But wait, you ask, isn’t the Federal Reserve part of the government? Well, no.
Most Americans and people around the world do not know that Federal Reserve or Fed is not the government. It is an association of private banks.
The Federal Reserve is far more a Wall Street institution than it is a US Government institution. The same holds true for the Bank of England, and most other European central banks. Their interest is not for the welfare of the people. Their interest is profit for themselves and for their constituents.
Even The New Yorker does not know his fact:
It may be that the risk of a full-fledged credit crunch was high enough to make this worth doing. But there is something unseemly about watching the avatars of free-market capitalism rely on the government to pay for their bad bets. And there is something scary about contemplating the even bigger bets they’ll make in the future if they know that the Fed is there to bail them out.
The writer thinks that Fed=government bails out the bad bankers.
Private bankers wanted to hide the fact that they control government’s and citizens’ money so they named the regulatory body of their industry the Federal Reserve. When people read Federal they assume it is a bank of the federal government.
Great pun. And it works. It’s so successful that even when people are told this fact they will not believe it and even if they believe it what can they do to change it?
Everyone already knows that professional classes exploit civilians with their doublespeak equipped with poisonous puns. There is no reason to repeat it. Here, I just want to say that “physical” is a pun invented by another class of professional monopolists called physicists for similar reasons.
| Bankers | Physicists | |
| organisma | society | nature |
| monopoly on | money (unit of exchange in society) | physical quantity (unit of exchange in physical nature) |
| pun | federal=private | physics=nature |
| objective of pun | to hide that private bankers control public money | to hide that anti-science doctors control human knowledge |
| constituency | users of money (consumers) | themselves |
| clients | other banks | states and the military |
| pun intended for | consumers | consumers |
| professional product | monetary debt | theoretical debt |
Physicists successfully established the pun physics=nature and encoded it into our language. They named their profession after this pun as physics. Physics, physical, physicist are all encoded into our language as synonyms of nature.
physics=physical=physicist=nature
The way the Fed is governmental by pun nature too is physical by pun.
Commentary
The power of the physics=nature pun reveals itself when I cannot express the fact that “physical quantity” refers to the unit of exchange in physics and not in nature. So when I wrote on the table above “physical nature” to mean “nature defined by academic physics” I read it even myself as “physical nature” i.e., “true” nature around us, not the spiritual realm.
Physics=nature is ingrained in our psyche because I believe that this was the first thing we were taught by authoritative books and teachers at school with the alphabet. We were told that Apple is for Newton. And that’s how we interpret nature without even knowing it. We can never transcend the first alphabet we learned. Same with Newtonism.
But physics=nature pun unloads upon us the ugly bureaucratic code called physics in its entirety. And endows physicists with an authority to interpret nature for humanity that they do not have.
Why would you want to see the world from the point of view of any religion designed either by god’s contractors or Newton’s contractors? Of course, every individual has the right to believe one or the other or neither. That’s everyone’s choice. But Newtonism taught to us as the default and true nature was not our choice. We’ve been programmed to see the world as a British Newtonian true nature. Physics=nature pun enforces this indoctrination.
physics=nature=newton
It’s about time to question this propaganda pun perpetuated by physicists.
Zeynel,
The physics is not the only way to explain Nature. You can use other sciences like Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Medical Science. Each of them has its scope. Because Nature as a whole is a very complex subject, scientists have to use the proper methods to account for natural facts. I’ve always read that physics is the most fundamental science, because the degree of detail used to describe the natural laws is the highest. But, to solve many problems, which also deal with natural phenomena, the methods used in physics are not the most convenient. In principle, I think Physics can predict many facts about the physical systems which are not too complex. Moreover, Physics furnishes us a invaluable intuition about Nature. Without Physics, human’s intuition about Nature would be wrong, and, we would lose many details, too. For example, Do you think we could have this discussion without the physics? No probably, because the PCs wouldn’t exist.
I agree mostly. But during your education were you taught that nature is physical and Newtonian and that the earth pulled the apple with a Newtonian force and this was how nature worked and it was a scientific truth? As far as I can tell other sciences are not taught as ideologies. Maybe because I don’t know enough chemistry or biology, but it is assumed that first of all these are all physical phenomena then chemical biological and so on. Nature is physical is taught as a true slogan.
For your comment that PCs would not exist without physics, this may be true, but how much of it is academic physics and how much of it is engineering and ingeniuty of the inventors? I wish I can understand this. A related question is the claim that without General Relativity GPS would not work. When I researched this a bit it turned out that this claim cannot be confirmed because it is a claim made by a physicist for research he was doing as a military contractor so it is classified. So I don’t know how to separate physics propaganda from scientific fact in cases like this. Any thoughts?
You can use other sciences like Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Medical Science. Each of them has its scope.
True. But nature is not divided in neat academic fields like this. There are scientific ways to investigate nature by methods outside formal academic fields. I consider inventors such as Franklin, Edison, Wright brothers, Graham Bell, Google inventors and any tinkerer in his garage to be scientists.
The inventors of transistor Bardeen, Shockley and Brattain were physicists and engineers working in a technology lab. Bell Labs where they were working was institutional version of Edison’s “invention factory.” These people were given freedom to do what they wanted to research without academic constraints and that worked. I am just against associating anyone called “physicist” with the authority of technological inventions in order to justify their absurd scenarios because some other person called physicist invented the transistor. There is no relation.
I think Physics can predict many facts about the physical systems which are not too complex.
But physics claims to explain the most complex system, the universe. Maybe you meant that physics simplifies even the universe into a simple system?
Physics furnishes us a invaluable intuition about Nature.
No doubt. But it is not the unique and true intuition. There are others, as you said, as invaluable.
” As far as I can tell other sciences are not taught as ideologies.”
Think again. In USA some scientists and teachers refused to teach the Darwinian theory of evolution because (according to their claims) it contradicts the teachings of the Bible.
Have you heard of any teacher in a high school teaching marxist political economy (in the respective courses)? I think not.
“There are scientific ways to investigate nature by methods outside formal academic fields. I consider inventors such as Franklin, Edison, Wright brothers, Graham Bell, Google inventors and any tinkerer in his garage to be scientists”
I didn’t understand the 1st sentence. Give an example. In the 2nd one you confuse inventors with scientists. An inventor does not have to be a scientist.
“These people were given freedom to do what they wanted to research without academic constraints and that worked.”
This is a very long discussion and i think you should open a different topic about the constraints on science. By definition, science should have no constraints. Is this the case however? For me now. But i don’t share the same point of view with you, zeynel.
I think that constraints are imposed by the economic system on which the modern societies are based. I will tell you an example, and we can elaborate on a new topic if you wish.
The example: a group of european physicists and engineers were working on a way to find new ways of producing cheaper electricity through nuclear energy (fission). They succeeded in finding the proper way to sustain a constant production of electric power (at low costs) but the project was eventually halted, because it turned out that it wasn’t going to be economically profitable.
“But physics claims to explain the most complex system, the universe”
I got you here!!! What do you mean by universe? Beware. Physics does not explain THE universe.