Even the Rich Can Enjoy Capitalism with a Basic Income


Even many within the 1% should be willing to accept capitalism that involves a basic income where there is no poverty, and people compete for relative rather than absolute wealth.

Why would some people who have so much money under the current system prefer a system where they are still well off, but have less (in absolute terms)?  Because their relative rank would go up (in terms of wealth/recognition etc.)

Redeeming personality-types are found in all fields and sectors of society as are sinister personality-types.  Some genuinely kind-hearted people do find their way into realms of affluence.

They have a lot under the current system, but what they don’t realize is they would have MORE under a system where there is LESS inequality.  In a less oppressive society where there is no poverty (and only minor inequality,) there is greater truth.  Greater truth only threatens sinister personality-types that hurt others to get ahead in society.  Someone like Oprah would also be successful in a world without poverty.  However, many people who did questionable things to become richer than her might have a much harder time doing so in a humane society.  Thus, her relative rank goes up.

And it’s not just about wealth either.  In a world of zero poverty and genuine honesty, more compassionate human beings receive greater recognition and are actually less inhibited in their service to humanity.

Nobody’s perfect.  I feel Oprah has promoted excessive materialism and a very specious form of spirituality (i.e. colourful, but empty.)  I don’t like how she lauds the United States, describing it as “the greatest country in the world,” as if the ascendancy of Rome should eclipse the ruthlessness of its empire.

Having said that, I do think she is somebody who genuinely wants to alleve human suffering.  Leading up to the Iraq war, she did have a show that expressed her distaste of violence over peace.  However, it was met with the typical hysterical ultra-nationalism that applauds itself in suppressing any criticism or dissent.

So many of us have so much to say but can’t because there is no platform where such words are considered acceptable without sinister personalities taking advantage of the convenience of oppressing on behalf of (arbitrarily accepted) intellectual authorities.  Zero poverty allows truly resilient personalities to survive long enough to defend truth.

The more genuine characters within the 1% actually advance in terms of relative wealth/recognition in a society where there is no poverty at all.  Thus, there is some impetus for the rich to favour their wealth being redistributed fairly and properly (especially since the idea of property was arbitrary and anti-democratic to begin with.)

Ending poverty is also just the right thing to do and success within a system that is fundamentally elitist/oppressive is like being a major success in North Korea—is that really something we applaud?


Selfishness Destroys Capitalism


Everybody is always naturally taking themselves into account without even thinking about it at the deepest level. We unconsciously assess what will allow us to survive.

However, some people help others to help themselves (though they are not consciously thinking about it that way, which is normal.) Others are programmed on the deepest level to hurt others to help themselves or to pretend to be altruistic when they are not. This latter form of selfishness which seeks to hurt others to get ahead is the one we pretend is actually a good thing that will benefit humanity when, by definition, it cannot.

The type of selfishness that hurts others to get ahead is (inherently) never a good thing and will always be considered evil. Even in competition, there must be rules of fair play. Immoral selfishness seeks to break the rules of fair play and then brainwashes humans into thinking that it’s a good thing to break such rules.

Capitalism requires fair competition to work properly. It’s best if customers know which retailer is selling a product for the cheapest price right away. Would the government ever invest in a website that lists the lowest prices so customers can get the best product for the lowest cost, forcing less efficient businesses to change?

Of course not • because that would encourage fair competition and fair play and very sinister pathologies do not like that. They want an unfair environment that only benefits those who argue for the necessity of unfairness under the guise that it will benefit humanity in the long run when (by definition) it will not.


Altruism: E.g. I help a feeble, elderly man walk to a destination.

In the long, long run, I do benefit from this kind deed but not always on an easily or immediately detectable level. (I don’t need to consciously think about it this way either, but it doesn’t hurt. The true mechanism granting benefit is so advanced, Buddhists refer to it as receiving benefit for good karma.)

Fair competition: E.g. A race to the finish line.

This is the type of competition that would ideally drive a properly functioning capitalist society.

Sinister selfishness: E.g. Taking a crowbar to somebody’s knee before a competition or giving myself a head start while pretending people who didn’t beat me just didn’t work hard enough.

This is the type of selfishness that people argue will still be beneficial. It won’t. It messes everything up and only results in elitism and a nobility willing to maintain such sinister backward logic.

The only capitalism I favour is High-Efficiency Capitalism where nobody is poor, inequality is always capped, and people compete for RELATIVE rather than absolute wealth.

And, NO, feeling good about doing good for others does NOT negate an altruistic act. That positive feeling is what maintains altruism in many cases. There are deeper levels of sacrifice that are more painful, but on a deeper level, even these acts are rewarded (though on that level, very few consciously think about it that way because reward may only be granted in an unforeseeably distant future.)

Direct Democracy


Ideally, there would be direct democracy for urban centres existing side-by-side with self-directed spiritual communes in the countryside (with roughly ten thousand people per commune.)

The urban centres would utilize high-efficiency capitalism where VERY limited inequality maintains competition rather than any poverty.  In order to maintain this inequality, extra output could just be given to the communes rather than destroyed through war.

Keep one eye on…


Keep one eye on decency while focusing on your life.

That’s it. That’s all a person really has to do in my opinion. Anyone who wants to be more sacrificial (on a genuine level) is more than welcome (and such sacrifices are commendable,) but I think the above idea is already more than fair, especially because it doesn’t involve exploiting others in the name of “helping” them.

Girl Ejected from Prom for Arousing Pervy Dads


This just gives more credence to my theory:

Reversed Sexual Repression

The Undie Drawer

A really insane new story is making the rounds right now, published by a young woman who was kicked out of her prom for supposedly forcing a bunch of on-looking fathers to experience ‘impure’ thoughts.

View original post 404 more words


Ögyen Jampalyang

The idea that there is an objective truth or reality outside of our experience of such things and the intellectualization of these concepts (which is so beloved in the Western tradition) often results in a dissociation between man (or woman) and truth where people no longer internalize what they expound and speculate upon. It basically allows for people to discuss one thing and behave incongruently, in my opinion.

As I’ve stated before, I feel humans can only approach or experience the objective nature of truth subjectively the way the Indian mystics and sages did.  It’s why I feel someone like Friedrich Nietzsche didn’t hold a candle to someone like Gautama Buddha.

Buddha (if I’m recalling things correctly) always discussed how people must achieve enlightenment for themselves so they can see through enlightened eyes.  Such things are a realm beyond pure intellectualization/conceptualizaiton and can only be achieved through internalization and experience, in my opinion.  Someone like Neitzche and many of the “enlightenment” philosophers of Europe seemed to think all truth could be enscribed {neologism: set down into writing}.  Perhaps one day this might be true, but acknowledgement of our current limitations (which is part of truth) is always important to maintain.  At our current stage, we are no where close to being able to transcribe truth into pure intellectual reasoning.  Thus, people are still required to practice as they preach because there is no perfect formula for human decency (as of yet and who knows if there ever will be.)