White Guilt (Faux-Individual Moral 'Pride') Rising... while Neoliberal Group Ethics Falling

“There is no such thing as collective guilt or collective innocence; guilt and innocence make sense only if applied to individuals.”

–Hannah Arendt, "Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship"

---

“Postcolonialism is the invention of rich Indian guys who wanted to make a good career in the west by playing on the guilt of white liberals”

― Slavoj Žižek

On Neoliberalism from George Monbiot, "The Invisible Doctrine" video:

And so, we move this away from the sphere where we don't have control , where Capital does not have control (politics), into the sphere where Capital does have control, which is the economic sphere. And of course, some people have far more power in the economic sphere than other people have. It's not one person, one vote. It can be one person's millions of votes... millions of dollars, and other person's far fewer dollars. And so they tell you, if you can shift the decision making into that sphere, you've got us where you want us.

So the the term "Neoliberalism" was developed in 1938 at a at a colloquium, a meeting in Paris. But it didn't really take off, and it wasn't really formalized, until the publication of two books in 1944, which was Friedrick Hayek's book "The Road to Serfdom", and Ludvig Von Mises's book "Bureaucracy". And they had an almost identical theme. They claim that any attempt to interfere in the workings of this thing they call "the Market", to interfere with the power of money in other words, would lead inevitably to totalitarianism.

It might look like something benign, the incipient welfare state and economic safety net, public funded services, but that would inevitably lead to Hitler or to Stalin. It was a classic slippery slope fallacy. And it was, you know, put forward with some Force by them. They're quite readable books. I mean they're absolutely chock full of holes, but you know you can sort of see there's there's a thread that you can follow, an argument that is more or less coherent, but very easy to tear apart.

And they were saying that "such impediments to Capital as high taxes, as regulation, as trade unions, as protest, should be stripped away in order to enable a kind of "natural order" to be discovered of winners and losers. There are the those who have the grace of money, and those who do not have the grace of money. And you can see from who has money, who is deserving, and who is not deserving. And if you try to alter that natural order of the righteous and the unrighteous (it's a very Calvinist approach), if you try to interfere with that, then you will sap Humanity of its Vitality. You will strip away the Spirit of Enterprise and make everyone poorer. Because if you allow the rich to get richer, they will through the "Invisible Hand" generate the money that will shower down upon the rest of us.

And you say, "Well hang on moment I thought the rest of us weren't meant to get richer. I thought we were meant to stay poor because we're unworthy!" So, straight away we start to see these enormous contradictions in it. And many people reacted with absolute horror and disgust towards these ideas. At the time, the dominant form of political economic thought was Keynesianism, Keynesian social democracy, which was very much distributive within the rich Nations. It was still highly exploitative between rich and poor. It was obviously a form of Capitalism. But it was far more distributive within the rich Nations than we've ever seen before, and was about building up Public Services, was about ensuring that everybody had a decent standard of life so they could spend into the economy, and that generates economic growth. And so, this Neoliberalism was at the time very much out of tune with the times.

What is Neoliberalism?  By the date of the term's invention and first use/ popularization (1938-44) it is the Post-WWII Open Society Consensus that is currently being replaced by the San Francisco Consensus (aka- Technofeudalism) 

So Consume Away, Cloud Serfs, and ENJOY! the experience of your singular moment of Capitalism's Inversion and Equality.  The moment you agree to pay the Capitalist his "asking price" for his "product".

“What precisely distinguishes capital from the master-slave relation is that the worker confronts him as consumer and possessor of exchange values, and that in the form of the possessor of money, in the form of money, he becomes a simple center of circulation—one of its infinitely many centers, in which his specificity as worker is extinguished.”

Slavoj Zizek' "The Parallax View: Towards a New Reading of Kant"

Consumerism - The true and VERY limited extent of every Proletarian worker's much vaunted "Freedom"

Stop Internalizing Capitalism's ethical failures.  Reject their Internalizing/ Moralizing Psychopolitical Media PsyOps!  Stop being a Prole and become a Bourgeois Small Business Owner!  And take back YOUR Government so as to reward Small Business Ownership, and not Struldbrugg Corporations administered by Surplus-salaried Government bureaucrats!  Free the economy's Invisible Hand from Capitalist legal control and the increasingly powerful billionaire Technofeudalists.

Run Mr. Potter O-U-T of Pottersville!

More Commerce, less Capitalism!