments including chemotherapy, radiation treatment, and corrective surgeries.

The lie extends to the myth that MDs anywhere near understand the human body. And this well guarded lie encourages us to put our faith in doctors, thereby opening the door to a well orchestrated profit bonanza for big pharma.

The first thing that Doctors Without Borders (MSF) volunteers need to do in order to contribute significantly in disaster zones is to “forget their medical training” and get to work on the priority tasks at hand: water, food, shelter, and disease propagation prevention; not vaccinating, or operating, or prescribing medication… Public health comes from safety, stability, social justice, and economic buying power, not MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) units and prescription drugs.

These bone heads routinely apply unproven “recommended treatments” and prescribe dangerous drugs for everything from high blood pressure from a sedentary lifestyle and bad nutrition, to apathy at school, to anxiety in public places, to post-adolescence erectile function, to non-conventional sleep patterns, and to all the side effects from the latter drugs.

In professional yet nonetheless remarkable reversals of logic, doctors prescribe drugs to remove symptoms that are risk indicators rather than address the causes of the risks, thereby only adding to the assault on the body.

It’s unbelievable the number that medicine has done on us: Just one more way to keep us stupid (ignorant about our own bodies) and artificially dependent on the control hierarchy. Economically disadvantaged people don’t die from not having access to medical “care” – They die from the life constraints and liabilities directly resulting from poverty. How many MDs have stated this obvious truth on the radio?

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE LIES

Exploitation via resource extraction, land use expropriation, and wage slavery creation and maintenance are devastating to indigenous populations and to the environment on continental scales. It is therefore vital to cover up the crimes under a veil of expert analysis and policy development diversion. A valued class of service intellectuals here is composed of the environmental scientists and consultants.

Environmental scientists naively and knowingly work hand in hand with finance-corporate shysters, mainstream media, politicians, and state and international bureaucrats to mask real problems and to create profit opportunities for select power elites. Here are notable examples of specific cases.

Freon and Ozone

Do you know of anyone who has been killed by the ozone hole?

The 1987 Montreal Protocol banning chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) is considered a textbook case where science and responsible governance lead to a landmark treaty for the benefit of the Earth and all its inhabitants. How often does that happen?

At about the time that the DuPont patent on Freon(TM), the most widely used CFC refrigerant in the world, was expiring the mainstream media picked up on otherwise arcane scientific observations and hypotheses about ozone concentration in the upper atmosphere near the poles.

There resulted an international mobilization to criminalize CFCs and DuPont developed and patented a replacement refrigerant that was promptly certified for use.

A Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded in 1995 for a laboratory demonstration that CFCs could deplete ozone in simulated atmospheric conditions. In 2007 it was shown that the latter work may have been seriously flawed by overestimating the depletion rate by an order of magnitude, thereby invalidating the proposed mechanism for CFC-driven ozone depletion [3]. Not to mention that any laboratory experiment is somewhat different from the actual upper atmosphere... Is the Nobel tainted by media and special interest lobbying?

It gets better. It turns out that the Dupont replacement refrigerant is, not surprisingly, not as inert as was Freon. As a result it corrodes refrigerator cycle components at a much faster rate. Where home refrigerators and freezers lasted forever, they now burn out in eight years or so. This has caused catastrophic increases in major appliance contributions to land fill sites across North America; spurred on by the green propaganda for obscenely efficient electrical consumptions of the new appliances under closed door (zero use) conditions.

In addition, we have been frenzied into avoiding the sun, the UV index keeps our fear of cancer and our dependence on the medical establishment alive, and a new sun block industry a la vampire protection league has been spawned. And of course star university chemists are looking for that perfect sun block molecule that can be patented by big pharma. And as soon as it is, I predict a surge in media interviews with skin cancer experts…

Acid Rain on the Boreal Forest

In the seventies it was acid rain. Thousands of scientists from around the world (Northern Hemisphere) studied this “most pressing environmental problem on the planet.” The boreal forest is the largest ecosystem on Earth and its millions of lakes were reportedly being killed by acid from the sky.

Coal burning plants spewed out sulphides into the atmosphere causing the rain to be acidic. The acid rain was postulated to acidify the soils and lakes in the boreal forest but the acidification was virtually impossible to detect. Pristine lakes in the hearts of national parks had to be studied for decades in attempts to detect a statistically significant acidification.

Meanwhile the lakes and their watersheds were being destroyed by the cottage industry, agriculture, forestry, mining, over fishing and tourism. None of the local and regional destruction was studied or exposed. Instead, scientists turned their gaze to distant coal burning plants, atmospheric distribution, and postulated chemical reactions occurring in rain droplets. One study found that the spawning in aquarium of one fish species was extremely sensitive to acidity (pH). Long treatises about cation charge balance and transport were written and attention was diverted away from the destruction on the ground towards a sanitized problem of atmospheric chemistry that was the result of industrialization and progress rather than being caused by identifiable exploiters.

As a physicist and Earth scientist turned environmental scientist, I personally read virtually every single scientific paper written about acid rain and could not find an example of a demonstrated negative impact on lakes or forests from acid rain. In my opinion, contrary to the repeated claims of the scientist authors, the research on acid rain demonstrates that acid rain could not possibly have been the problem.

This model of elite-forces-coordinated exploiter whitewashing was to play itself out on an even grander scale only decades later with global warming.

Global Warming as a Threat to Humankind

In 2005 and 2006, several years before the November 2009 Climategate scandal burst the media bubble that buoyed public opinion towards acceptance of carbon credits, cap and trade, and the associated trillion dollar finance bonanza that may still come to pass, I exposed the global warming cooptation scam in an essay that Alexander Cockburn writing in The Nation called "one of the best essays on greenhouse myth-making from a left perspective" [4][5][6].

My essay prompted David F. Noble to research the question and write The Corporate Climate Coup to expose how the media embrace followed the finance sector’s realization of the unprecedented potential for revenues that going green could represent [7].

Introductory paragraphs from Global Warming: Truth or Dare? are as follows [4]:
“I also advance that there are strong societal, institutional, and psychological motivations for having constructed and for continuing to maintain the myth of a global warming dominant threat (global warming myth, for short). I describe these motivations in terms of the workings of the scientific profession and of the global corporate and finance network and its government shadows.”

“I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized.”
Other passages read this way [4]:
“Environmental scientists and government agencies get funding to study and monitor problems that do not threaten corporate and financial interests. It is therefore no surprise that they would attack continental-scale devastation from resource extraction via the CO2 back door. The main drawback with this strategy is that you cannot control a hungry monster by asking it not to shit as much.”

“Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass. Nobody else cares about global warming. Exploited factory workers in the Third World don’t care about global warming. Depleted uranium genetically mutilated children in Iraq don’t care about global warming. Devastated aboriginal populations the world over also can’t relate to global warming, except maybe as representing the only solidarity that we might volunteer.”

“It’s not about limited resources. [“The amount of money spent on pet food in the US and Europe each year equals the additional amount needed to provide basic food and health care for all the people in poor countries, with a sizeable amount left over.” (UN Human Development Report, 1999)] It’s about exploitation, oppression, racism, power, and greed. Economic, human, and animal justice brings economic sustainability which in turn is always based on renewable practices. Recognizing the basic rights of native people automatically moderates resource extraction and preserves natural habitats. Not permitting imperialist wars and interventions automatically quenches nation-scale exploitation. True democratic control over monetary policy goes a long way in removing debt-based extortion. Etc.”
And there is a thorough critique of the science as band wagon trumpeting and interested self-deception [4]. Climategate only confirms what should be obvious to any practicing scientist: That science is a mafia when it’s not simply a sleeping pill.

[Recent development (Macrh 2011): Incisive deconstruction of the dominant climate science narrative - HERE.]

CONCLUSION

It just goes on and on. What is not a lie?

Look at the recent H1N1 scam – another textbook example. It’s farcical how far these circuses go: Antiseptic gels in every doorway at the blink of an eye; high school students getting high from drinking the alcohol in the gels; out datedness of the viral strain before the pre-paid vaccine can be mass produced; unproven effectiveness; no requirement to prove effectiveness; government guarantees to corporate manufacturers against client lawsuits; university safety officers teaching students how to cough; etc.

Pure madness. Has something triggered our genetically ingrained First World stupidity reflex? Is this part of our march towards fascism [8]?

Here is another one. Educators promote the lie that we learn because we are taught. This lie of education is squarely denounced by radical educators [9][10].

University professors design curricula as though the students actually learn every element that is delivered whereas the truth is that students don’t learn the delivered material and everyone only learns what they learn. One could dramatically change the order in which courses are delivered and it would make no measurable difference in how much students learn. Students deliver nonsense and professors don’t care. Obedience and indoctrination are all that matter so the only required skill is bluffing. Students know this and those that don’t don’t know what they know, don’t know themselves [8][9][10].

Pick any expert opinion or dominant paradigm: It’s part of a racket.

We can’t know the truth because the truth is brutal.


References

[1] “No Ivory Tower – book” by Ellen W. Schrecker.
[2] Radio interview with Dr. Barbara Starfield: CHUO 89.1 FM, Ottawa; January 21, 2010.
[3] Nature 449, 382-383 (2007).
[4] “Global Warming: Truth or Dare? – essay” by Denis G. Rancourt.
[5] “Questioning Climate Politics - Denis Rancourt says the ‘global warming myth’ is part of the problem”; April 11, 2007, interview in The Dominion.
[6] Climate Guy blog.
[7] “The Corporate Climate Coup – essay” by David F. Noble.
[8] “Canadian Education as an Impetus towards Fascism – essay” by Denis G. Rancourt.
[9] “Pedagogy of the Oppressed – book” by Paulo Freire.
[10] “The Ignorant Schoolmaster – book” by Jacques Rancière.

Denis G. Rancourt was a tenured and full professor at the University of Ottawa in Canada. He was trained as a physicist and practiced physics, Earth sciences, and environmental science, areas in which he was funded by a national agency and ran an internationally recognized laboratory. He published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals. He developed popular activism courses and was an outspoken critic of the university administration and a defender of Palestinian rights. He was fired for his dissidence in 2009 by a president who is a staunch supporter of Israeli policy. [See www.academicfreedom.ca]

Related articles by the same author:
Are Physicists Smart?
Gradual Change is not Progress

List of other essays by Denis G. Rancourt:
www.academicfreedom.ca/blogs/essays

20 comments:

Corinne said...

It's good to have such a comprehensive list of lies all in one place for easy reference. I'm especially in agreement with you on medicine (haven't seen a doctor in 15 years and at 70 I'm healthier than I ever was when I had annual checkups during which they always found something wrong), and am glad you noted the frenzy that has caused people to avoid the sun and pave the way for a plethora of TV ads hawking Vitamin D supplements on behalf of the Pharmers.

I have one issue with your articles in general, however. I am put off by your use of the word "she" when you mean "he or she", which is only a few more letters to type (or you could sometimes use "s/he")and doesn't sound so condescending to women.

I realize you are making a gesture to compensate for the paucity of women in science but political correctness to such an extreme is not the answer to that problem.

Peter Biesterfeld said...

Thanks Denis. Keep this going.

PB

Male Extra said...

I feel that chemistry has made our life very simple and easy but it has made us habitual of some of things which are very harmful for our body.

Caroline Wang said...

Really interesting, Denis.

About hospitals, I realized that the worst cases (and those that we can often see) are either because people are old (« advanced in age » ;-) (i.e. 70 years old and more) so they have multiples complications related to their age (as Beauvoir wrote in La force de l'âge II : «nous sommes des morts en sursis») OR either because they have social/psychological/economical problem (on welfare for example or without any oven or refrigerator !!) so they are not able to manage their own health.

So, there is certainly an issue about the prolonging of life and the use of extensive medication and treatment (especially with older people, in my point of view), and also about the development/construction/investment on a new radio-oncology department for example... Will this really be the revolutionnary treatment ? Do we really want that ? I guess a lot of us do ! I won't. (I say that and I am healthy but I guess I will do like my mother, no treatment because it is too much depressing.)

The other issue concern those patients for whom the problem is more psychosocial and economical than medical ! I must say here that social workers do so much for hospitalized patients because they try to overcome the patients' social and economical problems on-the-job («sur le tas»). Certainly, their work do not solve the problem in deep but they are such a big help for those patients (even if some might have too many psychological problems to realize that !).

Denis Rancourt said...

From: Alan Kerns
Date: Thu, Jun 10, 2010
Subject: chrematistics
To: Denis rancourt

Thanks, Denis Rancourt, for "Some Big Lies of Science" .
You aptly focused first on "The Money Lie", pointing out that the monetary system is "owned by secret private interests given a licence to fabricate and deliver debt that must be paid back (with interest) from the real economy, thereby continuously concentrating ownership and power over all local and regional economies."
That is a very concentrated assertion that most readers would read without investing the pondering which it deserves. Shall we make that investment?
The monetary system is owned and run by SPI ("secret private interests") in such a way that "ownership and power over all local and regional economies" is concentrated in the hands of SPI.
All aspects of all economies are dependent on money without which they cannot operate. In a monetary economy, power over the supply of money is absolute power over the whole society.
Thus SPI has domain over:
government - all branches including the judiciary;
industry;
commerce;
science;
technology;
the arts;
etc - virtually everything.
Any dissent which challenges the SPI will be fought. Usually deprivation of money will be sufficient to neutralize the threat. If necessary, stronger action will be taken - e.g. JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, and RFK.
With all this in mind, I completely agree with you that "It is quite remarkable that the largest exploitation scam (private money creation as debt) ever enacted and applied to the entire planet does not figure in economic theories." Remarkable, but not surprising; economics is a religion dedicated to serving SPI.
You also aptly note that economists avoid their own "foundational elements".
The purpose of my email to you is to focus on this aspect, specifically the trinitarian economic dogmatic premises about money, according to which money is:
1. a medium of exchange; and
2. a unit of account (for measuring value); and
3. a store of value/wealth.
As far as I can tell, just about everyone who knows about these premises accepts them without question.
To my simple humble mind they make no sense.
Indeed premises 2 and 3 are - to my mind - oxymoronic. No bona fide unit of account can store the concrete dimension which it abstractly describes and measures. The idea of storing e.g. distance/length in abstract metres is ludicrous.
I would greatly appreciate your feedback on this specific point. Every person I have tried to engage in dialogue about it will not do so. No one has demolished the argument - they simply will not engage. For example, Professor Michael Hudson, curtly asserted that there is nothing wrong with the unit of account, full stop, no counterargument. This has been very disheartening. Hence you would be doing me a favour to engage with the argument even if you refute it.
Better stop there because further comments would be based on that fundamental oxymoron.
Thanks again for your article.
Alan Kerns

(posted with permission)

Anonymous said...

I admire your ability to present information that is so poorly researched with so much confidence.
It reminds me a lot of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which of course (since it is a scientific theory) has no credence.
What I find rather disturbing however, is that a) over 50% of your citations are either your own writing (i.e. you actually corroborate your expressed opinion with an earlier instance of your opinion) or the opinions of others who cite you. That is ingenious.
b) on the rare occasion that you cite (otherwise to be disregarded) independent research you terribly misconstrue the content of this research. E.g. you claim the journal Nature to argue that CFCs are not responsible for the Ozone layer. However the very article you cite states firmly: "Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question [...] “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.”
This is irresponsible behavior, and I must wonder whether is accidental or willful.

gilead said...

The truth is not brutal; the repression of truth has been perpetrated with the utmost brutality.
Please continue.
So our 'free' economic system is being manipulated to impoverish us all.
So our health care system can only serve to make us more ill. (The lie here is that manufactured chemical medicines can be used to improve our health without, at the same time, poisoning us all.)
So our educational sytem perpetuates ignorance.
At the same time, our justice system is unjust to all who do not have the money/influence to obtain favours.
Our welfare system does not care for those who need its support.
In point of fact, each and all of our institutions do precisely the opposite of what they claim to do.
Our 'civilized' world is highly uncivilized.
At the risk of offending some, I add that our major religious institutions serve only to further repress and control us.
Biological information can be included here. Who among us is aware that (known to science since at least the 1980's and to indigenous peoples for millenia) that trees, and, by inference, other plants, are in constant communication with each other, that fishes with only their 'primitive brain stems' can learn, remember, and maintain myriad complex social structures?
The truths of biology have been repressed because only by so doing can we exploit and degrade them with the impunity with which we have done so.
Indigenous cultures everywhere have had to be ruthlessly exterminated - after first being branded savage and even sub-human -precisely because their knowledge of how to live as part of the natural life systems on this planet would have exposed these lies.
We are now reduced to a degree of helplessness such that we cannot imagine living without our constant supply of fossil fuels - forgetting that, for millenia, huge civilizations with megacities grew and flourished long before the use of these fuels.
We now exist in a state of ignorance so abysmal that we cannot hope to comprehend that which we have lost.

Anonymous said...

One lie left off the list is the huge 'passive smoke' lie. But no one seems interested in exposing this lie.

The 'passive smoke' myth has been refuted & debunked, even the WHO 7 study refutes what they now say, that SHS is NOT harmful to non-smokers, it was suppressed because it didn't fit the agenda. The anti-smoking crusade rolls on and on with big pharma with their useless products getting richer & richer and tobacco control also getting richer and richer. Let's get it straight, IT IS NOT about health it's about money & control, pharma led, pharma funding WHO and the anti-smoking organisations. Pharma that want electgronic cigarettes that contain no tobacco, emit no smoke, banned because they aren't supplying them.

It's become a world of lies, junk science & misinformation, all in the name of greed. Not forgetting the medical mafia.

Oh I know the anti-smoking people will shoot me down in flames for this post, but people either want the truth or not, it can't be cherry picked because this lie suits them. Many have boarded the scaremonging bandwagon that SHS is going to kill them with 30 minutes exposure or has caused their asthma because they don't like the smell. Denormalisation & hatred because of a smell. What a sick world we've become.

I believe that history will judge global warming/climate change, 'passive' smoke' as two of the biggest scams of the century.

Anonymous said...

I won't hold my breath for approval then. Anything that goes against the anti-smoking cartel is usually declined.

Anonymous said...

Actually a pretty good summary, but I loose interest in the authors credability when I see statements like:

"He was fired for his dissidence in 2009 by a president who is a staunch supporter of Israeli policy."

All I can say is thank God for the IDF and the U.S. Marine Corps, otherwise we would all be speaking Araby while chained in some galley somewhere.

Jason Calley said...

Alan Kerns says:
“The purpose of my email to you is to focus on this aspect, specifically the trinitarian economic dogmatic premises about money, according to which money is:
1. a medium of exchange; and
2. a unit of account (for measuring value); and
3. a store of value/wealth.
As far as I can tell, just about everyone who knows about these premises accepts them without question.
To my simple humble mind they make no sense.
Indeed premises 2 and 3 are - to my mind - oxymoronic. No bona fide unit of account can store the concrete dimension which it abstractly describes and measures. The idea of storing e.g. distance/length in abstract metres is ludicrous.”

If you and Mr. Rancourt don’t mind, I would like to respond to your observations.

My thoughts on this (which mostly follow the Austrian interpretation as closely as I understand it) may turn into a “good news, bad news” thing; this is a subject where we have two clear cases, one ideal or theoretical, the other the case of how things actually are.

Theoretical first:

Money is defined as “the most liquid commodity.” In other words, that thing which is most easily traded or bartered for something else. In a prison where possession of dollars is prohibited, cigarettes may become “money.” They are liquid, easily traded. Now, in that context, is money “a medium of exchange?” Obviously yes.

Is money also a unit of account? Again, experience says yes. Note though, that here in the US (and traditionally throughout the world) that the unit of money is defined as a certain amount of something liquid. Here in the US, a
“dollar” (the abstract unit of money) is still legally defined as a certain weight (I think roughly 1/44th ounce of gold or 3/4ths ounce of silver) of precious metal. Remember though that the US dollar is today not really a dollar, but rather a Federal Reserve Note. We still call it a dollar, but its value comes only because it is liquid. One of the most important functions of a free market is to let people voluntarily and unimpeded trade goods for money so that a consensus of value can be reached. Note that this is not an absolute consensus. If the grocery stores sell broccoli for a dollar, there will be people who disagree with the price and who will not buy. There will be some store owners who will not sell for a dollar. Oddly enough, the market is a place for bringing together people who actually disagree on the value of an object. Sales take place (using the broccoli example), when the grocer feels that broccoli if slightly less valuable than a dollar, and the buyer feels that the dollar is slightly less valuable than the broccoli. Still, in broad terms, yes, money is a unit of accounting.

(continued)

Jason Calley said...

(continued from above)

Is money a store of value? Well, it certainly was when dollars were actual metal. It could be melted down and used for jewelry. More importantly, again, it is the liquidity of money that is today its main value. As long as other people will give you something valuable for it, it has a value.

That was how things in theory are. Here is the real world version, here is why we are not taught about money in school.

Is money a medium of exchange? If we are talking fiat, paper money, money printed up from essentially nothing, then money is only a medium of exchange because your government will either shoot or steal from anyone who refuses to use it. This is called “legal tender laws.” People will voluntarily barter for pieces of gold or silver or copper or eggs, but seriously, would you give me your car if I gave you a handful of paper slips? Not even if they had fairly high quality pictures of Presidents on them? No? You will if I can pass a law that the police will arrest you otherwise…

Is money a unit of account? Let’s look closer at the simple example of the broccoli above. There was some sleight of hand there… A “dollar” is a unit of value. A tangible silver coin is a piece of money. It may (if it has the proper weight) also have a value of “one dollar.” A Federal Reserve Note is NOT a piece of money and it does NOT have a value of one dollar. It is, properly speaking, a bank note, a written instrument recording a debt obligation. If it were a piece of silver or gold then it could be money and have a dollar value. That is what “dollars” are. Because we trade Federal Reserve Notes for the same things which we used to trade money denominated in dollars for, we act as if a note has the same dollar value as money. Only as long as we can trade notes as if they were money, can we say that notes are units of account. The thing that makes real physically useful money the same as a unit of account is that money has uses in addition to its liquidity use. For instance, a piece of paper with “3 metres” written on it, is not three metres long. A stick that is three metres long actually carries within itself the same three metres possessed by a bar made of iron or a three metre salami.

Is money a store of value? Not if it is a piece of paper and paper is so cheap it is kept in toilets. The ability to create an endless stream of paper money means that paper money’s value will fluctuate based on the whim of the creators. This is not a “store” in any meaningful usage of the term.

By now, it should be clear that while the three points you make are reasonable for a traditional commodity backed monetary system, they are all violated by the current fiat paper money system. The monetary system has been changed from the commodity system because the current fiat system allows a small group of people to become parasites who feed off the labor and creativity of others. This system is backed by the power of the law, which is to say, that anyone who tries to go outside this system will be punished and ultimately killed by those with uniforms and guns.

Money does not make sense today because it was designed to not be fair, reasonable or sensible; it was designed to allow fraud and theft on the grandest scale every conceived.

Cheryl said...

Thank you very much for this list of lies.

You might want to include the attack on our food supply. Nicole Johnson does a very good job of putting together the history of the BIG LIE called food safety.

The International HACCP regulations put in place in response to the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture are directly responsible for the increase in food poisonings in the USA. What is worse is the FDA and USDA are taking orders from WTO instead of the American people under the guise of "Harmonization" The FDA even had a web page explaining how they are now bound by the international agreements. This happens to be a lie:

"U.S. law is governed by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (hereinafter the 1979 Act). In the Act, Congress made clear that any provision of the Tokyo Round agreements negotiated under the GATT framework would not prevail over a U.S. statute, regardless of when the statue was enacted." www.eastlaw.net/research/wto/wto2b.htm

Nicole Johnson's articles:
History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job
The Festering Fraud Behind Food Safety Reform

It is also worthwhile googling "John Munsell" and food.

Anonymous said...

This essay reminds me of the last time I went to a dentist. They said I had a serious cavity that needed filling immediately, and had x-rays images to prove it. But then they said there was another that looked like it needed to be filled in about 6 months. That make me suspicious, so I never returned for the filling, and have never seen a dentist since.

That appointment was before my 1st child was born. She will be 22 years old this week. So, for over 22 years there has been a serious cavity in my mouth that has resulted in no pain or tooth loss?

Meanwhile, the amalgam fillings from my childhood release tiny amounts of mercury to my brain.

Zaplog said...

Hi Denis, actually came across you article from Nexus magazine. I think you've summed it up pretty well. Just wondering if you or any of your readers have come across any whistleblowers from the media industry, who have come forward to speak about controls over what is written or broadcast in the mass media?

Bob Baxter said...

Hi

It's a great article. I first read it in Nexus Magazine. I particularly enjoyed learning about the ozone hoax and the acid rain which I recall from my childhood as "the great issues of the day." Two problems that recently "vanished" from the collective reality/mind. Along with the fear of global cooling, I guess. :)

As I see it, the Holocaust is another gargantuan lie that we're being fed as Absolute Truth. Feel free to take a look at my website.

Greetings,
Baxter

Denis Rancourt said...

@Bob Baxter,

My reference regarding the Nazi Holocaust and it's relevance to society and US geopolitics is Norman Finkelstein's seminal book "The Holocaust Industry".

See the posts under the labels "Palestine" or "Israel" on the present blog.

Anonymous said...

There is of course much motivation behind so-called neutral, scientific, technocratic arguments, both for or against smoking, ozone depletion, or climate change theories. While it is important to unwrap those, and keep watch on possible manipulations, we still have to assess the actual arguments made.

For the case of the ozone issue cited, an update on that mystery came two years later in the same Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090507/full/news.2009.456.html, which confirms, for the time being, the received wisdom on the depletion process. Same issue with climate change: it suits the new 'green capitalist' and many environmentalists, but pisses the older brown, much more powerful, carbon industry. While keeping a check on mystification, we need to pay attention to the still most solid evidence we currently have. So far, that evidence robustly points to anthropogenic GHG warming, both in theoretical explanation and empirical observations. There is plenty of room for criticism and better knowledge of climate processes, as always in science, but whatever the motives, the evidence is still sufficiently in favour of action rather than risking climate destabilization.

furrywrath said...

i can’t believe half this bullshit. Normally i would have TLDR'ed such an article but something posed me to read the section on medicine. WTF!? Btw where did you get your stats according to the CDC medical malpractice is not even listed in the top 10 causes of death in the u.s. also your staments on vaccinations are utter bullshit as there is a long list of diseases no long present in the world due to medical science namely polio, smallpox, diphtheria, and Malaria just to name a few.
If you really want to scorn the table of plenty and go live in a place or time were the life expectancy was 35, ill happily buy you a one way ticket to a third world shithole and you can die of whatever you contract there, but the catch is when you come clawing back for medical treatment, your own. Or If I had a time machine I could always send you back to the 900’s C.E. yea… have fun with that.

You are idot of the month for July.

Anonymous said...

furrywrath - your wrath is unwarranted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_error

http://www.apmlawyers.com/lawyer-attorney-1305702.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis#Incidence_and_importance

http://www.sin-medicalmistakes.org/index.html

If you have not personally lost a loved one to Iatrogenesis, consider yourself among the lucky.