People Don’t Think Universal Basic Income Be Like It Is but It Do

Zoltan Istvan was on The Stark Truth to discuss his plan for a California State Basic Income (to be paid for by developing and monetizing federal land.) While I like Zoltan and think he probably would have been the best choice in the last presidential election (among the candidates running,) it goes without saying that I think this is a terrible idea. Not that I oppose the idea of a basic income. I am sympathetic to UBI generally, but I oppose this particular scheme for the following reasons:

1. It would be a shame to see any more of California’s beautiful land be ruined by commercial development. Many people believe that much of what has been developed already has been a mistake. What are they going to develop anyway? More social media ad agencies, useless phone app startups and overpriced McModern apartments? Zoltan’s argument for why this all would be bad for the environment is a bizarre stipulation that the “land would be leased not sold and would have to be returned to it’s previous condition or better after the lease.” This might sound nice but makes very little practical sense. This isn’t going to be like when the Black Fortress disappears without a trace in Krull. If a company leases the land and later goes bankrupt or fails in some way, they’re not going to have the money to demolish all of their buildings and magically regenerate a fully mature forest overnight. This just isn’t realistic. It will be bad for the environment. The increased developments will require more natural resources to sustain, resources which California struggles to harness a sufficient amount of, even now.

2. California doesn’t even care to enforce borders of any kind currently. Most of the larger metropolitan hubs are basically sanctuary cities. A “basic income” can only be mathematically viable if strict population controls are kept on the number of of people residing in that particular area. It requires draconian measures like breeding restrictions and militarily enforced boundaries. Merely having strict residency requirements in order to qualify isn’t enough, because pretty much anyone who lives there can vote. Massive amounts of people who live in California but wouldn’t qualify, can still elect officials that will assert their electoral power to loosen requirements, cut deals or file legal challenges based on trumped up charges of discrimination, etc. Developing and leasing millions of acres of federal land might provide some limited revenue for a basic income, if we were dealing with a stagnant population, frozen in time at current levels. More than likely though, increased development will lead to more people flocking to the area for tech jobs and housing, more Indian programmers and wealthy foreign investors finagling their way here for jobs and real estate investment opportunities. A bigger pie but minimal to no increase in the size of the average slice. Basically, nothing leftover for a basic income.

3. California has frequently struggled with budget deficits in the past. If the projected revenues to fund the California universal basic income do not materialize through this land leasing scheme, the people who are expecting the money will be pissed. Which do you think is more likely, that politicians up for election will spend the state into massive deficits to attempt to deliver people the basic income they were promised, or that they will tell millions of voters “Oops sorry, looks like we can’t afford to give you each 25k a year after all” and face the wrath of betrayed angry mobs. Both of those gloomy scenarios seem highly plausible if this plan were to ever move forward. Those left to foot the bill for this tab will likely flee the area in droves.

4. There is a little too much Utopian optimism with this idea. It kind of reminds me of when you see stoners arguing that legalizing weed will solve nearly every social, economic and military problem in the world “just think, we could tax it, and it would pay off the national debt!” This strikes me as similar, wishful, pie in the sky thinking. There are just too many variables and wildcards involved here.

So anyway, everyone’s a critic right? After reading all that you might be thinking, “Okay, well what is your plan for universal basic income then?” My plan is extremely simple. You form a secluded micro state with a very tiny population and heavily fortify it. This microstate earns revenue through some kind of shared natural resource or industry (could be anything from genetically engineered crops to rubber band manufacturing to Scientology auditing classes.) People would receive a meager basic income by working in civil or community service. Pretty simple but only has a chance of working with a delicate population balance which must be maintained and understood by all participants. I have no clue whether my plan could be viable in practice (for one thing, people would have to actually be interested in my ideas.) That’s the rub with radical futurism. In our grand visions of the future, we often lose sight of the fact that we’re stuck dealing with people the way they are and the world the way it is.

Brandon Adamson is the author of Beatnik Fascism

Last Minute Reflections On a Dime Store Election

ivanatrump

I haven’t been inclined to make a bunch of predictions about the presidential election, because I honestly have no idea what will happen. I don’t feel the need to pontificate about things I’m not confident on. Also, I have a tendency toward pessimism and don’t really feel the need to kill the vibe of those who are hopeful by being a debbie downer. They’ll be plenty of time for that later regardless of who wins. I find normie politics to be incredibly vapid, and the fact that the quality of discourse is a reflection of the broader contemporary electorate doesn’t leave me with much inspiration for the future.

Will there be riots and unrest if Trump wins? Probably but who knows how significant they will be…some street theater and a couple of chimpouts? I’m not a “prepper” or weekend warrior so I’m woefully unprepared for any kind of extended civil unrest.  To quote Mike Myers in Wayne’s World, I don’t even own a gun, let alone many guns, which would necessitate an entire rack.” All I have is a dagger and a 1980’s era BB pistol probably buried under a pile of clothes somewhere, which I have no idea if it even works. It was just something I found in my grandpa’s closet after he died several years ago.  It’s not as though I’ve been stockpiling non-perishable food items either.  If the shit hits the fan, I have a couple gallons of water on hand and maybe a half empty box of Creamsicles in the freezer leftover from last summer.  Then again, I’m not a millennial. I took hunter’s safety courses as a kid and have some basic survival skills, mostly acquired by being broke in Los Angeles in my early 20s, a time when I primarily lived off microwave popcorn shoplifted from 7/11.

Anyway moving on, I’m voting for Trump for the following reasons:

  1.  He’s against free trade and outsourcing.
  2.  He’s campaigned as a non-interventionist in foreign affairs or at the very least advocates for a foreign policy that serves America’s interests. He wants peace with Russia rather than confrontation and involvement in conflicts that are absolutely none of our business.
  3. He opposes mass immigration from third world countries which are culturally incompatible with ours.
  4. He opposes political correctness and his victory would be a devastating blow to the speech police and social justice busybodies.
  5. He is fairly socially liberal and unlikely to get much into biblical moralizing other than vaguely paying lip service to Christianity.
  6. I’m white, and he’s the the only candidate who isn’t openly hostile toward white people.

Hillary represents the worst of all worlds politically, combining aggressive neoconservative foreign policy, open borders, global corporatism and intersectional feminism. She’s not even worthy of consideration.

The only other candidate that merits any serious attention is Jill Stein. Though I agree with her on many issues, at the end of the day she’s still a a Jewish social justice warrior. She supports black lives matter and frequently spouts anti-white rhetoric. She wants to import millions of people from the third world. This of course would make universal health care, free college education, and increasing the minimum wage totally unworkable mathematically. Like Bernie, she’s too consumed by the social justice worldview and too weak to make the politically difficult choices which would make progressive social policies practically viable and sustainably solvent. A birth for a death, one for one, it’s the natural way.

Stein even chose an anti-white black radical, Ajamu Baraka as her VP. She also seems to support all kinds of pseudoscientific health quackery. So yeah, no thanks. In conclusion, Stein would make a great candidate if you’re a “kangz” black nationalist or non-white immigrant looking to hitch a ride on the trojan horse of archetypal Jewish influence for as far as it will take you into whiteopia.

Actually there is one other interesting candidate, which is Transhumanist Party candidate Zoltan Istvan. As a futurist being highly supportive of life extension research, artificial intelligence and government prioritization of scientific progress I’d gladly vote for Zoltan…. if he had any real chance to win, but he doesn’t.

I’m voting for Trump on Tuesday, but beyond that, all bets are off.

Robert Stark and I Interview Zoltan Istvan on The Stark Truth

zoltan2

You can listen to it here

Since I support transhumanism, Zoltan probably comes the closest ideologically to my views on a wide variety of issues. He’s also a great guy. The main area where I don’t align with him is of course over immigration. In the interview, he seemed to advocate for a future with no nations or borders but also some kind of mass surveillance to ensure that immigrants are being productive while they’re here and not up to no good. I probably prefer the exact opposite. I’d like strong borders with very minimal immigration, while maintaining a very open and limited surveillance society *within* the nation. Just don’t import problem demographics and you hopefully won’t even have to watch over people as much. Also, for the most part, only esoteric Whites and Asians are interested in movements like transhumanism. It’s hard to believe that if you bring in millions of Somalis or Syrian refugees that they are going to vote to fund these sorts of immortality and bionic enhancement projects. Still, Zoltan is an interesting guy, and he would probably be my second choice for president among the available candidates.