Kind-of Insider CONT'D

I'll address several of the questions that came up in the last thread:

>Everyone assumed that less white population would imply lower average IQ.

Whether or not this is true, this is neither the aim nor relevant. IQ does not have anything to do with consumer potential.

>If creating the ideal consumer is the goal, couldn't this hurt production in the long run, because the ideal consumer isn't necessarily the ideal producer (returning to the IQ question)?

The key is automation. It is absolutely true that not only are ideal consumers not necessarily ideal producers, but the two might be inversely related in some respects. But the future appears to be one consisting of increasing automation, therefore requiring less human producers and more human consumers.

>Why do globalists seem to support some socialist policies if they are driven by capital and profits?

Because the world we are heading toward, one where automation produces the vast majority of commodities and humans consume these goods produces several problems. First, it poses an existential crisis when people realize that they are no longer necessary to production and have become the consumers of automated, mass produced goods. This existential crisis often causes regression to pre-capital forms of identity formation, such as ethnic sectarianism or religious fundamentalism. The goal then is two fold:

Other urls found in this thread:

business.financialpost.com/news/fp-street/how-banks-bundled-bad-debt
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

(1) Reduce the possibility of pre-capital regression by making it impossible. This is achieved through the “leftist” policies of mass immigration, biological integration, and secularization. Islam has successfully put the West in a position where it is the right pushing for secularism in opposition to Islam (think dialectically). The end result is what I've termed the Brazilianization of humanity, or the transition from pre-capital identity to post-capital, commodity-based identity, which is based on non-identity-possessing individuals consuming identity units through the global market place.

(2) The seemingly “socialist” aspects of globalism are necessary to combat the problem of capital accumulation. If automation produces almost all goods for consumer humanity, then capital will accumulate at the level of automation ownership as people spend their money but don't make any, eventually leading to a declining rate of profit as consumers have less money to spend on automation-produced goods. The solution is (a) credit, which serves two purposes: (i) It allows for liquidity in the hands of consumers to be spent on commodities, and (ii) it further ties consumers into the system by tying them to credit banks through debt accumulation. (b) And global welfare-statism, which sustains an increasingly non-working human population of consumers.

>IQ does not have anything to do with consumer potential.

If you are unable to create new and evolving product, you have nothing to sell to consumers. Commerce stagnates.

>The key is automation.

And who will design, build, and maintain these automated producers?

How do people get money when most things will be automated? You have to exchange somiting of worth

I know your true form.

How does anything get produced if everyone is a consumer? I mean, how would companies get any money if everyone was a consumer and not a producer?

>(1) Reduce the possibility of pre-capital regression by making it impossible. This is achieved through the “leftist” policies of mass immigration, biological integration, and secularization. Islam has successfully put the West in a position where it is the right pushing for secularism in opposition to Islam (think dialectically). The end result is what I've termed the Brazilianization of humanity, or the transition from pre-capital identity to post-capital, commodity-based identity, which is based on non-identity-possessing individuals consuming identity units through the global market place.
>(2) The seemingly “socialist” aspects of globalism are necessary to combat the problem of capital accumulation. If automation produces almost all goods for consumer humanity, then capital will accumulate at the level of automation ownership as people spend their money but don't make any, eventually leading to a declining rate of profit as consumers have less money to spend on automation-produced goods. The solution is (a) credit, which serves two purposes: (i) It allows for liquidity in the hands of consumers to be spent on commodities, and (ii) it further ties consumers into the system by tying them to credit banks through debt accumulation. (b) And global welfare-statism, which sustains an increasingly non-working human population of consumers.


Someone is believing what their (((college professor))) is telling them without the ability to actually parse it and think logically on each datapoint.

Or is that "educational automation" where each student is produced on assembly line courses, olny being taught what the robotic professors and textbooks allow.

Communism? I think wel end up as those fatfucks from wall e

I address your points in (2) of my second post.

>I address your points in (2) of my second post.

No. No you don't.

So you would get set amount credit (money) while doing nothing thats not capitalism you dont exchange labour for cash

I think what he is arguing is that a global welfare state is necessary. And that any diminished advances in product because of lower creativity is offset by lower expectations in product by apathetic and uneducated consumers.


I believe he just described inner city slums as a social ideal, and the market success of rap.

People ITT need to realise that OP isn't commenting on the morality of the things he is talking about, he has a pretty academic detachment from it. He understands the trends and patterns that he is writing about as systems to be figured out, not his moral philosophy of the world and the way it should be.

OP, the institutions pushing for this system are eventually going to fall, and when they do, they will fall hard.

I recognise that it's not a vast conspiracy, though there are people guiding the direction of things at a high level, it is simply people and groups pursuing their self-interest.

And therein shall their downfall come from.

Self-interest will one day take us to a stage where enough people have a self-interest in divorcing themselves from this system.

My guess would be that this won't really happen unless seasteading or solar-system colonisation takes off, and we have NEW political spaces to organise ourselves within.

Alex Jones was right.
The goal is to create a de facto world gov of Banks and Corporations , who rule over a mindless slave class, without heritage , culture or memory.
Their whole purpose of their existence is to consume ,they breathe only to further enrich their masters, from birth to death.
Every element of human identity that can't be linked to consumption is eliminated, race , familty, ethnicity and religion is eradicated thus strippping the human from any humanity itself , rendering him but a "economic unit of consumption" as the OP put it.

As devilish it sounds to people who actually have a soul, it's "just , business kid , nothing personal"

Fuck you globalist scum.
We will resist to the very end, you may think you are the masters of the universe but GOTT MIT UNS and even if you win , at the end of your lives you will shake in terror about what will await you

In other words, the forces guiding us to the situation you described will win, in the short-medium term.

But the Path of Light shines bright on the other side of that social event horizon.

A global welfare state whos going to support the welfare recipients that my question .

who killed Rossi

I conceded that automated production and human consumers would lead to capital accumulation for the owners of that automation, begging the question of where consumer capital would come from. Further, this would eventually lead to declining profits for the owners of automated production themselves as consumers would have less and less money to spend on goods.

That's why banking institutions have to extend credit to the consumer class, so that they can afford to buy products based on credit. This would also help preserve the system by tying consumers to credit banks and phasing out cash, since credit would become the only means of purchase in a non-producer society.

There would still be social mobility, where higher skill level individuals would contribute to "design, building, and maintenance" of automated production, leading to actual capital accumulation rather than purely credit-based consumption.

So the system would still provide people something to "strive for," and this social goal is evidently tied to the preservation of the system itself.

Destroy all culture mix evrybody destroy the concept of national sovereignty and reduce mankind to mindless cattle consumers >globalist are fucking scum

Well the point of credit is to pay it back usually with interest. How do people with no access to money do that?

>That's why banking institutions have to extend credit to the consumer class, so that they can afford to buy products based on credit. This would also help preserve the system by tying consumers to credit banks and phasing out cash, since credit would become the only means of purchase in a non-producer society.

Credit? Banks and CC Companies already do that. The FED is the Central source of Credit to the banks. Cashless society? Never going to happen. Cashless is just a way to try to control consumption and commerce.

Even if "cashless" happens, local ad-hoc currencies, barter, trade, and exchange for services will become the new cash. Again, trained and talented people will have the greater ability to accumulate wealth.

>There would still be social mobility, where higher skill level individuals would contribute to "design, building, and maintenance" of automated production, leading to actual capital accumulation rather than purely credit-based consumption.

>So the system would still provide people something to "strive for," and this social goal is evidently tied to the preservation of the system itself.

Isn't that how people become wealthy and accumulate cash? That system is already in place.

The system I've described it still technically capitalism because production is privately owned, but could perhaps be described as global state capitalism.

The welfare state would be supported by the capital accumulated by the owners of automated production because it is ultimately in their own interest to do so, as it would extend liquidity to the consumers of their products and would be trivial compared to the amount of capital accumulated overall.

To put it more simply, automation and the lack of skills in the consumer class will cause capital to accumulate in the hands of those who own automated production, a small amount of that accumulated capital will (1) be used to fund a global welfare state and (2) be used to sustain banks who extend credit to consumers. Those consumers will, in turn, spend that credit and their increased liquidity on consumer goods, which will then contribute to capital accumulation, the source of that liquidity.

They're still figuring that out is the honest answer.

As much as we attribute god-like omniscience and influence to the various PTB, they are mostly as clueless as the average person as to what the future holds.

My guess is that over the next 20-30 years we see a lot of nations experimenting with various legal structures surrounding automation (especially of SDC [self-driving cars] and their impact on physical logistics) and many variations of pseudo-basic income situations.

In many ways we already have a Basic Income available for many in our society.

In pretty much all the developed West, huge swathes of the populations live from government entitlements in the form of A) pensions B) unemployment C)disability D)Child support E) low-income support.
We all know of the sorts of abuses that our benefits systems are open to, how many able-bodied people live off of the productive efforts of the rest of society.

I'm not saying that people who receive government entitlements don't contribute to society in other ways in some cases, but it's besides the point.

We already have a quasi-Basic Income situation, it's just a case of expanding programs already in place once it becomes economically feasible thanks to sufficient levels of automation.

Or in other words: The only reason we can HAVE so many entitlements in western society is because of how much automation has already saved labour.

The history of economics has shown that if we get higher productive activity for less labour, it is an engine for growth and prosperity. If people can get more stuff done or built or grown with less human input, it frees humans up to do other shit. Sometimes that other shit will also be productive economic activity, sometimes it will be consumption of others economic activity.

One problem at the moment is high levels of consumption AND general labour time that is straining the productive capacity of the industries driving that consumption growth.

They don't, the credit banks eventually go bankrupt and are subsequently bailed out by the same capital that funds the welfare state. The credit system is simply a means to integrate consumers into the system through the presence of debt, which is never really collected but can be used as social leverage again problematic individuals.

>That system is already in place.

Thank you for proving my point. This system does already exists. But it will become more pronounced with the proliferation of automation.

Also, I'm talking about the eradication of the social aspects that precede this system: pre-capital forms of identity. The point is to integrate the last remaining institutions of pre-capital resistance into the system I've described.

It seems that they do not understand that in this new era people would be able to produce stuff at home, and everyone would be able to have a small assembly line at home. That would mean total fragmentation and segregation, and global market will fragment also, since no one would need to buy anything.

There are new forms of identity, it's like a "Masonic degree", level of redpilledness.

>It seems that they do not understand that in this new era people would be able to produce stuff at home


But even for home producers, you need to be able to purchase raw materials.

So the wealth accumulators would shift from the product manufacturers, to the material processors and suppliers.

Or what about food. Not everyone has room for a cow, or a pig, or gardens. And large agriculture is what makes their product affordable.

There will always be things that cannot be produced at the super-local level.

But these things would tend to be centralised on a national level.

This is what worries TPTB, their worry that ultimately, the nation-state might once again show itself to be a superior organisation than the global system they are driving.

Universal income will completely DESTROY work ethic, innovation, and the spirit of the people. Look at the what has happened to African Americans in the US. Welfare destroys self-esteem. Self-esteem is crucial to psychological health. Shared psychological health directly affects national progress in powerful, unseen, and difficultly measured ways.

The worthy will derive their self-esteem from new sources, or try to stake a claim in the capital-assuming class.

Others will struggle and suffer, of course.

They aren't calling this future a utopia, it's not meant to be.

It's just the system that bests serves them.

>But these things would tend to be centralised on a national level.


So only the approved model of anything will be distributed.

There goes competition, innovation, and quality.

Welcome to the Soviet Union, 1969.

You see, now the endpoint is "resources", but it can be renewable. And yes, you can grow food at home as well. Now you can breed maggots for protein for example. It's sounds disgusting, but it might be an option if you have no space. For every corporate product there would be "open source" analogue

1. Is the opposition to and demonization of russia because of their strong ethnic homogeneity and cultural identity, providing a resistance to the "globalist project"?

2. What general opinion/comment can you give on russia based on your experience in globalist ThinkThanks?

I doubt that. I would say it destroy work ethic among those who already had none.

What? Where did you get that implication?

Amazon is a huge logistic business. They have huge centralised warehouses that serve massive regions.

Automobile manufacturers might have a few construction plants on a continent.

Things like this will always be produced in strategically central areas and then distributed, just like now.

That doesn't mean there won't be any competition or ability for newcomers into the market.

It's a lie, Russians do not have strong homogeneity and identity, it's actually very weak. Russia is a spoiler in globalist project, just as separatists in Star Wars

>You see, now the endpoint is "resources", but it can be renewable.

Well, then. Since all resources are now equal and renewable, then the money accumulators are the ones distributing and allocating those resources.

Oh but resources in limited supply are to be made equally accessible to everyone?

you do realize your leaderless bureaucracy is led by the hidden hand of satan?

just like like ouija aka spirit talking aka occult demonology

True future of the world is Sup Forums irl, with goods produced as memes.

>debt which is never really collected
Fuck off. Not only is this completely wrong, it shows a very poor understanding of how these systems really work.

The creditors have a very real motivation to collect on that debt, and absolutely will if you fail to pay. This isn't some pseudo-theoretical system used for social control, this is in the hands of organizations that are entirely self-serving and fucking anyone up the ass they can to get a few extra dollars. The "big picture" of retaining liquid consumers for the benefit of society or the "system" never enters their minds outside of your fable.

op does not realize when all the bureaucratic fish school the same way its for a reason

just random, no one is herding them just out of sight

>What? Where did you get that implication?


For things to be centralized on a national level, the National Government will have to control all aspects of production and distribution. All competition to the central system must be eliminated.

They would be. Imagine biopolymeres.

Yeah amazon is really feeling the heat from all its competitors.

>How do people get money when most things will be automated? You have to exchange somiting of worth
Not OP, but I'd imagine there has to be a shift in what we consider 'worth'.
Think of the Jetsons. George didn't do anything but press buttons a few hours a day then went home, and that was his job and it was considered stressful. As automation improves the amount of 'hard work' 90% of people need to put in to maintain the status quo goes down.

So you either adjust what a day's labor is and is worth or you have massive inequality.

so the powerful organizations contracted the brightest minds of the WASP-sphere to offer brown, impoverished, crime-ridden 3rd world brazil big assed transvestites?

forget about uplifting the general condition of a 3rd shit hole

and that is what you have to offer the world?

this is the reason why we should fight for your global domination?

Did you just invoke the Jetson's as a viable economic model?

It doesn't have to be state directed.
If it means there are a couple of central operators rather than 1 central, government-directed one, well whatever works,

TPTB are pragmatic if nothing else.

Exactly the point.

>Did you just invoke the Jetson's as a viable economic model
No, it was meant to be a layman's example that most people would understand as to why the amount of labor an individual does has to increase in value to match the decrease in value of the goods that are produced. To keep the system going with rapid automation you need to overvalue any work at all to offset the lack of work needed.

>It doesn't have to be state directed.
>If it means there are a couple of central operators


And who approves who the central operators are? In your model, the State.

>No, it was meant to be a layman's example that most people would understand


No, most people understand that it's a fucking cartoon with an unrealistic Utopian view of the future.

>IQ

thats handled with replacement of white drones by Chinese/Indians via H1B

you missed the part where they cull the population and just leave enough to improve automation

> I'll repeat myself:

WARNING WARNING EVERYONE

This is a /leftypol/ coalition thread, part of their attempts to 'take control' and 'subvert' pol.

Be careful, be skeptical, and watch out for the inconsistencies and for the obvious marxist tactics (redefining words, speech, boundaries, scope of the conversation, etc...)

>No, most people understand that it's a fucking cartoon with an unrealistic Utopian view of the future.
No shit sherlock, that's why it was an example, not a model. It's so you understand what's being said.

You said:
>How do people get money when most things will be automated? You have to exchange somiting of worth

To keep that system going in an era of rapid automation, you have to over-value the work that does get put in. Lowering work hours while raising wages, etc.

The example of the Jetsons was that George goes to work, and pushes buttons, because everything else is automated. but he still pulls a paycheck capable of paying for his family. It's meant to be an extreme example.

>>No, most people understand that it's a fucking cartoon with an unrealistic Utopian view of the future.
>No shit sherlock, that's why it was an example, not a model.


And you still believe that as an example it is valid?

The only thing it's valid as an example of is bad animation.

Less for it's cultural values and more for its resistance to full integration into the global economy via its independent pursuit of Russian state capitalism.

Incorrect. What I described has been integral to fascism, Keynesianism, and social democracy since before WWII as methods of preserving capitalism amid the problem posed by capital accumulation.

It's more complex than that. I discussed it in the previous thread. I recommended and helped implement an advertising/entertainment campaign that emphasized objective commodities of beauty, which would equalize beauty access, since beauty would no longer be subjective but would be subject to objective criteria of consuming certain beauty commodities. This also served to increase the rate of cosmetic surgery in Brazil, which was the immediate purpose, as I was a lobbyist being paid by the cosmetics industry.

The unforeseen consequence was that when female sexuality and beauty were reduced to purchasable commodities, men also became consumers of these commodities, transsexualism exploded, and the phenomenon was directly correlated with the progress of our ad campaign.

If you want a specific example, our campaign subsidized and worked with media on the promotion of the so-called "fruit women," and we also spent money on something called radio Bundalele, though I wasn't too involved in the money allocation, so I don't know whether the latter was worth it. We wanted to foster a race-neutral woman of a certain body type as the model for commodity acquisition.

Rec ways to make money in this changing economy.

There will be fewer opportunities as we move forward. Opportunities will be more relegated to few high intelligence individuals within the tech industry, who will come to dominate production as we move into the era of automation.

If you don't have the requisite skill set for that (like me) move into corporate administration, to help preserve and organization the system that will make use of that automation.

Your country is a vision of the future. I met my wife while I was working down there, which is why I also feel a personal obligation to make sure that what I've described comes to fruition.

It's funny that this shithole has been called the country of the future since its inception.

>unforeseen consequence
that is a euphemism in the intelligence circles and it is fishy that cosmetic surgery is being pushed like crack, but not more serious and urgently needed treatments that actually cure diseases like cancer that are either suppressed or delayed indefinitely (3BP etc...)

the prioritization of such things by industry isn't led by the market either, it is pushed by nefarious intelligence agencies in coordination with academia

it's good to know that the globalists truly have humanities best interests in mind...

>Whether or not this is true

>It's funny that this shithole has been called the country of the future since its inception.

That's because it has been. Brazil got its independence when the monarch of Portugal fled during the Napoleonic wars and made independent Brazil the new center of his monarchy. It became a test case for a system of thought that stands in opposition to the Napoleonic/Enlightenment tradition. The goal of Brazil from its inception has been to overcome Enlightenment self-consciousness and reassert earlier, more stable systems of social organization.

>Factual statements are incorrect because in historical theory systems have been used to the contrary
What kind of contrived horseshit response is that? Try telling Joe from Alabama that when he stops scraping by paying his crushing debts they won't come to collect the shirt on his back.

Or try telling the thousands of credit companies not to destroy every person that cannot pay. Or insurance companies. Because muh system maintenance. It's clearly not beneficial, even to the companies as a whole, but they STILL do it.

The banks DO try to collect, but when the population can't pay, the bank is forced to declare bankruptcy, and the state bails it out. This has already taken place, literally in the past decade.

How does this system intend to integrate Islam as a whole? in europe each generation of muslim immigrants become more and more radicalized....and in the middle east it's even worse

>but when the population can't pay, the bank is forced to declare bankruptcy, and the state bails it out.

The bank recovers what assets it can. Homes, cars, businesses, etc.

These are sold at a discount to friends of the Bank.
The Bank majority shareholders strip all assets from the Bank and declare Bankruptcy.
The Govt gives the Bank money to cover insured depositors.
THe Bank first uses all cash on hand to payout bonuses and Golden Parachutes.
Anything left over is distributed to the affected account holders for pennies on the dollar.

>their strong ethnic homogeneity

That is a common misconception on Sup Forums. The truth is that they're getting invaded just like the west. Look up their demographics.

The banks often renegotiate the debt here to the point it's insignificant beyond its symbolic value.

Islam is a major problem. Secularism and areligiosity is desirable. The goal is Brazil, NOT multiculturalism, so when someone like Merkel says that multiculturalism has failed, they are being honest. The goal is no culture outside of the global trade in culture commodities purchasable by non-identity individuals who consume identity through the global market. The goal is NOT many cultures.

>The banks often renegotiate the debt here to the point it's insignificant beyond its symbolic value.

No, the bundle it, and sell it without full disclosure.
business.financialpost.com/news/fp-street/how-banks-bundled-bad-debt

>If you want a specific example, our campaign subsidized and worked with media on the promotion of the so-called "fruit women," and we also spent money on something called radio Bundalele
lol

do you have any sense of guilt for doing all of this and is coming here and anonymously confessing this to a bunch of anti-semetic autists your form of penance to rid you of your guilt?

I guess you could call it "getting it off my chest," though I don't think what I did was necessarily "wrong."

>resistance to full integration into the global economy

since the fall of the USSR, the russkies have complied with all of the wests demands... mcdonalds, coke, pizza hut, porn, faggot ceos... its all american

putin calls the west its partner since day 1. so did yelstin. putin pushed to integrate with the EU and US. even pushed for visa free travel between US, EU, and Russia

everyone knows russians are the biggest imposters of american culture and yearn to be seen as western

and even when russia transformed itself to a rapeable prostitute for the west, the west still treats it like some major threat

no matter what russia does, the plan is for balkanization as Brzezinski outlined


now at the same time, china has firmly kept a distance from the west and maintained it's image, control, and dominance. china has been less friendly to the west and more aggressive in its domination efforts, but the west is not applying the same aggressive treatment towards china as it is towards russia.

That's the thing, Islam doesn't seem to able to abandon it's 'culture' at all...Even with increasing wealth (like Saudi) they still keep sharia law...making them 'non-identity' seems impossible at this point

Well good thing I just journeyed out as a sparky.

Finally get to be a jew!

>Brazilianization
>non-identity-possessing

but brazilians never erased their identity

brazil has segregated japanese, italian, polish, jewish, german, mullato communities all living in misery together and yearning to migrate to less chaotic lands

>though I don't think what I did was necessarily "wrong."
no one ever does, everyone has a way to rationalize it