Wil Coyote turns the page, and continues reading:
“The next step is the specialisation swindle.”
I permit myself to intervene for a moment here just to point out that not without reason I put a section in the beginning named “Not up to it?” This swindle is quite basic, quite commonplace, quite overlooked, and quite important to detect and reject.
Wil Coyote reading again:
“Any subject beyond a certain level of detail is the province of its insiders, and while the truth is that anyone, whether insider or not, is entitled to understand it through its fundamentals without having to resort to such details and it is up to the insiders to make it so, the truth is commonly reversed by the insiders to fool people into subjection. And they do that by making people apathetic at first about the details, and in the long run about the whole subject. You just don’t get it; you are the one at fault: that is the swindle.”
As I said – me speaking now –, “I don’t understand” means “I don’t know”. And the whole trick here is convincing you that “you can’t understand”… the information that is being denied to you in the first place, its understandable form included.

Wil Coyote turns another page:
“The next step is the immune system.”
As we have seen – still me speaking –, the host’s immune system is a major target for the parasite: any attacker worth the name aims at hijacking the very defenders of the victim and turning them against it.
Wil Coyote asking me to kindly quit interrupting and distracting him, and resuming to read:
“The merging of the opinion leader, the expert and the watchdog is at the same time the symbol of the risks intrinsic to delegation and their becoming a reality, and all these facets reinforce such role like ramparts in a fortress. You motivated people by creating serious problems for them, you persuaded them that these problems are too difficult for them to understand and so to put blind faith in experts and opinion leaders, you gave them as their opinion leaders the very experts in charge of watching their backs, and you have these all in your power, whether they realise it or not; there you have it: they all eat out of your hand now.”

Wil Coyote closes the book, and a thought balloon appears above his head: “Hmm… Opinion leaders, experts, watchdogs and society’s immune system, then. This calls for a good look.” And then he looks around in search of a good place to start and possibly a good direction to be taken.

Economy is survival, therefore economics is the science of survival. Survival is attained through production and exchange of survival factors, therefore economics is firstly the science of production and exchange. The means of credit, payment and exchange like moneys are among the most fundamental tools of survival in that they allow to split barter and so remove the most fundamental bottleneck to exchange and thus to production, therefore the science of the means of credit, payment and exchange, like moneys indeed, is among the most fundamental elements of economics and among the most fundamental make or break points in economy.

“Hmm… sounds like a good place to start. So, who are the opinion leaders, experts and whatchdogs in this area, economics as centered around money in all its possible forms as we have previously seen?”
With an important caveat: be prepared to face empty centers.
During our photo safari we’re going to study our characters from the point of view of how do they relate with the center – money as we now know it – and we must be prepared to notice and evaluate the absence of relationship as much as its presence if not even more.

I guess we can roughly list three categories: those who study, those who act, those who inform. Ideally, economists, sociologists and the alike ought to research what’s best; politicians, public officials and the alike ought to gather our consent to carry out what’s best; journalists, media operators and the alike ought to keep us informed about who’s doing what, and how. Ideally.

We now know about survival, economy, economics, money and other means of credit, payment and exchange, and about their relationships and seniority. And compared to such characters we are laypersons. Consequently we could legitimately expect them to have full mastery with such basics; much more than us. And expect them to communicate and act accordingly. Ideally.

Go and inspect.
You may just want to ask them only one question: “Are you plain dumb or playing dumb?” And you may get the idea that betrayal is a mission to them. And you may hit the mark.
Or you may discover that you now know more than them. It’s not a matter of putting on airs, not for a moment; we’re here to get somewhere. Just go and inspect if you can find somewhere else in the mainstream vulgate what you’ve got here, complete, explained, and connected.

Here the concept of relative importances comes in handy: things, data, etc. are more or less important with regards to one another and to a purpose, hence ought to be treated accordingly.
When someone object that some pieces of the puzzle already surfaced somewhere, the answer, as it has been said, is that they surfaced in the middle of lots of other items, and if they were aware of their relative importances then, they would most definitely underline them with the blue pencil and set the rest aside.
Here you can directly apply relative importances as a yardstick: not only you now know about production, exchange, means of credit, payment and exchange, and moneypulation; you now know as well that these are the basics. So go and inspect those characters as to their position with regards not only to these basics but to their relative importance as well. And be well prepared to face vacuums, as that’s what you’re most likely to find.
“Are you plain dumb or playing dumb? That is the question.”

Furthermore, when in an area there is a great amount of conflicting opinions about how things work and ought to be handled, this is a serious indicator that there is a lack of data, whose vacuum gets filled with opinions, and that there is something definitely wrong in the first place. And when you find out that at the root of such situation there is a lack of basics, that comes as no surprise. And we know that someone profits from chaos twice: either by leading you in wrong directions or by paralysing you with confusion.

The conflicting opinions that form the confusion we’re interested in are revolve around economic theories, and an adjective seldom heard is used to describe both the opinions and especially the theories whose definition is rather explicit:
Specious: having a false look of truth or genuineness; of an argument which is good, true and right only apparently, which aims at convincing by deceiving with the appearance.
We are now aware of money parasites and of their quest for invisibility and for increased host metabolism.
On this basis we can more easily observe how economic theories tend to be spread in a form we may call “religious doublespeak”. And how some call “religious capitalist doublespeak” the fallout of these theories, the mantra of “everybody knows that…” stemming from those theories and passed off to us all as taken for granted so we make it our own passively, blindly and unquestioningly. It cannot be repeated often enough how a basic deception technique is passing off as not only demonstrated, but even as taken for granted, what is neither demonstrated nor taken for granted in the first place. And how its degree of penetration in minds and societies proves and measures the power of those behind it.

Religious here is meant in its wicked sense, whereas its “sine qua non” is blind faith… for the very good reason that the real ultimate purpose is exploiting that blindness in its followers. And blind faith is what opens the door to, among other niceties, doublespeak.

Capitalist here is meant in its non−potential trouble source sense: not as left−wing puppets against right−wing puppets with both thus serving their common puppeteers, but as people looking moneypulators straight in the eye.

Doublespeak and its inner face, doublethink, are but one of the reasons why Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty−Four is among the fundamental texts for the education of any human being as such: it points out clearly for one to confront what is the exact opposite of confront itself, which has been called “reasonableness”, and defined as “not recognizing something illogical for what it is”: something illogical indeed. And it points out clearly as well, so we can confront them too, what are the consequences of reasonableness, that is, how serious an instrument of suppression and a sign of a potential trouble source condition reasonableness is.
The “double” prefix is where reasonableness resides: doublethink consists in accepting as valid at the same time both something and its opposite; doublespeak consists in expressing such opposites verbally, and so typically humanoid this verbal expression is that it even exists as a figure of speech, called “oxymoron”: the union of two contradictory terms referring to the same entity, with the effect of a paradox. The etymon of the term further underlines the point: it comes from the greek oksýs: acute, e mōrós: foolish, deranged.

Goes without saying that twisting harm into benefit, entangling good and evil with one another, is hardly for good, and hardly in your best interest.

Some examples of doublethink and doublespeak in Ninety Eighty−Four?
The three Party’s slogans:
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is force

Some examples of doublethink and doublespeak in economic suppression, maybe in its specialised form of economic and money parasitism?
Some slogans of the "Pensée Unique in Economics":
(I’ll discuss ahead the "single thought" in economics; however, here you catch a glimpse of it, as nailed down by ex−chief World Bank economist Joseph Stiglitz, «excommunicated purely for expressing mild dissent from globalisation World Bank−style», in the interview with reporter Gregory Palast titled “IMF’s four steps to damnation”, where he lists the ingredients of the International Monetary Fund’s «country assistance strategy» implemented through its «restructuring agreements» imposed on the «helped» countries. An "assistance" discussed in more detail by Kevin Danaher in his Fifty Years is Enough: The Case Against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, by John Perkins in his Confessions of an Economic Hit−Man, and in its ultimate aims and function by G. Edward Griffin in his The Creature from Jekill Island.)
Step One, "privatisation". Instead of protecting state industries, local politicians betray by selling them off, pocketing handsome "commissions" commensurate with how much they "shave" the sale price, using the World Bank’s demands to silence critics, and drastically mutilating national output, with all the imaginable consequences on the nation’s welfare and creditworthiness.
Step Two, "capital market liberalisation". Pursuant to the "restructuring agreements", local politicians thrust the dykes open to the "investment" capital; first its speculative flood grabs properties out of people’s hands, and then its instanteous flight at the first whiff of trouble leaves an even worse devastation behind: the nation’s value on the market drops, and the purchasing power of its money with it, so the nation is forced to drain its reserves to cope, and moreover to attract the speculators back it skyrockets the yield, in other words the cost, of money, thus starving its people by destroying their purchasing power.

Step Three, "market−based pricing". Forced by the IMF and by the quicksand the IMF’s "help" is pushing it into, the gasping nation abandons support to people’s purchasing power, cancelling subsidies and letting the prices of essential goods shoot up, pushing people more and more into poverty.
Step Three−and−a−Half: "social unrest". The pressure is turned up to «squeeze the last drop of blood out of them», and the IMF is well aware and well prepared for the deflagration, and continues turning up the pressure because its intention is precisely to cause it and exploit that, too. So when people begin to react in dissent and self defence, «peaceful demonstrations are dispersed by bullets, tanks and tear gas», because this causes «new flights of capital and government bankruptcies»; an «economic arson» motivated by its «bright side» for the vultures: the nation’s «remaining assets at fire sales prices».
Step Four, "free trade". «This is free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organisation and the World Bank, which Stiglitz likens to the Opium Wars. ‘That too was about "opening markets",’ he said. As in the nineteenth century, Europeans and Americans today are kicking down barriers to sales in Asia, Latin American and Africa while barricading our own markets against the Third World's agriculture. In the Opium Wars, the West used military blockades. Today, the World Bank can order a financial blockade, which is just as effective and sometimes just as deadly.»
«'It's a little like the Middle Ages,' says the economist. 'When the patient died they would say well, we stopped the bloodletting too soon, he still had a little blood in him.'» And there’s no better doctor than the parasite itself.

In light of both economic parasitism and Orwellian doublethink and doublespeak, mainstream economic theories may take on a much clearer – if a bit more specious and sinister – meaning.

Our case in point is Keynesianism.
You now know the mechanism of the Trojan horse, hence you are well aware that anything is liable to contain something good which is then leveraged to infiltrate something suppressive, therefore you are well aware that there esists no substitute whatsoever for your own inspection, understanding and judgment, and that Keynesianism here is but an example and not at all hold up as the sole culprit, that is as the scapegoat that pays for all. It has been said that the application of a knowledge is an art, and you are that artist.

Nuri points out how the economist John Maynard Keynes has been hailed by so much of the establishment as the “Einstein of economics” despite “economics as epitomised in Keynesianism appears to fail spectacularly the … criteria of scientific falsifiability” – which is going to resound to us much like a confirmation than as a surprise.
The gist of Keynesianism as waved around by the mainstream, and thus the gist they want us to accept as gospel regardless of its true details, is that: a) economy needs to be stimulated, b) to stimulate it enough it is required that the state itself gets into business, and c) in order to achieve that it is all perfectly well for the state to operate at a loss, and thus it is all perfectly well for the state to go on sinking indefinitely more and more into indebtedness as well.
Let alone that it is basic ethics and common sense that indebtedness must not be permanent but only a momentary eventuality it is used to get back on one’s feet as soon as possible, were we not aware of economic parasitism, we would look at “stimulation” of economy from a naive viewpoint, one from which no harmful side effects of “stimulation” are in sight; but now we know that would just be due to a limited perspective.

In fact, progressives maintain that stimulating the economy is well worth the indebtedness, sometimes that the debt of the state is actually the wealth of people, sometimes that it will last forever or that it will never be repaid anyway, and sometimes they simply turn to indebtedness an utterly blind eye. On the other hand, conservatives maintain that sooner or later indebtedness is going to be repaid anyway, and that until then it is a heavy burden well worth getting rid of. According to the former, accepting indebtedness stimulates the economy; according to the latter, getting rid of indebtedness stimulates the economy.
Were we not aware of economic parasitism, either we would hardly notice this interesting symmetry, or we would not know what to make of it. But now we do know that both “opposing sides” remain carefully and utterly silent as to the fact that that debt is odious debt: odious debt is something we shall soon see, but we nonetheless already know it is fraudulently manufactured out of nothing using moneypulation and infinite debt traps.
In fact, when the state uses purchasing power to, in Keynesian vernacular, “stimulate the economy” by purchasing products and services and providing jobs, if the state itself was in possession of monetary sovereignty, it would create that purchasing power out of nothing in its own hands. Whereupon the honesty and effectiveness of that creation would be a matter between the state and its citizens: if that purchasing power would allow potential production to come into being, then it would not create that mass pickpocketing called inflation and it would just be a matter of what did the state give to citizens in exchange for that purchasing power created out of nothing in its hands; whereas that purchasing power would exceed potential production and create inflation, it would be up to the citizens to clip the state’s fingernails. But if the political rulers, after robbing the citizen of monetary sovereignty, transfer it to the moneypulators, they make the moneypulators the actual rulers through the economy, by means of the infinite debt trap.

When the state is run by Keynesians, it keeps on “stimulating” the economy by sinking into indebtedness; but that debt is neither owed to nobody nor to its citizens: that debt is owed to the moneypulators. When the state is run by opposers of Keynesianism, it keeps on “stimulating” the economy by bleeding it to pull out of debts; and that debt is still owed to the moneypulators.
And the truth in both cases is, that debt is odious, fraudulent, and since it is the implementation of an infinite debt trap, it is not only a theft, but it is a theft that can never be “settled”.

Speaking of basic concepts singled out and made explicit, there is the existing scene and there is the ideal scene. The existing scene is how things are; the ideal scene is how things ought to be. Part of the not−so−obvious usefulness of having that quite clear is that one’s ideal scene is one’s reference, one’s ultimate limit “which takes so large a share of the far−flung horizon from view”, as the Poet said. It has been said that the only thing that can imprison one are one’s own considerations, and the ideal scene is no exception. The ideal scene is one’s consideration of how things ought to be, and what one considers might well be quite apart from what it actually is. All the factors that intervene between the truth and one’s awareness interpose, ranging from research to study and to confront, and each one of them can send one’s considered ideal either far away or far back from what is actually possible. But there’s also an additional factor that can contribute to this divergence, particularly in such cases as economics, which is lack of that critical alertness which no “authority” whatsoever can stop. The result may well be that one’s ideal scene is a cave just because one’s been carefully kept uninformed that houses have been developed, fully equipped with heating, electricity, running water, and all the rest of it, or that one’s ideal scene is committing mass murder and suicide just because one has been carefully manipulated into thinking that one’s fellows are despicable and some divinity would reward such feat with some form of otherwordly paradise. You get the idea of why it is my opinion that the critical alertness in reviewing the quality of one’s ideal scenes is of the utmost importance.

Keynesianism considers there is an existing scene, called “real” gross domestic product, and an ideal scene, called “natural” gross domestic product. (The noun “gross domestic product” indicates the total amount of what a country has “produced” as quantifiable in “monetary terms”; that this is a deliberately and destructively faulty yardstick is another story we’ll take up later; what we’re interested in here are these adjectives associated to it.)
On this basis, Keynesianism further considers that the “real” gross domestic product is “unnatural”, that is, below−optimal, and thus an intervention is justified to “stimulate” the “real” towards the optimal “natural”.
On this basis, Keynesianism rejects the classical economic doctrine that could be summed up in “leaving alone” a self−regulating economy, and maintains that a treatment must be imposed upon the patient, thus regardless of his will, in a sort of “involuntary economic commitment”: both the government and the citizens may be required to increase spending and consumption to “stimulate” the “existing” scene towards the “ideal” scene, and this most definitely includes squandering one’s savings first, and then continuing by running into debt.
Everything must be sacrificed on the altar of the “stimulation” of economy, and this provides the rationale for whatever totalitarian removal of purchasing power, powers and freedoms from the citizen, to give them to the politicians that will use them to feed the parasite: the moneypulators pulling their strings, regardless of whether they’re plain dumb or playing dumb. This paves the way to whatever “growth at all costs”, consumerism, and, in the final analysis, cancer stage of capitalism.

The inoculation point of Keynesianism was the Bretton Woods conference, straight after the Second World War. It could be argued that the product of a World War was an extraordinary and widespread economic upheaval, and that therefore equally extraordinary measures were then justified to provide the “needed” extraordinary stimulation. But the Bretton Woods conference is where such things as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and a Dollar−centric system of fixed exchange rates were put through, and once one knows what these things are actually for, one may well argue as well that the Second World War itself was but a Trojan horse to emplace these, casting a heavy shadow over the “problem”, and on its blatant human cost, as the possible pretext for the “solution”, with its hidden but just as deadly human cost.
You may have noticed above that I put the terms “real” and “natural” in quotes. The definition of “in quotes” that applies here is, “quite to the contrary”. If the authenticity of the “real” gross domestic product is somewhat questionable, with its presumption that any ethical production is expressible in money and that all that is expressed in money is ethical production, the genuineness of the “natural” gross domestic product is considerably more so, with its presumption that we must speed all this up ad infinitum, running faster and faster just to stay in the same place much like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland or rather much more like hamsters in the wheel, with its presumption that “it will be all right” if our reserves melt away like snow in the sun and we sink into indebtedness like into quicksand.

Yep, because we do know a parasite feeds on the metabolic flows of its victim, that it can take control of it, and that it can artificially increase its metabolism. And we do know a significant amount of reserves is a vital factor for the well−being and the survival of an organism, that those reserves are a major target for the parasite, and that the parasite aims at “mobilising” them into its victim’s metabolic flows in order to seize them.
And that is exactly what we see when we look at consumerism and at any push for increased amount and speed of use of a money under the control of moneypulators; the target? People’s and states’ savings first and then indebtedness. That is, the victim’s energy reserves.

Keynesianism is here as the epitome of specious, manipulated, false economic theories pushed to fame to serve parasitic purposes. The reason Keynesianism is put on a pedestal is because it is a court poet, instrumental to moneypulators’ parasitism. Keynesianism and its public hand stimulating economy aim at the same target than consumerism: the artificial increase of the victim’s metabolism so that the parasite can rob its victim of a greater amount of its vital energy, which would otherwise be beyond its reach.
But both Keynesians and supporters of balanced budgets are puppets on the stage. The proof that that of the economists, just as that of the politicians, is but role−playing is that neither of their opposing fronts, opposing but both mainstream, ever dares to do anything else than cover−up about the one and only basic underlying all problems: the robbing of the people’spurchasing power through moneypulation, debt money and infinite debt trap. Both of them, both politicians and economists, and both of their mainstream “opposing” fronts, are worthy only one question, “Are you plain dumb or playing dumb?” A question none of them will ever dare to acknowledge; far less to answer.
It takes the non−aligned to get somewhere instead of going in circles, but even then one must keep one’s judgement to discern intuitions from fixations and insights from dead end blunders.

In fact, on the one hand Keynesianism went to great lengths to repudiate the gold standard. The pretext, the Trojan horse, was to allow an abundance of money to help the world recover after the war; the real reason was to remove the “impediment” represented by having to have actual purchasing power, gold, to back it up, so the moneypulators could create paper money, and its acknowledged purchasing power, out of nothing in their hands at will.
On the other hand, the economists of the non−aligned Austrian school maintain the gold standard for the very reason that it prevents moneypulation, the creation of purchasing power out of nothing. The only problem is, gold being relatively rare, to the degree the gold standard is ensured, it curtails the amount of existing money, suffocating the exchanges and the economy. If we’re to use gold directly, it will be very scarce and difficult to handle, even tough divided in microscopic units. If we’re to use gold backed paper money, we will never be sure about the extent the issuer is practicing fractional reserve behind our backs.

As we have seen before, the bigger the pyramid scheme of the criminals, the more need for leg pullers to operate it there is, and the more purchasing power to buy them there is. From a parasitological and oncological point of view, these are all metastases indeed. And as we have seen these metastases sistematically attack all the components of society instrumental to their aims: opinion leaders, experts, watchdogs, citizens. Quite obviously, wherever the observation and judgement are that could and should detect them, either delegated or exercised firsthand, these are to be either taken control of or suppressed. And replaced with complicity, blind faith and diversion.

I will spare us here any pedantic and time−consuming inventory that would be best assembled and outdone by your own observation; suffice here to mention a few basic areas: education, media, civic−mindedness.

Education is infiltrated and hijacked to prevent education, to educate to unquestioning acceptance, to occult true basics and replace them with their absence, their altered versions, or with substitutes, and to educate to uncritically adopt and use faulty systems based on these, and accept their lack of real results. General education is entrusted with doing that on a general basic level, academic education, beginning with the most pertinent fields such as economics and sociology, is entrusted with doing the same with the core specific subjects.

The media are infiltrated and hijacked to divert attention away from the real problems and solutions towards false solutions to real problems or directly towards false problems, to absorb and saturate all attention with entertainment, and to inure to negativity and to apathy, helped in that by both the economic hamster wheel provided by their same puppeteers and their own being liable to act the merchant of chaos.

Civic−mindedness, what’s left of it after such a treatment as provided by such infiltrated and hijacked education and media, is then in its turn infiltrated and hijacked to be confined to, and exhausted in, the vain endless conflict that takes place everytime the conflicting parties do not realise being fomented by a third party. That is politics degraded to clashing by blind faith.

It is worth pointing out that their main targets are the institutions and their teachings, rather than the mere individuals. Because to the degree the metastases are successful, those infiltrated and hijacked institutions and teachings will go on cranking out returning illiterate after returning illiterate, barbarian after barbarian, blindfold economist after blindfold economist, robot after robot, pawn after pawn, metastasis after metastasis.
Even before asking each of them, “Are you plain dumb or playing dumb?”, it is more productive to ask the same question to those who educated him or her, and to those who put these and their texts and methods in place.
Education is permanently a main target for every suppression, and protecting it from just that is among the personal responsibilities of each one of us.

And there is no substitute for our personal alertness, investigation, inspection, confront and knowledge, and “specious” economic theories are no exception.
An economist tells us that “a little inflation is a good thing”? Come on. We now know that any inflation is a ripple of transfer of purchasing power, fraudulently benefiting thieves to the degree they are close to the source point of the ripple, that is, of the purchasing power created out of nothing, at the expense of those along the line, to the degree they are far from that source point, until they are merely defrauded, robbed and damaged.
Another economist tells us that “money supply needs to be ‘elastic’”? Come on. We now know that banksters do cause those boom and bust cycles that money “elasticity” should cope with, and that they cause them at will by that very “elasticity”: by expanding and contracting their fraudulent money out of thin air, and then by exploiting it to expropriate all of us.

The big banksters of the United States blamed on free banking the very evils caused by the central bank they conspired to impose? Come on. We always knew that “the criminal blames others of what he himself commits”.

If the economy, the citizens and their states, are either forced into a spiral of indebtedness or into a spiral of deprivation without eradicating the deadly tapeworm hidden in their stomach, the result in both cases will be a doomed economy of citizens and states starved to death, barbarised, sold out, expropriated and enslaved by moneypulators.
No problem is solved by coping with it; it is solved by solving it. No way of coping with economic parasitism will do; economic parasitism is solved only by removing the parasite.

The reason why you can formulate the basic question “Are you plain dumb or playing dumb?” is that you know. You know the fundamentals, you know their betrayal. You then label the items in this area “shepherd wolves, red herrings and poisoned meatballs”. Red herrings and poisoned meatballs exploit the very problem itself to protect it and make it worse in disguise; the typical age−old case is ideological and political conflict: ideology and politics are the means, conflict is the aim, third parties are the cause, silly humanoids are the target, moneypulation is the problem to protect. Shepherd dogs protect the sheep from the wolves, hence it is obvious for the wolves to take their place. Just as it is obvious for a shepherd wolf to keep shepherd dogs busy with red herrings, and stop them with poisoned meatballs when red herrings won’t keep them far away enough.
But you also know about suppressives and potential trouble sources, and it makes you want to wonder for how many of these shepherd wolves all of that is “obvious”, and betrayal is a mission.