A Man's a Man for a' That

Since Edmund Cartwright invented the power loom in 1784, mechanisation and automation have destroyed jobs at an ever increasing pace. That these processes would have a huge impact on working people and the distribution of wealth was already evident two hundred years ago. Thus, in the Edinburgh Review of 1829, Thomas Carlyle wrote:

... Nothing is now done directly, or by hand; all is by rule and calculated contrivance. For the simplest operation, some helps and accompaniments, some cunning abbreviating process is in readiness. Our old modes of exertion are all discredited, and thrown aside. On every hand, the living artisan is driven from his workshop, to make room for a speedier, inanimate one. The shuttle drops from the fingers of the weaver, and falls into iron fingers that ply it faster. The sailor furls his sail, and lays down his oar; and bids a strong, unwearied servant, on vaporous wings, bear him through the waters. Men have crossed oceans by steam; ... There is no end to machinery. Even the horse is stripped of his harness, and finds a fleet fire-horse invoked in his stead. Nay, we have an artist that hatches chickens by steam; the very brood-hen is to be superseded! For all earthly, and for some unearthly purposes, we have machines and mechanic furtherances; for mincing our cabbages; for casting us into magnetic sleep.  ...

Yet despite the ongoing destruction of jobs, prosperity as Carlyle noted, had never been greater or more widely spread:

What wonderful accessions have thus been made, and are still making, to the physical power of mankind; how much better fed, clothed, lodged and, in all outward respects, accommodated men now are, or might be, by a given quantity of labour, is a grateful reflection which forces itself on every one. 

Yet, Carlyle asked:

What changes, too, this addition of power is introducing into the Social System ...increasing the distance between the rich and the poor, will be a question for Political Economists...

And today, the answer to Carlyle's question for the Political Economists is at last becoming evident. Not only is machinery replacing human labor, but automation, robotization, and control by artificial intelligence is altogether eliminating the economic value of human intelligence except for that of a tiny elite of highly trained specialists. Increasingly, the objective of the business corporation is not to increase the productivity of human labor but to eliminate it from the productive process.

Thus the telephone company has no human to answer the phone, but seeks to meet their customer's need with a synthetic voice driven by artificial intelligence. Though, currently, the response such systems provide to any inquiry is generally inane, confidence must exist that with incremental improvement, the system will become a fully effective replacement for human intelligence at a great saving in expense. 

The auto industry, likewise, seeks to eliminate the need for for human intelligence as well as muscle, not only in the production of motor vehicles, as evident with the introduction of lights-out robot factories, but in the operation of both cars and freight vehicles. The result: not increased labor productivity, but labor elimination, indicating that we are fast approaching a period of massive and irreducible unemployment. What then for the mass of mankind? 

As we noted several days ago, Yuval Harari, a futurist much admired by Klaus Schwab, founder and Chair of the World Economic Forum, considers that other than the class of high IQ and highly trained techies, the plutocrats who seek control of the globe will have no desire to perpetuate the existence of what Harari calls the "useless people," which is to say most of humanity. 

The implication is clear: the human surplus should off themselves, in the way that the Government of Schwabb-acolyte, Justin Trudeau intends with its Medical Assistance In Death legislation for the old, the depressed, and the terminally ill, to which list will surely be added the permanently unemployable. 

Though shocking to those not familiar with it, this is a solution long endorsed, not only in Nazi Germany but by many in the enlightened West, as these comments by the famous Anglo-Irish playwright,George Bernard Shaw make clear:

In the face of this prospect, I am grateful to Yusef for his response to a question I raised in an earlier post. Namely:

"what are the alternative futures, if any, for the mass of humanity when a pair of hands is no longer worth its keep."

 Yusef provides two quotes:

(1)

Mark 2: 23: And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.

24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?

25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath."

King James Bible

(2)

Immanuel Kant: "An end-in-itself"

An explanation of Kant's concept of "an end-in-itself", often put more informally as the idea that we should not "use" other people.

The word "end" in this phrase has the same meaning as in the phrase "means to an end".

The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else. The fact that we are human has value in itself.

If a person is an end-in-themself it means their inherent value doesn't depend on anything else - it doesn't depend on whether the person is enjoying their life, or making other people's lives better. We exist, so we have value.

Most of us agree with that - though we don't put it so formally. We say that we don't think that we should use other people, which is a plain English way of saying that we shouldn't treat other people as a means to our own ends.

This idea applies to us too. We shouldn't treat ourselves as a means to our own ends; instead we should respect our inherent worth. This can be used as an argument against euthanasia, suicide and other behaviours that damage ourselves.

The idea also shows up in discussions of animal rights, with the idea that if they have rights, animals must be treated as ends in themselves."  (Source)

To which I would add Robbie Burns' fine poem: A Man’s a Man for a’ That

What Will Happen to People When Robots Take Their Jobs?

Fred Reed has an excellent article at Unz.com, which sets out with unflinching realism how nearly everyone will be made permanently redundant by the processes of automation, computerization, and robotization.

By implication, the article makes clear why the New York Times employs Paul Krugman: to ensure that no one understands how rapidly we are approaching economic Armageddon.

But Fred makes the mistake, which no good journalist should, of answering the question he raises; namely, how’s it all gonna end?

Political Correctness Has Replaced Christianity As the Religion of the West

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Communist religion of political correctness has replaced Christianity as the principal religion of the United States and its vassals and tributaries. To understand what this transition means, one needs to understand what constitutes a religion. A religion is not, essentially, a belief in God, or gods, the spirits of ancestors, or other supernatural entities; neither is it an organization, whether state-backed, for example the Russian Orthodox Church, or supranational, for example the Roman Catholic Church; nor is it a matter of ritual, prayer, worship, sacrifice, or fasting. Rather, the essential feature of any religion is a code of conduct applicable to every member of society.

The existence of a shared set of ethical beliefs is essential to any society, for without it there is no basis upon which to engage with strangers in social, business or other relations. But not all ethical codes are equivalent in their consequences. Far from it, as the impact of Political Correctness in the West clearly shows.

The precepts of political correctness are the antithesis of those of Christianity. In the matter of sexual morality, for example, Christianity condemns masturbation, fornication, adultery, contraception, abortion and no-fault divorce, all of which are accepted or positively encouraged under the code of Political Correctness. Contrary to the impact of Political Correctness, the Christian code, which derives directly from that of the Jews, strengthens family ties, promotes population growth, and thus encourage people to "go forth and multiply and rule over the nations of the Earth." This the European peoples once did with enthusiasm, establishing populous colonies in the Americas and elsewhere.

But then the Europeans began to backslide. God, they discovered, does not exist. The story about Jesus they realized was only a myth, so why not enjoy sex without the costs of child birth and child-rearing. And if there is no God in Heaven to punish selfishness, why not ditch the wife at 45 and take on a twenty-something cutie? Or if you cannot afford the alimony, at least have something on the side.

The result? A collapse in Western birthrates to little more than half the replacement rate in much of Europe. But no prob., lots of poor folk from the Third World are ready to take the place of the missing children of the West. Thing is though, many of these immigrants are God-fearing fundamentalist Christians from Africa or Moslems from Africa, the Middle-East and Asia, from which fact it requires little intelligence to anticipate how this will end. It will end with the destruction of both the people and the culture of Europe and their replacement by people from elsewhere who have a more viable religious code.

But to object to the PC-induced self-genocide of the West is Vorboten because, according to the PC code, the Judeo-Christian belief in perpetuating one's own people is — yeah — racist.

Still, folks are bound to wonder, what's driving this program of racial and cultural self-genocide and why?

An important factor is that the PC code appeals strongly to individual selfishness. It allows and even encourages every one of the seven deadly sins: not only lust, but gluttony (Noticed how many fat people there are in America and Europe? Though the PC code says we mustn't call them fat. It's not that they regularly pig-out on grease-filled hamburgers, fudge sundaes, Coke and Snickers bars, but that they are unfortunate sufferers of the disease of obesity; or simply that they are circumferentially challenged.); avarice (Ain't everyone just obsessed about money); anger (Haven't you noticed how the politically correct love to hate, especially white people, aka, racists, religious people, whether Christians or Muslims, and in particular, religious people who attempt to uphold the Christian or Muslim teachings on homosexuality, abortion, marriage, etc., etc.); envy and pride (Without which the advertising-driven Western economies would come to a virtual standstill.); and last but not least, sloth (Why should people work? "Each according to his need" as the Commies demanded, or "Share de wealf" as the rioters from London to Baltimore declare, with general support from President Obama and every other liberal).

But it is not just the innate selfishness of humanity that drives adoption of the PC religion: the push comes from the top, from the political class, the media, Hollywood, the publishing industry, the bureaucracy and the judiciary. Suggest that mixing men and women in the laboratory can be a distraction from the research in progress and the President of the Royal Society itself will trash your reputation as will the Provost of University College London and the President of the European Research Council.

So who's directing the people at the top: the university presidents, the school principals the police chiefs and bureau heads? The answer, as in all other matters that affect its interests, is the Money Power. It is the plutocratic elite, the people who control the mega-banks and giant international corporations that control both the media and the "elected", i.e, bought and paid-for, politicians.

So what's their purpose? To destroy the people, obviously, for reasons that are not difficult to understand. In the 19th century and early twentieth century the proletariat was, for the elite, a necessary evil: they worked the industrial machine and they provided the cannon fodder in wars of mass mobilization. But today they are needed for neither purpose in anything like their present numbers. Jobs in manufacturing, commerce, transportation and communication are being automated out of existence, leaving the need only for a small number of engineers and technicians to build and maintain the robotic systems. War, likewise, has become a high-tech business to be managed by a diminishing number of highly trained, full-time professional soldiers.

Political Correctness is thus a means to get rid of most of the people. Then the resources so uselessly consumed by the masses — land for cheap ugly houses, investments in highways for pointless shopping trips and recreational travel, hideous shopping malls for the vending of mostly useless junk, airports to take the swarming masses to the beaches the rich intend to privatize — will revert to the control of the elite at minimal cost. Then the surviving few will enjoy a much less crowded world, where a deracinated, mongrelized proletariat of a few hundred million people lacking any sense of national identity and without any stupid Western tradition of individual liberty will serve the elite with appropriate deference and in appropriate obscurity.

The takeover is to occur as in the demoralized and decadent post-Soviet states under the rule of corrupt agents of the Money Power such as Yeltsin in Russia, or Yanukovytch and Poroshenko in Ukraine, or in the West such as the Blairs, Clintons and Bushes.

But, hey, those damnable Russians have got their Orthodox Church back, and the Russian Orthodox church seeks to ban abortion. Already the bastards have stopped the collapse in Russia's population, and now that dastardly Putin runt is bestowing honors upon parents of large families. And the teaming masses of China are finding Jesus too. So who knows, the rule of PC in the West may have to be reconsidered.

Related:

Canspeccy: Atheists for Christ

TV.RU: Russians Think the EU Is a Moral Sewer. Child Molesters on the Evening News

David Hodges: The People vs. the Commie Barack Hussein Obama

Sam Rohrer, American Pastors Network: America and the West: Leaders of Moral Depravity

Michael Snyder: 11 Signs That America Has Already Gone Down The Toilet

Alexander Dugin: End of the 20th Century – The End of the Epoch of Modernity

Brandon Smith:The Future Costs Of Politically Correct Cultism

Marxism (collectivism) uses many vehicles or Trojan horses to gain access to political and cultural spaces. Once present, it gestates like cancer, erasing previous models of heritage and history in order to destroy any competing models of society. If you want to understand what is happening in America today, I suggest you research the Chinese Cultural Revolution of the 1960's. We are experiencing the same Marxist program of historical and social destruction, only slightly slower and more strategic.

Younger generations are highly susceptible to social trends and are often easily manipulated by popular culture and academic authority, which is why we are seeing PC cultism explode with the millennials and post-millennials. In my brief participation on the left side of the false paradigm, political correctness was only beginning to take hold. A decade later, the speed of the propaganda has far accelerated, and we now have a bewildering manure storm on our hands. The result is a vast division within American society that cannot be mended. Those of us on the side of liberty are so different in our philosophies and solutions to social Marxists that there can be no compromise. The whole carnival can end only one way: a fight. And perhaps this is exactly what the elites want: left against right, black against white, gay against religious and straight, etc. As long as the PC movement continues to unwittingly do the bidding of power brokers in their efforts toward the destruction of individual liberty, I see no other alternative but utter conflict.

Fred Reed: Googled, Gobbled, and Throttled: The Road to Samizdat

News Forge: More than 200,000 Germans formally left the Catholic Church in 2014, accelerating the downward trend in the Catholic proportion of the country’s population

Mish: Former US Democrat Presidential Candidate Calls for Internment Camps for "Disloyal" Americans

The Saker: How the Ukrainian crisis will eventually bring down the AngloZionist Empire