Friday, June 10, 2016

Upgrading Morality

There's an old k'arash joke that goes, "What special powers do you get if you have half vampire blood, half human?" The answer is, "Half the strength, all of the damnation." Cut and dried: the curse's inherent immorality is complete at the corpuscle, ergo there's no need for further contemplation. For most other things, nuance of some level abounds. A trite statement, that, but the crippling infections of relativism and the crude naïveté of libertarianism risk prompting vengeful counterreactions that make nuance and consideration seem to be the enemy. All part of the plan, of course--long live the king, Liberté égalité fraternité, and so forth--for excessive blowbacks perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing future stupidities that will give later generations something to feel overly righteous about.

We cannot make others learn faster than they will. For ourselves, though, honing the nuance is useful. Let us now, then, turn to a few of the overreactionary flux points.

Universal Basic Income

This issue cuts to the level of responsibility that the individual owes to anything else, whether matter or energy, individual humans or groups of humans. Myopic Bastiatism, which is to say, economic libertardianism, relies for its existence upon the solipsistic idiocies underpinning all libertarianism, namely, the blindness to the impossibility of sole existence. Aside from a hypothetical singular yet universal self-generating force, such as lightspring or a non-anthropomorphic God, no one, including libertarians, is freed from the responsibilities of existence. Those who have already committed suicide upon first contemplating the issue have won the petty portion of the argument; those still here have conceded the flux, ergo the just applicability of the term "libertardian" to one who accepts billions of years of star-seeding and thousands of years of genetic, social, and ancestral guidance toward the creation of their life, then subsequently tries to be the First Ever to renegotiate a contract leaving her or himself owing nothing From This Point Forward.

A Universal Basic Income, whether concept or reality, is an expression of some form of entitlement owed one by some sub-part existence, usually (in our current case) groups of humans. Whether admittance to public areas, emergency medical care only, geriatric care only, food, shelter, age-based assistance, or UBI, the concept of an entitlement is invoked. In this case, let's use "UBI" to refer to an income sufficient to comfortably house, feed, shelter, and medicate a human for the duration of its therefore unnatural life (in the sense that exposing it as an infant is either equally, or more, "natural").

The moral arguments against UBI, or of any entitlements whatsoever, are based around the necessity of pillaging some to provision others. So, too, arise practical arguments, for the provision of any entitlement requires a pillaging agency and a provisioning agency, each replete with inefficiency and graft, and each instilled with its own organic desire to grow at the expense of both its own mission and the mission of the overall structure of which it is part (the bureaucratic problem), and staffed by members who are instilled with their own organic desires to grow at the expense of their own organization's mission and the mission of the overall structure of which the organization is part (the managerial problem and the employee problem).

These moral and pragmatic wrongnesses of an entitlement are powerful arguments, yet inadequate, for they presuppose the freestanding entity, unconnected to other entities and systems, whose very standalone existence immoralizes interfering with them. The failure of the latter arguments against interference lies in their inability to recognize the duties incumbent upon the non-self-generating entity, for the human, as distinct from the theoretical god, has been created by other humans, and by other systems, and by evolutionary process, and so forth. Not only created in the planning stages of embryo, but nurtured through fetal growth and, in the current Terran case, infancy, by a guardian(s) who could not sustain the infant, let alone the guardian(s) themselves, if not for an eternal succession of guardians and interwoven systems. There exists some obligation, for the non-suicidally-averted life of the conscious being who possesses the power of contemplating the idea.

The moral argument for not having signed the contract of existence--the preferred Judaic argument for Gentile teenagers of the 1960s and 1970s, if you will; that Freudian and Dylanish "I didn't ask to be born"--is negated by willfully breathing our air, which is part of the same system of interdependent duties and responsibilities as one's childhood guardians. Past a certain point of cognitive power, one has signed the contract; one is gorging oneself at the buffet every minute, inhabiting the meat-shield that could otherwise be put to use by the conformist system. The ability to swiftly research painless suicide dismisses all prior arguments that might have been made about it not being fair to have to suffer in order to break the contract into which one didn't enter; here again, networked computers negate the fulsome protestations of the manchildren, for the sample product can be easily discarded with no harm done--unless you actually are committed to the versal system.

Moral entitlement, as well as pragmatic, also enters the picture of calculating the acceptability of a UBI. The duty one owes to one's parents and guardians, to one's ancestors, to one's species, to one's planet, to one's galaxy, et cetera, is counterbalanced by an inheritance: the Earth's offshoots, to some degree, have been created by processes of life that charge the created ones with resources. As with all aspects of the discussion of entitlements, a varying inheritance applies. Mara's inhabitants, though children of Sol, do not deserve the fruit of Terra's soil to the degree to which Terra's inhabitants do. On a planetary scale, Terra's hammock-fillers deserve the fruit less than Terra's agriculturalists, and yet the hammock-filling humans deserve it more than Terra's whale sharks, however atomically small either of the latter groups' shares might be in comparison to the agriculturalists'.

The libertardian argument of "no connections" fails, but the genetic, racial argument, is more profound. The national socialist recognizes the usufruct inheritance of members of the nation--a much mathematically stronger connection than the tenuous cascade of nihilism, also known as relativism, which places genetically modified food, automatic pistols, vaccines and television as the equal inheritance of wheel-less hut-builders. The practical implications of national socialism are ultimately beneficial to all nations, so long as a planetary socialism is part of the mix. This is not to suggest U.N. wealth transfers, but rather, the permittance of a hierarchy of practical and moral responsibilities more accurately reflecting the one's (the "individual's") inborn duties: family to locality to nation to genus to planet to star, and so forth, with "self" and lightspring (or some other real or metaphorical god) eventually finding a place at the fore--in recognition of interrelationships between all parts of the hierarchy, but also, as a stopgap preventing the moral martyring of everyone everywhere on principle, and the development of hero-sacrifice mythology that starts out nobly but ultimately cascades to all successors and beneficiaries, destroying the people the heroine flattered herself she was trying to save.

The brokenness of nihilism is becoming more generally obvious, for the internal principles of the disease--the cowardly rejection of beauty and existence manifesting as an unwillingness to recognize or appreciate anything--fail as the selfish gluttony of arrogant guilt starts providing the faux-omnipotent less of a thrill. When we turn against nihilism, though--when we cast off a communism, or a Marxism, or a cultural relativism, or any of that--we must be keenly aware that beauty, individual achievement, and ancestral heritage, are only truly possible as part of an integrate system which recognizes--though not nearly to the billionth part of an occupation regime's anticharitable invasion-fostering--that the same principle holds true, too, in the realm of Terra, and then to a lesser extent in the realm of Sol. The funding of obese sows' violent broods, let alone the latter's and former's obesities, is a wrong, but the Terran inheritance of some part of the planet is its own moral imperative. This UBI might not take the shape of a warehouse of pinto beans every quarter--rather it might consist of harvesting forces offering removal to the trans-120 IQ minority each generation, while allowing the others to go their own way inside the walls--but the moral aspect of some well-meaning inheritance is an integral part of the planetary duty/inheritance, the respect for which will provide vast bounties over the millennia ahead, and the neglect of which will have a staggeringly high opportunity cost.

The arguments for entitlement are the arguments against inheritance: it de-motivates innovation and labor, it creates assholes, it encourages the breeding of irresponsible wastes with increasingly dysgenic effects. Yet the arguments for inheritance--or for private property--which capitalists use are, similarly, applied to entitlements: it motivates innovation and labor for the parent, it creates honor and legacy, it encourages the breeding of dutiful broods with increasingly eugenic effects. The anti-entitlement, pro-inheritance capitalists base their decision on the freedom of choice, e.g., the parent should have the power to disinherit the child, but she should also have the power to pass everything to the child, if she so wishes. So too, then, can the nation decide to leave a legacy for its progeny, without therefore ruining them all through the entitlement of inheritance. Yet, how does the nation decide? And then we're back in the problem of government, which must not be democracy, because to the capitalist, democracy leads to the culling of the rich in temporary service to the poor, who then collapse. Not so a true nation not infected by Jenome. The nation that makes itself responsible for promoting its own interests--and here we must pause again, to remind the 2016 Terran that "nation" properly means not "government," but a genetically linked group; a "people"--realizes that the moral foundation upon which its own philosophy rests, its hierarchy, includes other levels, among them mollusks and Africans. The Gates Foundation is exploitative and dangerous for both whites and blacks, and evinces sickness and disgust; yet, a healthy European nation, on a Terra that has solved the problems of 2016 Terra, owes something, however small, to Terra, ergo in part to Africa, and to mollusks. What that responsibility entails, to lions or to Bantu, is a matter for another time. Yet that time will come. An overreaction to our current infection now may be inevitable on the part of many, but it is the curse and the blessing of those with foresight to see what will benefit the largest and the smallest the most on a longer scale. As some would say, the day of the rope must not be the year, the century, or the eternity of the rope. We see beyond victory as the bat swings beyond the surface of the ball, for it is that follow-through which makes possible even the lower forms of success.

To sum up this section: we've concluded that entitlement is moral, diminishing morally and practically as diminish various forms of proximity, but vanishing not even for goldfish. In our next section, we'll turn to homosexuality.

21 comments:

  1. Well, this is why UBI is so popular with neoliberal assholes. The same goes for homosexuality.

    Btw, you are buying in Zinonist brainwashing if you continue to put Stalin in the category of "excessive blowback". There was no blowback. He was, in fact, a genious who achieved a dignified version of UBI (e.g., through guaranteeing full employment, and criminally prosecuting those who did not work), and banned abortion and let's not even talk about homosexuality; without any pillaging too - the USSR is the only empire that ever existed that built up, rather than sucked dry its periphery...). Sadly, as soon as he dies, lesser men gave away the keys from the store - the warm place under the wing of the zionist dragon proved irressistable. Assholes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yippy little yapper, chasing his tail like that for our enjoyment.

      Criminalizing not working is an interesting concept, especially if working is defined by the Top Entity/Man and the type of work similarly mandated. Papa says "you be butcher" to child who obviously is better at working with inanimate things like wood or clay or steel. Papa says to the child who has facility for dissecting the hunt's produce, "You be janitor." Papa says "this be productive."

      Papa dead wrong.

      Nonetheless, Papa's death still can be opportunity for vampire covens establishing footholds.

      Delete
    2. Stalin's true loyalties were proved when he prepared to invade Germany for the crime of rejecting a central bank, and when he cooperated with Roosevelt to sacrifice Americans in fortified Normandy rather than quickly sweeping through Italy, in order to ensure decades of punitive control over East Germany.

      Of all the great bankers' bagmen who helped build the twentieth century, Stalin has the least excuse. Churchill and Roosevelt could at least claim that Jewish control over their nations had not yet induced internal genocide, whereas Stalin could look immediately over his shoulder and see the Cheka and the Holodomor. Churchill and Roosevelt were, to be sure, evil bastards, but they have at least that level of plausible deniability, e.g., "I didn't know they would do it to America/Britain." Stalin the Georgian, though, knew exactly what had been done to his close kinsmen scarcely a few years ago, and he still served those masters.

      Also, Katyn forest. And the bastard wouldn't even have won if not for Lend Lease. Talk about a dry run for Israel-style subversion of American military equipment.

      Delete
    3. Oh, please. For the entire reign of Stalin there are about 4 million in gulags, and about 600k sentenced to death. The number of prisoners is commensurate with the number in every *given year* during roosevelt's reign, and newsflash: Stalin isn't personally responsible for each individual execution. Indeed, there is a famous memo from Hruschev recomending ramping up repressions in ukraine, to which Stalin responded in writing: "Take it easy, dumbass".

      As for the golomodor - typical conceptual virus. Do a google Ngram search, and see how the concept first appeared in the 1980s. Besides, how are the millions starving to death in the US during the 1930s, and the loss of 80% family farms any better than collectivization and the supply problems in USSR???

      He prepared to invade Germany? Please... He knew full fell that if he succumbed to provocations, the west would support Germany against Russia.

      Hw WAS sweeping all europe from Nazis. Let me remind you that the western front did not open until 1944. By then, the Russians had won the decisive battles at Stalingrad and Kursk and were halfway through Poland, advancing towards Berlin at constant 40 mph...

      The US had to get in, to ensure they didn't get all the way to the La Manche.

      next thing I know you will be telling me the US won WWII. LOL. Let me remind you that 80% of the German casualties were on the Eastern front.
      They thought they would use the slavs as manure, and stumpled upon true Aryans...

      Delete
    4. Holy shit, the replies to this post tell me how far worse the k-12 indoctrination in this country is than my worst nightmares (and I'm no optimist).

      Instead of an abstract objection, check this: my father was an internationally famous soviet nuclear physicist, born in some working class shithole in the middle of rural nowhere. At the time, the Russian nuclear program was combing the entire goddamned country to find the most outstanding math students, to send them to study physics. (Since y'all, like all american students are probably completely ignorant of physics, let me remind you that physics cannot be done without high math proficiency. So, you tell me if Bad Papa arbitrarily tells you to do something you are unsuited for in this case...

      (Oh, per the standard state plan for employment of his cohort, my dad was also supposed to go work on nuclear submarine, but it turned out, there were higher-ups who were able to understand that his talents are better used as a scientist, rather than as a reactor maintenance officer, so they made it happen too...)

      Delete
    5. Regarding American education, Stalin is being portrayed in an increasingly positive light. It is old-fashioned and conservative to view him as a mere mass murderer; the more time passes, the more American pedagogues tell children that because of Holocaust™ and Slavery™ and Patriarchy™, Stalin actually was very good and progressive.

      Comparing Stalin to Roosevelt is unflattering to both of them. I see them both as bank agents--successors to the Federal Reserve Bolsheviks who seized control of America and Russia between 1910-1920. Stalin and Roosevelt solidified and formalized the banks' gains during the WW2 period. That's why they got along so well while preparing their respective nations to waste 50 years of blood and treasure.

      Your father's story is appreciable. There are many like it in the United States--people who claim that Roosevelt "saved them" because his collectivist programs gave them a route out of the working class shitholes that had been created by the Cheka/Fed, and by earlier bank occupiers. Stalin comes across as a more selfish Kirillov, willing to kill others, but not himself, on behalf of the great revolution he missed.

      ~Lightspring embrace.

      Delete
    6. You are confounding two issues and creating a mess:

      1) The shadow collaboration between certain circles in Salin's and western secret services is more or less known, though not widely. For one well documented example, after discovering huge diamond reserves, the USSR had the chance to completely destroy DeBeers and establish control over the world's diamond market. But, it never did, and adopted a bunch seemingly irrational mining and export policies to actually prop, rather than hurt, DeBeers. For another well documented example, USSR collaborated with the west in the destruction of the white South African Republic, and those involved in that, also dismantled USSR (and were rewarded for that).

      2) None of that diminishes the importance of what Stalin did for Russia, which was to turn a raw material appendage - the place desired by the west for Russia - into an industrial superpower. Which was absolutely contrary to long term western designs, although they could tolerate it for a while. In the mid 1930s he famously said: if we don't accommplish in 10 years what the west accomplished in 100, they will eat us. And he did accomplish it, while at the same time applying incompatibly less violence than what accompanied the western version of modernization.

      And that's the tragedy for the Russians, that this brief but outstanding period in their history - in fact the only period in their history where you could talk about a "Russian project" was dependent on this particular person, and accordingly fell apart after his death.

      His death was a national tragedy. A disturbingly high number of people died at his funeral, because the crowds were so incredibly large and a lot of people got trampled. New monumenst of stalin are going up in russia right now, and they are burried in flowers at every anniversary. 10 years before his death he also said: "the will pile a lot of garbage on my grave, but the winds of history will sweep it away." Exactly.

      If the Gods plan the survival of Russia, Stalin will return - better with a large team of ideological clones, or as a new elite social class...

      I don't know what you are smoking, but the demonization of Satlin continues unabated, accompanying the equalization of him and Hitler, as well as dimishining the decisive role of Russia in WWII

      Delete
    7. Stalin deserves demonization for Katyn Forest if nothing else. You can excuse him for killing Russians if you want, but all of the non-Russian Europeans he killed were a grave loss to the continent. If he hadn't tried to bring so many countries under his sway, Europe might have fought off the Zionists in WW2 and both Europe and Russia could have had a much brighter twentieth century.

      Delete
  2. 1) UBI sanctifies that the present system is good, the overspending on matters of poorly chosen priority is acceptable, that medical care costs are well overinflated is perfectly fine, that vampires have to draw blood from other humans is part of the ecosystem.

    2) More than a mild chuckle from this:

    here again, networked computers negate the fulsome protestations of the manchildren, for the sample product can be easily discarded with no harm done--unless you actually are committed to the versal system.

    ReplyDelete
  3. has been created by other humans, and by other systems, and by evolutionary process, and so forth.

    A trembling, howling-psyche fear exists, unnamed but rooted in a realization that humans did not create the first humans nor the first protozoon. The scrambling rattling mind runs for cover: shift focus solely to what man has created, that is everyting!

    Now look what we can do: everything a human wants is a resource for what humans want to build, do, make, and of course, destroy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Remember that by the end of the essay, this one was arguing that "UBI" might represent only "permitting emigration to the high IQed."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Make it low enough that everyone wants to go to a low-standards "college" where they spend 25k to pull a 3.5 GPA and still learn nothing? Because "college" is a racket of financial entities staffed by uncaring dolts like Corey Robin?

      Delete
  5. I think I'd defend Big Papa selecting others' lives for them if it gave me and my own personal pappy some sense of prestige, because prestige is what matters in life. Prestige is what every plant and animal on the planet spends its day doing. Making emblems of prestige. Displaying those emblems. That's the core calling of all living entities: prestige.

    Maybe Yippy Yapper doesn't have enough temerity to be his own thing, and can only make his way through life by having another tell him what he is. Or she is. Or xe is.

    Personal pappy being Famous Russian Physicist is supposed to prove your case?

    Or impress us enough to make us think you're a smart person?

    I am afraid it's not doing either for me, but most assuredly that's because I lack the requisite insider information and/or native talent seen only by Big Papa and/or his emissary.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mark, the point is simply that the average person had far more person for merit and achievement - if they wished to pursue - in 1950s USSR, than at any time in USA. And those who didn't, still enjoyed far greater individual freedom and economic security than any run of the mill US worker. The focus of soviet education was the full development of the individual.
    Even today, after a quarter century of degradation, the average russian pupil today is 3 years ahead of any "good" american student in all subjects though sadly the decay is advancing, as dreamed by "the dulles plan" and they are becoming more like the western zombies, for now.
    well, at least they will never allow gay parades, and consider the protection of the traditional family a "strategic national priority".

    Btw, Stalin's funeral:
    http://imgur.com/V8CtiOi


    http://miufa.ru/news/2016-03-08/vot-kak-narod-khoronil-tirana-kogo-esche-tak-budut-khoronit-v-so

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was commenting on Stalin and Big Papa theories, not whether present Russian schools are superior to present American ones. It doesn't take much to improve on the American public school system.

      Delete
    2. I hate to be in the position of defending America's schools, but try having Russia take in 13% Africans and 17% Hispanics, then ask some helpful Jews to establish exorbitantly expensive curricula, then prohibit any teachers from changing the curricula, then wait one generation, and then run those numbers again.

      But don't worry, I think the long-term plan is to do the same thing to you, so before long we will all share the same educational pacing and scores. ;)

      Delete
  7. *not to mention that all the paltry concessions given to the US proles were given mainly out of necessity to bribe them and appease them against the example of USSR.

    When the concession became too expensive, USSR had to be dismantled. It was, and where are you going now, my dear american middle class law-abiding citizen? Down? Who would have thought...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to some of the despicably racist elderly I encounter, those "concessions" all existed before WW1/WW2, and weren't so much a "bribe" as a "partial return of stolen property." But I understand your point. Perhaps one day soon we can become more like you.

      Delete
  8. Ah yes, good old Soso.

    Regarding UBI though; the arguments about a thereby necessitated wasteful self-serving self-perpetuating bureaucracy are true in theory, but as far more wasteful bureaucracies already exist in our world (health care insurances, welfare, etc.), any UBI bureaucracy that simply allocated the means for shelter and nutrition to everybody plus automatically covered medical expenses would be far more efficient, less convoluted and thus less prone to become a drain to such an extent as the currently existing ones are.

    This would break the underlying system like nothing else, though. The neofeudal perception of the world where some are destined to be serfs and others to be endowed with mountains of sugar or to become kings of Spain would vanish.

    The question arises of who would in any conceivable universe create a UBI, as it would go against the interests of those with the power to do so.

    There are two solutions I can see. The first lies in the vague naive hope of the current hypocritical sham of tyranny legitimization called democracy. If the idea of UBI became so prolific that somewhere in the world, the only political parties able to win an election would be those promising it, it would eventually get done. Once in place, the people of other countries would presumably demand the same, and it would eventually expand everywhere. Unless the very first country that enacted it would be effectively surreptitiously sabotaged by the usual means (media defamation, economic strangulation, staged protests with political uprisings, etc.).

    The second hope, perhaps further in the realm of science fiction, but perhaps less so, is that the kings and queens would at one point realize that a world without royalty would be better for them as well, as it would give them the chance to flourish as themselves, not just vegetate as ruling dominating soulless constructs that can have all their physical desires satiated at the cost of being obliged to perpetuate the system that grants them dominance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UBI could very conceivably be (in essence, already is being) used to breed replacement populations. Those who aren't willing to endure the self-debasing laziness and/or indignity of utilizing the UBI would bear the burden of providing the UBI, and be gradually destroyed. That's why I had to use "UBI" as more of a stand-in for "some form of obligation owed to corresponding creation" rather than actually "welfare sufficient to achieve maximum breeding-capability." That UBI, the one we see today, is a weaponized one that helps no one except the evil ones.

      Delete
  9. It would stand to reason that what exists today would not be allowed to if it did any good. I wouldn't call it UBI though, as there is nothing universal about it. There also isn't anything basic about it in terms of meeting basic needs, and it isn't even income, as an income would ostensibly make people feel part of something that at the very least includes an interest in their survival and prosperity, rather than as recipients of grudgingly doled out charity.

    ReplyDelete