Economics as a Religion: more Cult, Dogmas and High Priests

One thing is Mammon as a cult in the sense of money as the ultimate goal and to hell one’s fellows, another thing is Economics as a cult in the sense of worshipping economic theories as sacred dogmas, particularly the false ones; in both cases one is the successful product of a deeply vicious manipulation, but in the latter case, additionally, one is either plain dumb or playing dumb.

Those who brightly denounced how economics has been turned into a cult used the term “religion”, but while this is a great feat on their part, we better point out a distinction between religion and cult: a cult is but a religion whose original, positive spirit and fallout has been infiltrated by suppressives and potential trouble sources, and poisoned with arbitraries as one of their tactics, to the ensuing degradation and destructive degraded products. From help to betrayal, from cause to effect, from liberation to enslavement: been there, seen the movie, haven’t we?

Where we’re dealing with economics turned into a religion or, more to the point, a cult, we’re dealing with a rational and vital subject turned into a suppressive one by dint of arbitraries. I previously discussed in the Crimes Against Humanity: the Bill section what an arbitrary is, and how serious a matter it is; now I add that dogma is a synonym of arbitrary: a dogma is but an arbitrary in priestly vestments, and the latter are but a trick to empower it.

Economists and the alike thus can rise to the rank of a priesthood, a priesthood belonging to the technocratic species. And a technocratic priesthood has a precise role in the course of a totalitarian descent into hell: when the “elected” rulers have exhausted their credibility acting in the interest of their puppeteers, they can be replaced with “technical” rulers; these have the advantage of eliminating the annoyance of being answerable to the electorate, and of doing not what “the electorate” wants, but what the “technical Word” dictates; hence, when this replacement goes on stage, you can bet those same puppeteers have long since full control of that “technical Word”, too.

Economics as a Religion: more Cult, Dogmas and High Priests, 2

In the opposing field, that economics has successfully achieved a religious, or cult, status is confirmed by the fact that people’s acceptance of “economics Word” is an article of faith. Blind faith. By dint of façades with columns, dark suits, and the art of “assuming the appearance of power until the people gives it to you”.
As Nuri comments about this facet, “not coincidentally the rational justification for economic scripture is not available, nor questioning permitted, to “laymen”. If capitalism is a religion, then any suspicion regarding the system's integrity, particularly that focusing on the specific mechanisms of its actual physical embodiment (such as money expansion, central banks, or fractional reserve banking) may all be regarded as sacrilege, heresy, blasphemy, or a conspiracy theory.”
Same old story of humanoid faults and powerful tame media… However, here and there a few chips in those façades with columns indicate that someone’s faith, by dint of perennial impoverishment and hamster wheel, begins to waiver.

It has been said that of all our duties and skills, differentiating and detecting the social and the antisocial personalities ranks the highest, and here we have a practical implementation: if we remove suppression and PTSness from whatever subject, that subject recovers its original ethics, and thus its rationality, understandability and productivity, too. Reversed, destructive tools contain a positive potential because, if they’ve been reversed, they originally contain a positive potential; hence, by removing the reversal, the positive can resurface. And economics is no exception. As I said in the Not Up to It? section, you definitely have the right to know and the right to understand, and anything can and must be reported in such a way that any non−specialist can understand. By now you are well aware there is an arm wrestling between who wants to know and who wants to hide, because once enough veils are removed one can understand whether what is in front of one’s nose holds up, makes sense, is ethical, or not.

Economics as a Religion: more Cult, Dogmas and High Priests, 3

We know how in the presence of humanoid blind faith and powerful tame media, a climate of human and economic obscurantism is possible, in which something even worse than hollow demonisations can sweep the society: economic doublespeak in cult sauce. It is something we’re already conversant with, both Orwellian doublespeak and cult dogmas, so suffice here to report the examples made by Nuri:
You write “increasing the money supply”, but you read “debasing the currency”; what gets lost in translation is, “from whom Robin Hood takes how much purchasing power to give it to whom?”
You write “deflation Bogeyman”, but you read “healthy deflation”; what gets lost in translation is that “when it gets better there is more product for the same money”.
You write “price stability”, but you read “the creation of money goes hand in hand with the increase of gross domestic product”; what gets lost in translation is, “in whose hands is the new money created? Those of whom increased the production, those of whom entrusted their savings to money, or those of the moneypulators?”
You write “fighting inflation”, but you read “shepherd wolves”; what gets lost in translation is, “the very central banking authorities professedly entrusted with fighting inflation are its cause”.
You write “free market”, but you read “none are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free”; what gets lost in translation is, “what about the freedom of meeting between supply and demand whereas a hidden third party tampers with their yardstick to its own advantage?”
You write “growth”, but you read “hamster wheel”; what gets lost in translation is, “the parasite artificially increasing its host’s metabolism to its own advantage and to the destruction of the host and of the environment”.
You write “market rates”, but you read “tail wagging the dog, or, the exact opposite”; what gets lost in translation is, “those who claim that the free market self regulates are the very caste in full control of its money quantities such as interest rates and money supply”.