THE PANAMA PAPERS

"The Panama Papers" had not really registered with me, but they are essentially a description of the under-order that makes Trump possible on a scale that exceeds nations or alliances among groups of nations.  So far the only other under-order that is on this scale is the international corporation, which in the United States has the legal status of a person.  The United States was originally formed to get rid of "corp" (human body)  -orations that were protected by the king/queen.

"While no standard official definition exists, The Economist and the International Monetary Fund describe an offshore financial center, or tax haven, as a jurisdiction whose banking infrastructure primarily provides services to people or businesses who do not live there, requires little or no disclosure of information when doing business, and offers low taxes."

When confining bars are put up, one also creates the spaces between bars, enough space for mafia and multi-zillionaires to slip through.  Interestingly, so far the main diff I can see between the portrayals of them is that the mafia are sort of middle-class which means they have something like the same morals, but only for their own people.  The corporate monsters have no loyalty to anyone, characteristics we recognize in Trump and Putin.  The fact that they are known people, if a little disguised, means that they are probably not the ultimate rich people because one of the perks of great wealth is being invisible, inaccessible, safe.

At least in the eyes of writers, mafia seem more interested in control than profit and this is also true of corporations, reversed -- profit over control.  It is a puzzle why both types respond to amounts of money, since money doesn't really exist.  Where it does, it is an agreement among nations.  The under-order doesn't value nations.  Nations write the Rule of Law.  Money is simply the result of the Rule of Law, so that nations negotiate among them which denomination is equivalent to which.  They can and do vary the value of money.

So maybe the smarter money-accumulators do better by barter, that is, forced barter which is hijacking and piracy, which works best with oil, drugs, and other resources, particularly rare metals for computer-type gizmos.  But this is pretty raw and on the surveillance planet, those with computerized eyes can see everything, even ships at sea.

So the smartest money accumulators have gone from the processing of symbolic money recorded by bookkeeping, to "gaming."  "Attested as early as 2600 BC, games are a universal part of human experience and present in all cultures."

"Wittgenstein concluded that people apply the term game to a range of disparate human activities that bear to one another only what one might call family resemblances."  That former classmate of mine who is "autosalvific" does the trick by gaming people's belief that clergy who can do woodwork, sing, play the piano, and tell sentimental stories, must be all right.  He considers himself a Wittgenstein expert and says I wouldn't understand.  "Intimidation" and "contempt" are gaming features.

French sociologist Roger Caillois, in his book Les jeux et les hommes (Games and Men), defined a game as an activity that must have the following characteristics:

• fun: the activity is chosen for its light-hearted character
• separate: it is circumscribed in time and place
• uncertain: the outcome of the activity is unforeseeable
• non-productive: participation does not accomplish anything useful
• governed by rules: the activity has rules that are different from everyday life
• fictitious: it is accompanied by the awareness of a different reality

Take out the fun and non-productive, add contempt for noncompliant humans and possibly women (like Trump) and you've got gaming when it is a business rather than play.  I'd leave the "uncertain" feature because there's a certain element of gambling in gaming.

The Panama Papers describe this gaming world of corporations, nations and zillionaires, so that we can know what the system is.  So far no one has designed a counter-game, a system-breaker, partly because the general population of so many countries buy into the system.  If we truly broke the monetary system that pools all the "money" on islands with no governance, what would that do to the ordinary running of our country?  

It would only be more awkward, not deadly.  We forget that we can't eat or wear money.  We can only eat so much and must wear one outfit at a time.  But those selling insulin at $1,000 a pop are selling survival.  Money is for survival.  Poor people do not survive.

A woman told me she didn't care about anything but her 401K, which is based on the gambling stock market.  Trump could do anything ANYTHING so long as the amount of her account stays up.  Of course, if it goes down, he's through, which is a clue.  What if we pulled out of the stock market, the insurance industry, and the protection of religious bodies from other times and places that only persist because they have money?  (Of course, we forget that Jesus was the last real breaker of systems of oppression and he did it without a church.  He thought He was Jewish.)

Human life is a game.  Probably way down at the bottom of crime is the hope of safety and longevity.  But quality counts.  If you think about Guantanamo Bay, (which is becoming geriatric except that Trump wants to send immigrants there), the occupants are safe and living a long time.  The United States is eliminating chances for individual lives to thrive.  This suggests that they think they are eliminating competition, but it all depends on what game is being played.

The ultimate game is ecology, how things fit together on the planet.  Every time an ecology fails, survival is threatened.  Ecologies are threatened by international corporations taking resources and eliminating habitat.  The Pentagon Papers are about demonic and ultimately complete planet destruction.