{evidently there was a editorial in the Wall Street Journal alluding to the taxlessness of the underclass. evidently this was seized upon as watchable in the 'meme' sense. and a bunch of people have spoken to this. evidently though only not-so-bright non-conservatives have spread this. nobody else shows up on a google for it anyway. a little too weird all in all for me. but then there's this, huh? well what this is about is what's behind all that. a bunch of people talking about politics and economics but what they're really negotiating is life and death. life for themselves, death for them others. only the system on which they depend for sustenance and shelter is fastened together with a mucilage of moral proscription and other right and wrong guidelines. so they can't talk about killing the economically iincompetent, not in public anyway, they can only talk about things like 'social darwinism' and letting the free market shape society. whatever. it's about biology and biology is about who lives and who dies, who breeds and who doesn't. and that's what all the rest of this noise is at bottom. the tricky thing for the current overclass is they owe their positions to a non-biological moral system, a morality that subverts biology, so they can't undo it, not all the way, not yet. it's interesting how the battle cry of eugenics, as a condemnation I mean, is most put forward by people who rely absolutely on a system that daily weeds out 'incompetents'. that keeps the 'unfit' at the margins, and the bottom, of the economic pile we all make together. as noted previously, eugenics is just an overt form of what's already happening. and there isn't any other way to do it. keeping all and everyone alive forever means everybody dies real soon. what I think it was about was a shifting of position, so that previously marginal genes could get into a middle or dominant position, then hey! presto! let's play darwin again...}{{hold everything! I should have known. I had to hit "Krugman" on the google and then we got some real stuff. so it isn't some kind of neo-con stutter-step. here's Krugman's lead off:
so that should be read. I guess. well Krugman should for sure. but the main step is still there, untaken. it's not about economics. it's about living and dying. it's just that most of the bad guys are too cowardly to say it like it is, that they want to lose all of the underclass but a stripped down crew of servants, until they get this clone thing up and running, and then they'll grow some designer slaves. Bic people. disposable subhumans with programmable attributes. and they won't need none of this goddamned trailer trash for anything.}}
"Emboldened by the midterm election, key conservative ideologues have now declared their support for tax increases -- but only for people with low incomes.
The public debut of this idea came, as such things often do, on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. The page's editors, it seems, are upset that some low-income people pay little or nothing in income taxes. Not, mind you, because of the lost revenue, but because these "lucky duckies" -- the Journal's term, not mine -- might not be feeling a proper hatred for the government."
