The modern music scene and the basic income guarantee

Modern music is eminently forgettable (if you’re lucky; if not, it’ll keep buzzing round in your head driving you crazy). Compare this to the oldies: the artists had no food, unless they made something worthwhile to enough people (excluding the record company’s short-sighted accountant). To put it in the words of the world famous David Gilmour: “Bread-line. Bread-line and less.” The concept is driven home very beautifully by Clarence Carter’s Patches:
Some great music that came forth from personal tragedies:
The death of Paolo Conte’s friend Max:
The singer Frank Boeijen finding out that a girl he used to go to s hool with, has become a prostitute:
The specter of nuclear annihilation has produced some popular songs, too: and:
Of course I wish everybody could live a life without tragedies, yet sometimes the tragedies happen, and the people affected by them produce something worth remembering. A bit a la Toynbee’s Challenge/Response, but on the individual level.
The basic income will remove incentives, smoothen everything out so there will never be exceptional people, arising from exceptional circumstances, meaning that the #BasicIncome is a crime against the human condition.


Not from zero

While it’s true that #capitalism lay behind the beginnings of #colonialism (people forming corporations to fund expeditions out to unknown regions of the planet), it is the free market (not exactly the same as capitalism, but close enough), that put a stop to the exploitation of slaves in the colonies, due to morals evolving to the point that people voted with their feet (wallets) against businesses that still used those practices. Early on, people feltno qualms about enslaving other people,this changed over time. (And so long as there will not be any ingroup-outgroup thinking (such as politicians foster to more easily divide and conquer it is unlikely thay slavery will recur)
This means that, as #society will not start all over again after some changes occurred, some of the morals will be kept, like the aversion against slavery, and quite simply the release from government’s clutches will be felt as such a relief, that cultural memory will revolt against any attempts to subdue anyone (whether a group or a person).
Societies carry their good baggage with them over time, across social changes. They also take bad baggage with them, for instance the legacy of aggression which continues to yield social damage. That is regrettable but unavoidable. Initially, the “red in tooth and claw” may hold, but, over time, people will grow to dislike that. Which is some of the good #social damage I refer to.

Throwback to the bad old days

GWB’s attacks on iraq and Afghanistan are worse than anything in the bad old days (and this time, those days may be here to stay).
Think: the hippie-generation got riled up about Kennedy’s brutal slaughter of #Vietnam, and they’ve come of age in the Reagan-era, then they became a force to be reckoned with. The brutality of US terrorism against the Vietnamese even went so far, that one of their own helicopter crews opened fire at the US soldiers. That isn’t counting the countless rapings of young girls.
So this generation caused #Reagan to have to go underground, and perform his terror by way of other countries (ever wondered why #Israel gets its top of the line war jets for free? They don’t: they had to perform democide in Guatemala & elsewhere in South America with them, but there are no up-front costs).
Anoter terrorist nation supported (operationally & financially) by the US, was Hussain’s #Iraq, iirc it was Rumsfeld who was caught on tape, shaking the violent bastard’s hand when telling him that the American people have gone round with the collection tin, to support your regime, and here are the millions of dollars you need to continue killing people. It was the same Donald #Rumsfeld who was among the aggressive war-hawks, aching to invade Iraq after #9/11 (which it has been sufficiently demonstrated, they had nothing to do with.).
The regime also unashamedly invaded Afganistan, because Bin Laden had moved into a cave there.
A transparant excuse to grow the empire by violent means (how else?), at the expense of countless lives – on both(!) sides. If it were really about acquiring or killing Bin Laden, thry could have sent in a small #CIA-team, sure, it would have killed a lot fewer people and it would not have raised the government debt by as much as it did, both key objectives for modern governments, but it would have gotten the job done, and the people didn’t give a peep when the Dubbya-clan undid it all the gains at keeping government in check. Not helped in the least by the communist tendencies of the former protesters (now in more influential positions, in the MSM, in government), that only want to keep government in power using any violence necessary.
So all that was good (the only thing) that came out of the #Vietnam war has been undone, aided by a lazy, complicit MainStream Media (#MSM), that refused to do its job of keeping the government in check, but instead chose to go along with all the propaganda. Not only did they get away with a bunch of wars, they actually drummed up support for them, helped to a quite distressing degree by popular entertainment that glorifies gullible teenage-assassins from poor families as “real American heroes”. Instead people are now glorifying the flag (the political institution), in fact, they can get quite angry when you’re deservedly critical of the political institution, somehow they take that personally.
I feel that the #leftists (in the msm) dropped the ball on purpose, because, well, a big government that can get away with stuff, is a powerful government. Therefore an ideal government.

How about this hypothesis (#oil, #wealth)

How about the hypothesis that oil is literally the earth’s mantel (or crust, I confuse those two), processed by bacteria?
The people that support that hypothesis – over the #fossil fuel-hypothesis, suport that by a.o. the claim, that if it where fossil, it would have run out yonks ago, given all the #oil that’s been burnt & processed into plastic?
I propose not putting artificial limits on oil now (out of faux-concern for #durability), because all it would do, is keep the oil in the ground for future generations who are not allowed to touch it, because it has to be preserved for even further future generations, and infinitum. So it’s best to use it to create wealth now, and use that wealth to be able to fund a transfer to different energy sources. Wealth generated today is not wealth stolen from the future (like inflationary fake-wealth from central banks), so the #wealth generated today can be built upon by future generations, adding today’s wealth to the future’s wealth. A wealthy future can better support luxuries like “#durable #energy” that must be rammed down our empoverishing throats today.

Social atrophy

This is roughly a translation of the post

Social atrophy is what happens when the government interferes with society.

I was inspired to this when Judge Napolitano quoted a bible commandment (he is a Christian): the bible command christians to help their fellow man. By stealing money in order to give charity to said fellow man, the government denies him the opportunity to do it himself, denying him the chance to get into heaven.
I am not religious, but the same principle applies to society at large, because when the government gets in between the needy and the wealthy, social cohesion gets reduced. People don’t learn what it’s like to help the needy: this is bad for society. This way, the government denies people heaven on earth. The social instinct atrophies.
So the society the government creates, will be a bunch of myopic egotists, which they will seize as justification for more of the cause.

The reason so many left-wing politicians love war

Is, the same as why socialists went to sit on the left in parliament; it’s that left-wingers want to change the world (starting with the country). And the best tool to force change upon a country’s population, is war.
So long as you can fool enough people into thinking that they are the country (at their core, no politician thinks that the people are the country; THEY themselves are), it may become a popular notion that dying to defend your country is a noble thing (especially, when you control the media; just consider how many – mostly American – TV-shows have been & are about glorifying war). When in fact, dying to defend the jobs of the politicians that lord it over the population, is the most cruel thing one may do to the population.
Because war makes all sorts of changes requisite, like:

  • restricting freedom of movement.
  • restricting freedom of speech.
  • Patrolling neighborhoods, keeping people’s behaviors in check.
  • Taxing the crap out of them; because war is costly (also financially, not just bodily & socially)

Tell me what in this list, is worth dying for? Not much…. But yet: examples of lefties loving war so much, in order of appearance:

  • Stalin
  • Hitler
  • Harry S. Truman
  • George W. Bush
  • Both Clintons
  • Barack Obama

Looming #demographic crisis in #Europe

#European #populations are aging fast, meaning the large wellfare states are becoming unaffordable. Fools blame the European people for that, as if the people have any influence on how the country runs us!
I simply refuse to comdemn any children to this certain future of:

  1. Poverty
  2. Despair
  3. Opression
  4. Victimization by politicians

So don’t bring up the fashionable complaint of muslims immigrating into society being the only way to be able to continue to afford the costly (politically-propelled) welfare-state, which is another political monstrosity forced down our throats, which we cannot get rid of, without abolishing the whiole ridiculous concept of the state.

The problem is, that the “civillized” states of western Europe are democracies (as hinted at in democratic derives from the Greek words demos – meaning as much as “people” – and cratos – “power”, so #democracy in the modern interpretation means power OVER the people. Never ever TO the people, oh no: that’s why every time there’s a #referendum here in the Netherlands, it’s never binding, only advisory; in case (in each and every one) the people want something else from what the government wants.
The only kind of proper democracy is #statelesness.