## [[On the Falling Rate of Sisyphus' Burden]] There is a Sisyphean sycophancy that has besmirched the nose of all good leftism of late, and it takes the form of a warm, stinky poo that drips from the nose freshly browned by a *very long* snorkel up the ass of the bullshit priesthood of economic rationality, who must now be kicked off the loo of the left-wing nose for crimes of devastating effectiveness. I for one, am done with being shat on, and I hope we will all be. Here is what I mean. The internal systems logic of the legal proprietary extractive system as applied to profit via selling things *creates* a structural disequilibrium - as more of the world passes from unbound earth into the property and wealth holdings of the few, there is simply less and less of a materially finite world that sits outside of that wand slowly falling over the world. In other words, there is less and less exchangeable "value" in the economy, thus the system tends towards being squeezed like a crushed tinfoil tin. There *is* an *internal* tendency of profit to fall, for the simple reason that there are only so many fridges, so many cars, so many televisions, so many smartphones, so many products that can be pumped down the gullet of a human life through the foie gras tube of maximizing shareholder returns. The extractive system, in other words, *must run out.* This is the secret which Marx knew in 1848, the internal contradiction that *drove* the system. Yet, the interesting part of this question is not whether or not this is true, as it seems functionally delusional to claims otherwise. As in an ultimate sense, the planet is finite! The oil is finite! The water is finite! To claim otherwise is, by definition of reality, Not! Rational! Rather, the more interesting question is why the economic consensus still insists on its denial. The earth was proven round quite some time ago, yet still, the flat earthers continue to hold the scepter of cultural domination in the "science" of economics - insisting that there is not truth to the idea that profit ever *must* run out. In fact, the knowledge of this fact is disavowed by the assumptions that underpinned the so-called rationalization and mathematization of Post-War "Neoclassical economic" thought - the phrenological priesthood that now dominates the academy. The real question is - why can it still not be proven that the earth is round to the mainstream orthodoxy? Why do they continue to insist the earth is flat? Consider though, the problem of proving sanity to the madhouse. The obvious limitation is another recursively tautological problem - if one is to "disprove" a lie that the "system" deems legitimate, one must first be granted access to being in the club of the system - an academic career. But if one pursue an academic career in a field, then the viability *of* that career depends on the continued advancement *in* that field. Yet, if a field's methodological axioms are problematic, to point this out requires *disavowing* the legitimacy of authority held by the practitioners and tenure committees upon whose recognition of one's merit - acceptance in the field relies.* To call out the hole in the sacred text, requires admission into the priesthood by the keepers of the sacred text. In other words, the Godelian Recursion of expertise is the shield. No criticism can pierce the system because no critic can join the system because no one in the system will allow the critic who refutes the system to enter the system to gain the approval of the system needed to prove to the system that there is a flaw in the heart of the system because to do so would, well, disavow the system! Thus the disavowal of the system requires what a disavower cannot procure, and the system disavows those who cannot procure what the system requires of would-be disavowers to procure to disavow it, because it would disavow it! All systems tend towards the self-preservation of their purpose, thus the acceptance of the truth which falsifies the system is inevitable. Thus the absurdity - the CIA did not overthrow that dictator, the CIA reports. I did not tell a lie, the winking liar says. Who can disprove the ministry of truth? Only those who have signed up to play the game that supposes the ministry of truth tells the truth. To call the system a liar requires participation in the hallucination of assuming the truth of the lie! This is the true problem of critique: it cannot work. The assumption underpins a performative absurdity: just because one uses large, increasingly complex, arcane, mathematical models, does not mean that these models have any relation to truth. Using big fancy numbers and equations and formulas, does *not* actually make those big fancy numbers and equations and formulas inherently "correct." Enough criticisms of these models have been levels that, if the discipline were based on the rationality that it, ironically and hilariously, supposes the world is run on, it would have drastically shifted its assumptions. It cannot predict crashes, nor declining profits, nor the tautological ontological reality of the notion of "inflation," nor the problems of wealth haording facing us today. Thus we might bypass this endless hole of blindness and presume it is willful blindness; that the tradition cannot know its faults because its own axioms preclude the knowledge of its faults; yet, it refuses to *look* at these devastatingly root-level methodological faults; neither does it even seem to *want* to look at these faults, despite being given every single scientific reason to the contrary. Thus, let us bypass Sisyphus's burden of rolling a blind man's eye up to the socket he covers, screaming in tongues of technocratically banal tautologies to the heavens that he is "seeing just clearly and finely thank you very much Mr. Sisyphus, sir!" Let us bypass this useless endeavour of attempting to help the blind man see reason, on the presumption that we have tried long enough; he is not merely blind, but willfully ignorant. To refute the accusation of sanity by the madhouse is impossible in the madhouse, thus we must refuse the idea that there *is* a debate over the earth is round or flat; We must refuse the "debate" over the falling rate of profits. Instead, the more interesting question: if the system's objective is *not* the pursuit of truth, which is always an endeavour that requires its pursuit no matter which methodological form it may take, *what then is the true purpose of this system*? That is, suppose we begin from the axiomatic hypothesis that the entire operation is about the continuation of profit extraction, and the protection of the proprietary ownership claims - corporations -that underlie that. Can we make sense of the Century through that lens? If we take off our own eye-patch, which we have worn for so long to see as the blind man does, what then does this new world look like when we abandon any scientific hope for the "science" of mainstream economics and simply ask - what did this "scientific" practice *allow the proprietary extractive elite to do?* In other words, if we assume this old "technocratic order" of the competent - to simply be pompous, epistemically fraudulent stooges for the system of transnational global profit extraction , can we make sense of their unscientifically-dogmatic, methodologically fraudulent refusal to challenge themselves in the face of clear evidence to the contrary? It should be said: if we can, then on the basis of pure scientific merit, a rational and free-market of ideas as it were - to use a few of their favorite cliches - then it is clear what we should do with them and their fancy degrees and self-congratulatory adulatory honorifics. As was suggested with doctrinal instrumentalism, if I am more lucid in explaining the strange unscientific perseverance of their economic concepts, so too with their whole regime: It must be thrown in the trash immediately and forthrightly with the pinching of one's nose, lest it infect one’s organs with its stinking rotted bilge, relegated with all haste to the dustbin of poor, cowardly, feckless, gutless sophistry. Thus - did the "neoclassical" mathematical economic order distort itself around the protection of profit extraction, a fraudulent ideology contorting itself like the Matrix's Neo around all challenges not to its truth, but to the protective shielding of that feudal proprietary extractive order? Can this shed light on the gross distortions taht continue to persist in the 'disciplines" tradition? Can it disprove these claims? Let us now examine the historical archives more closely. As a childhood favorite of mine, might say, "Vamonos!"