Recreating (and advancing) pk’s censored domains: Macroinformation.org & Knatz.com / Teaching / Society / NoHier / Kleptocracy /
@ K. 2008 06 04
|Old Crimes||versus||Fresh Blood|
My landlord says that “This country was founded on the principle that the sons are not liable for the sins of the fathers. I don’t care if my grandfather butchered Indians or kept slaves: I’m not responsible for my grandfather.”
To those who agree I nevertheless have a few questions to ask and a few more things to say:
|If Joseph steals Esau’s blessing, I agree that Joseph’s unborn children are not responsible for the theft. If Joseph’s children get born and assist Joseph and their siblings in enterprises fertilized by Joseph’s boosted blessing, then they too become actively guilty.|
Now, for many generations, Jews, and Christians too, have argued that God didn’t want Esau to have Isaac’s blessing: that the stolen blessing was God’s Plan: and therefore, since God is perfect, and Himself incapable of Sin — By Definition — then Joseph’s and Rebeka’s deception was no deception, but correct, right, lawful, virtuous …
Fine. I’ll pretend to agree even with that garbage for a moment: in order to ask this further question: if “Isaac’s blessing” is really a synecdoche for “God’s Blessing,” isn’t it really up to God whether or not the blessing gets bestowed? Or are all these Covenants and Blessings like a gun? the stolen gun can still shoot and kill, the bullet will be propelled regardless of who owns the gun in theory. Or: are all these Covenants and Blessings like an endorsed check? The bank is supposed to have to cash it no matter who you are, even if the teller sees blood on your hands.
If you develop a new breed of rose, and I steal it, the rose’s future genes are in my hands, not yours.
But what if God’s Blessing is in God’s hands, and cannot be stolen: wherever its tokens get strewn? Then God can bless Esau, if he chooses: it doesn’t matter what some blind old fool did or didn’t do. Or is God compelled to bless Joseph, even if God hates Joseph?
What the hell, never mind. Who cares about God these days? (I do: because of his usefulness in what I tried, and probably failed, to show you: God was invented as a trick deck so the magicians could palm “truth” and substitute “God” without the marks noticing: but we’re used to it: and I continue it: trying to re-substitute truth). If the murderer knows about fingerprints, and knows that the cops also know about fingerprints, and wipes his fingerprints from the gun, does that make him innocent? It does if “innocent” is defined as “no fingerprints.” But what about some other kind of prints? prints that neither the cops nor the murderer, nor we, know about? what if the murderer left “soul prints”?
If innocence is defined as “no fingerprints,” and the murderer wipes his fingerprints from the gun, but a bystander, perhaps with a camera-cellphone, videotaped the murder, does the court have to let the murderer go? I think so: provided they thereafter rethink their stupid law. If the law is not capable of modeling reality, then what right do upholders of such laws have to survive?
Does the truth count? If Congress votes that arsenic is healthful and not toxic and Must be consumed, does that in itself make it non-toxic? Or has Congress committed suicide / murder?
Initially humans didn’t make roads from wilderness; humans, like most animals, would have used existing animal paths. If a rat used a mouse path, the rat will widen the mouse path. If a pig uses the rat path, the pig will further widen it. … More animals keep beating down the soil, trampling seedlings, making grasses lie flat … Finally, men pave it: then repair the paving.
In this country we paved roads at a pace that would have shamed the Romans. We did create roads from wilderness without the history of mice and pigs for each such road. We bulldoze jungle, and bring on the pavement. In this enterprise slaves were once used. When outright slavery became politically taboo, we continued to enslave by arresting “wogs” and condemning them to labor on the roads. Some of those arrested may have actually done things that even I would disapprove of: armed robbery, rape, murder for the sake of robbery … but the arrests are motivated by a need for cheap labor more than any thirst for justice. Thus the “n-word” (Bowdlerizing K. 2016 07 31), the “chink,” get framed: for the sake of enslaving them: to build roads, to enlist in the standing army … to get out of the way so the white boy can have the high paying job …
I didn’t kill the Indian. I didn’t break the treaty. I didn’t drive the slave. I didn’t frame the road-slave. But if I drive on that section of road, I participate in the kleptocracy, freshening the crime.
Interstate commerce depends on the motorist from Vermont knowing nothing about how the roads in South Carolina were built, or about where Georgia judges set their speed traps, as the Vermonter drives to Fort Lauderdale for spring break, or to Miami to sell syrup to Cuba.
George Washington promised this and that to the Mohawk, then stole that and most of the rest. My landlord is right that you and I are not George Washington. (We didn’t steal land from the squatters either, as George Washington did.) But the US didn’t stop stealing from the Indians in 1776. The US didn’t stop stealing from the Indians in 1864. The US was still actively stealing from Indians well on into the Twentieth Century: and may still be for all I know. (See Wasi’Chu (out of print, but some library will have it).)
Here’s a question: does sin have to be deliberate to be sinful?
Our culture has tried valiantly to turn the answer from the Yes, common to primitive peoples, to the No concocted by kleptocrats.
The primitive tribe holds it taboo to see your mother-in-law’s breasts. You live in a tribe where all the women go bare breasted. You have the run of the place, your mother-in-law has the run of the place. You have to tiptoe around half-insane with worry that you’ll see your mother-in-law, and that seeing your mother-in-law, you’ll thereby see her breasts. It doesn’t matter. Tribal taboo is not designed for our comfort. You wear blinders, there’s an earthquake, you and your mother-in-law fall into the same yawning crack in the earth. You land on top of her, your face between your mother-in-law’s breasts: like Michael Douglas with his face in Kathleen Turner’s pussy at the bottom of the mud slide. It won’t do to say it wasn’t deliberate:
Did you see your mother-in-law’s breasts?
Modern courts spawn modern lawyers to quibble, dice definitions … all to change that Yes to a “NO, we are Not Guilty”: no matter the evidence, no matter the facts, no matter the truth. It doesn’t matter what God says, we can out-vote him! We didn’t know Congress was stealing more from the Indians: therefore; Congress is guilty, not me. (Never mind that I voted for the bastards.)
In 1970 I founded the Free Learning Exchange, Inc, in New York City. I offered to make a cybernetic data base into which any person could volunteer any expertise they claimed to have. Holders of resources such as bookstores or stationary shops could also register their existence, their location, their hours, their terms (cash, credit, barter: whatever their terms are). Others could volunteer their interest in some subject so that peer groups would have the information needed to self-form. I further offered to publicly track feedback about those resources: so that a teacher of English could comment on any other person listed as a teacher of English. So could the student comment on any teacher (or any teacher on any student).
(Note: FLEX had no right to any information not volunteered to it. If you don’t register, you’re not in the data base. But: once in the database, voluntarily, then you are fair game for any other database user. Misinformation is inevitable: lies, envy. The antidote for misinformation, if there is an antidote, the only possible antidote, is more information. If Einstein registers as a physicist, and Plank uses the database to insult Einstein, then other users of the database can contradict Plank: they cannot censor Plank’s insult.)
The design, as I advertised then and continue to advertise today, was from Ivan Illich. You can see it outlined in Chapter Six of his Deschooling Society, 1970. Simultaneously I campaigned against compulsory schooling and against state-issued and state-backed certificates. Simultaneously, still following Illich, I campaigned against the habit, rife in modern kleptocracies of allowing the certificate to substitute for competence: if the physicist is competent, don’t ask for his diploma, demand that he demonstrate some mastery of physics. Don’t let the typing school diploma be switched for the ability to type.
Not quite simultaneously but soon, by 1971 and 1972, I was corresponding with interested parties and institutions around the world, arguing that each network should be local, as Illich had said, but that the networks should interconnect, be able to share and pass on information where appropriate. I was also saying in those correspondences, and on my soapbox on street corners, that the initial purpose of FLEX was to do every healthful and legitimate (I don’t mean merely “legal”) thing that schools do (and do it for a fraction of the cost (but (in contrast) do it with freedom)). By 1971 and 1972 I was pointing out that the structure not only served all possible learning needs, and not just freedom (including independence from government), but that that same structure could serve to become the cybernetic marketplace of the future. If my data base could list math teachers, and list math books, and list folk who wanted to do or discuss math in company, then my data base could also list tennis champions, and tennis duffers, and people who where looking for a tennis partner, or a tennis opponent …
Such a data base offers a complete free market, free of church, free of government: no royalties due to either.
The term “internet” didn’t then exist. The internet that we know today was developed, bits here and bits there, by the US, attached to MIT, to SRI … and by CERN: all without talking to me (or for all I know to Illich). The institutions just mentioned all depend on government; Illich’s learning networks and my “internet” — just a step, but an important step past Illich — were conceived to get us out from under government’s thumb (freeing people: so they can pursue their “salvation” (or their “damnation”) on their own).
Illich was a priest: not just a priest, a conspicuous disciple of “Jesus” (whether or not Jesus of Nazareth is fact or fiction): just as I OBVIOUSLY am.
But the government and the culture institutions ganged up against us. FLEX gained one article, then another, then a spurt … then fewer, then none. This did Not accurately portray public interest. Illich’s books disappeared: this did NOT accurately portray public interest. Our markets are manipulated. By magicians. Not in your, or my interest, or Jesus’.
My internet was offered in 1970. (Three years of fund raising by more than a dozen volunteers did not earn enough money for six months rent. (Enough money for five months rent did come, but from one source, in two donations.) WorldWideWeb was written in 1988. TIME dragged me into their offices in 1972, then shushed me out a back door.
That the public doesn’t know the truth, initially, is not the public’s fault. But that the public Still doesn’t know the truth IS the public’s fault! I’ve been telling the truth all my life: but your institutions gang up on me.
My own family gangs up on me. My son resolutely refuses to see the facts, joining the institutions: where all the money is.
My son adds fresh crimes to old kleptocracy daily, fresh blood. Jesus’ blood, Illich’s blood, my blood. Your blood!
You are drinking not just God’s blood (it matters not that there is no capital letter G god). You are drinking My blood. And you are drinking your own blood.
Maybe there is no hell. Surely there is no eternity: just time, and more time, and time without end. (Don’t trust Hawking on this one.) Surely nothing as simple as Sinners Burning in Hell exists. It looks like there were plenty of Jesuses, but never any Jesus of Nazareth. Facts may be impossible to establish, especially among kleptocrats. But it cannot be the case that nothing is true.
I emphatically disbelieve in magic. I disbelieve in Covenants and effective Blessings. I believe in the psychological effectiveness of prayer without believing that a God has anything to do with it. But I emphatically believe that the truth has everything to do with everything.
A dishonest species will not thrive forever. (When the oil runs out it may not thrive for long at all.) If a more honest intelligence evolves humans won’t stand a chance in any open competition. Macbeth can out-cheat Duncan’s heirs in this or that battle, but not in all battles.
2015 97 24 Isn’t it a riot? What business do you or I or the Church Fathers have discussing what is or isn’t a sin while also claiming to believe in God? If God exists then sin, facts … are up to him: it doesn’t matter what we say, think, imagine.