00108 : August 1992 : Parasitism Economics Morality : Flamingo
An organ of ISOCPHYS.
Founded in 1992 by a “sestina of polylexical exiles.”
Institute of Lexical Ecology (ILE)
Institute of Sociophysiology (ISOCPHYS)
Château Methuen
Owlstain, FZ 23632
Communicated by Prof. Vighdan, July 17, 1992.
As we [2, 3] were forced to reckon with peoples other than ourselves, however, — to defend our way of life not just ethnically, but economically, politically, militarily — heaven and hell began to play a part in our religion.
This development became extreme in certain sects and individuals, Subborainizy notable among them. Heaven and Hell are the tools by which a parasite (an individual or a group) recruits people willing to die to keep the parasite [4] in power — if you are one of us (and hence, not only believing what we tell you to believe, but contributing to our accumulation of wealth, our appropriation of wealth and power) you will attain paradise when you die (perhaps in the capacity of furthering our — the parasite’s — interests). If you are not one of us, you go to hell.
In Tagmaism, this use of Heaven and Hell to parasitize peoples reached a zenith: Tagmaism was born of tlaatlata — has as one of its central tenets tlaatlata. Those who die for tlaatlata go to paradise — a paradise they will never know in their lifetimes — but that their leaders may attempt to attain in this life — on the backs, through the deaths, of their followers. It is the infidel, not the believer, who is afraid of death. And both this fear and the lack of it are used by the parasite to gain and maintain power and wealth.
Von den Eingebungen der ungewöhnlichen Menschen bis zum völkerverbindenden Kitsch bildet das, was Ulrich die moralische Phantasie nannte, oder einfacher das Gefühl, eine einzige, jahrhunderalte Gärung ohne Ausgärung [5].
Is it “better” to endure than to succumb? To be brave than to be a coward? To be heroic than to be pathetic? To be noble than to be base? Is the smarter “better” than the stupid? The lucky “better” than the unlucky? Is it “better” to be rich than to be poor? Poor than to be rich? Musil again:
Denn jede Moral hat für ihren Zeitlauf das Gefühl nur soweit, und in diesem Umkreis noch dazu starr, geregelt, als gewisse Grundsätze und Grundgefühle für das ihr beliebende Handeln nötig waren; das übrige hat sie aber dem Gutdünken, dem persönlichen Gefühlsspiel, den ungewissen Bemühungen der Kunst und der akademischen Erörterung überlassen. Die Moral hat also die Gefühle den Bedürfnissen der Moral angepaßt und dabei vernachlässigt, sie zu entwickeln, obwohl sie selbst von ihnen abhängt. Sie ist ja die Ordnung und Einheit des Gefühls [6].
The will to power — the will to survive?
wie alle andere Ordnung durch Zwang und Gewalt ensteht! Eine zur Herrschaft gelangte Gruppe von Menschen auferlegt den anderen einfach die Vorschriften und Grundsätze, durch die sie ihre Herrschaft sichert. Gleichzeitig hängt sie aber an denen, die sie selbst groß gemacht haben. Gleichzeitig wirkt sie damit als Beispiel. Gleichzeitig wird sie durch Rückwirkungen verändert [7]and ethics are the tools of parasitism, the means by which parasitism justifies its ends [4].
No: the will to power is, as Nietzsche said, the will to feel alive and vibrant, not simply to exist [8]. There are both courageous and cowardly manifestations of will to power — and a continuum between and outside this dichotomy. Young people, for example, piercing, tattooing, scarring themselves — these are manifestations, short-lived perhaps, short-minded definitely, of will to power.
As what most people call morality is really the means of parasitism — absolute morality lies outside of morality — parasitism — and the tools it uses — must be revealed and overcome — which is perhaps a futile endeavor.
Wealth can never be created — only stolen, appropriated, accumulated. And the “science” of economics is itself testament to this fact. For if wealth could truly be created, why would there exist such a thing as economics (the science of thievery, the rationalization of theft); why would there be first worlds and third worlds? There is only one world.
Making a moral distinction between earning, inheriting, or stealing wealth is thus, contra Reinheimer [9], a fallacy — all are acts of appropriation, of theft.
There is no moral distinction between one who is born rich, one who works his fingers to the bone in order to get rich, and one who steals from both rich and poor in order to get rich — the first is simply lucky, the second stupid and perhaps also lucky, the third lucky and cunning.
Delusion: to think that virtue is its own reward.
Illusion: to think that virtue will earn reward from outside itself.
The goal is to be free of both delusion and illusion; to know that there is no reward and to not hope or yearn for any reward.
From the inspiration of uncommon men to popular kitsch-glue, it consists of that which Ulrich called the moral fantasy, or, more simply, feeling; a single, century-old champagne without bubbly.
For each morality has, over its time-span, regulated feeling sternly within its compass only in so far as certain basic principles and fundamental emotions of its elected transactions were needed; the rest was left to good will, to personal sense-play, to the uncertain strivings of art, to academic debate. Morality has thus adapted the feelings to the requirements of morality — and neglected to develop them, though it relies on them. It is verily feeling’s routine and oneness.
like any other routine, results from compulsion and force! A group of men risen to mastery imposes on others simply the rules and principles through which it secures its mastery. Simultaneously, though, it hangs itself to those who’d made it strong. Simultaneously it acts by that as an example. Simultaneously it becomes, through reactions, changed.