FORWARD BASE B

"Pay my troops no mind; they're just on a fact-finding mission."

Money Should Only Belong to Cooperators

Every dollar is a vote—so it is of supreme importance to make sure these votes are given into the right hands.  Someone of low character with millions of dollars can cause great damage to society just by influencing the market with their preferences.  Imagine a political election where ambitious psychopaths get super-ballots worth 10,000 normal votes.  It sounds bizarre if we think in terms of elections for political office, yet this is how the economy works and most of us are okay with it.
We approve of parasitic financiers hoarding away millions or even billions of dollars.  So long as someone “earns” their wealth, we don’t care if they’re being awarded in proportion to the value they contribute or even if they intend to use the group’s very lifeblood to defect.  In a system of economic nihilism, where economies are left to drift without guiding purpose, nothing matters so long as you get money while managing to stay out of a jail cell.

If the economy gives great rewards to people who contribute relatively little value, we can envision the heart sending the best of its blood supply to the appendix, or in the case of someone who harms society, to a tumor or tapeworm.  We see this circulatory system acts against the interests of its own body.  It’s a violation of natural law that strikes us as repulsive and wrong in living things, but most of us are unable to make the abstract leap from what we understand viscerally.
That is how the lower castes have always been subjugated, not primarily through force, but through their inability to extend principles.  Under the influence of economic nihilism even those capable of deeper reflection have forgotten that the distribution of society’s influence points is one of the most important and sacred tasks, vital to the success and continuance of a people.

We are told, for instance, that the job market is about giving jobs to the most competent and hardest working.  In practice, this really only applies to the most skilled and important work.  The vast majority of work can be done somewhat competently by most people with a bit of training.  So in practice, jobs are foremost billets we use to support members of society.  The act of hiring someone isn’t “just business,” it gives someone a sacred mandate to exist in society and benefit from its fruits.  Even with low pay, a worker is given money that will supply at least some of the necessities of food and shelter by permission of the many.  If we buy a sack of potatoes rather than stealing it or growing it for ourselves, we do so by accumulating enough dollar votes, each of which is a material token of the collective will.  What could be more amazing than a piece of such abstraction made into a solid thing?
To pay someone well carries even greater meaning.  It allows a person not just to survive but to have surplus needed for offspring and the leisure and buying power required to exert influence on society.  This is to plant the seeds of a garden, to elect someone who will form the character of society for generations to come.  Yet we ask only if they can do the job the best, not whether they are deserving of the distinction of holding society’s precious wealth or whether they will handle that responsibility well.
More important than doing the job as well as possible is to be a cooperator with the group’s mission.
This is why the owner of a small business hires a friend even if the world is full of people who may be better qualified.  The owner trusts his friend and his wealth goes to an ally rather than a stranger.
This is why in the long run a nation that prides itself on “work ethic” over allegiance loses to tribes that put allegiance first. Thus, the nation-state model that’s gone global since the 1860s is now challenged by the tribe-state.
A small tribe doesn’t have a “job market” with little worker atoms floating around. It has slots with roles that need to be filled and those slots are given to the best and most loyal. The choice of who is appointed to those posts and how many influence points they’re given decides success or disaster. Who we hire selects our tribe.
Conversely, there is a clear duty to deny influence points to those who will hurt the group and to hunt down those who abuse the points system.

5 responses to “Money Should Only Belong to Cooperators

  1. Sam February 12, 2016 at 8:12 pm

    We need some sort of campaign finance reform. This was passed but the Gods in Black Robes voted it down. It’s time to smack their asses down. The Black Robes are not the final word. Congress is given power to create the courts and regulate what areas they rule on. Here’s a wiki article on it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping

    The article actually pretends that there is some question about this but an actual reading of the article in the Constitutions is quite clear. If Congress wished the Courts would only decide water rights between the States. A strong Congress could just impeach them left and right until they got the message.

    Some reforms might be to pass laws that you can only give money to legislators that run in your own district. Another good one would be to play on the corporations gray area of being considered people instead of fictional entities. For every corporation that gives campaign finance funds they are stripped of all immunity and any corporate malfeasance the board of directors and the chief executives are personally and criminally libel for all corporate acts. Now they have all the benefits of people but none of the deficits. That should be stopped. Some half way measures might be that corporations and actual people can only give money in the districts in which they live or vote in.

  2. nickbsteves February 13, 2016 at 10:28 pm


    This is why in the long run a nation that prides itself on “work ethic” over allegiance loses to tribes that put allegiance first. Thus, the nation-state model that’s gone global since the 1860s is now challenged by the tribe-state.

    Is that true? Maybe it ought to be true, but is it? If anything it’s the opposite anecdotally.


    A small tribe doesn’t have a “job market” with little worker atoms floating around. It has slots with roles that need to be filled and those slots are given to the best and most loyal. The choice of who is appointed to those posts and how many influence points they’re given decides success or disaster. Who we hire selects our tribe.

    I think that’s true. But beware the fallacy of the excluded middle. There’s no “algorithm” for making a healthy nation. Obviously people ought not to be treated as interchangeable cogs, but so too must not efficiency be thrown out the window in favor of loyalty. There’s two ways for nations to die. Internal rot is only one of them.

    • Giovanni Dannato February 14, 2016 at 12:32 am

      I address some of these issues in my next post. New communication technologies have made small forms of human organization more scalable and competitive with mass societies. Also, the mass societies fall victim to their lack of meaningful cohesion in the long run. Eventually, they make easy pickings for even impoverished clans that can back each other up.
      Yes, there has to be some balance to find the golden mean. That’s why I use the phrase “best and most loyal.” The tribe-state that finds the right balance and isn’t just a circle-jerk of nepotism will be the new ruling state.
      But loyalty does come first. In war, it’s valuable for someone to be a good sniper, but only if he’s solidly on your side. The more valuable and talented the defector, the worse the damage. The worst case is your army gives food and ammunition to the enemy sniper and allows him inside your base. That is what happens when society makes a defector into a millionaire.

  3. Sam February 15, 2016 at 1:56 am

    nickbsteves asked,

    “This is why in the long run a nation that prides itself on “work ethic” over allegiance loses to tribes that put allegiance first. Thus, the nation-state model that’s gone global since the 1860s is now challenged by the tribe-state.”

    Is that true?

    Yes it’s true. By any measurement imaginable the Jews have taken over and control the USA. They have done so by strong ingrouping and information sharing among themselves. By constantly backing each other up and never selling each other out. Even when individual Jews have gone against the mass of Jewish opinion it has been because they believe the present path the Jews are on threatens the Jews and they wish to change it.

    They also do so by undermining and fomenting discohesion in the other races and classes in whatever country they are in.

    • Giovanni Dannato February 16, 2016 at 12:07 am

      It’s silly to blame everything on Jewish conspiracies. I guess people just want to blame someone else for causing their problems. There’s no doubt that Jews are over-represented in the top ranks of just about any field we care to name. They do back each other up for their own benefit, as a healthy ethnic group should. They are smart, creative, hard-working, work as a team, and practice eugenics.
      Rather than becoming jealous haters and wanting to tear Jews down for their success we should recognize that they have developed a group strategy that wins and adopt the best and most compatible elements of it into new tribes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: