but, it's about changing the definition of work, or really unchanging it - throughout the centuries, poets and musicians and gardeners have all considered themselves to have been doing work. when were these vocations deemed void, exactly?

we don't have to pull out the engels, here, and explain how the city became full of workers who had migrated in from the countryside, where their lives were far less ordered - about how the existence of the machines created the working class, which is now left abandoned with their withdraw. if you want to talk about morality, that is.

we just need to ask questions about what work is, about how it is defined, about how use is calculated and whatnot. this leads us to questions about markets, primarily. if a thing does not have a market value, is it void of value? so, is it only work if it produces market value, then? this has to be wrong. and, so, if we are going to organize our societies as markets, some counter-force needs to correct this obvious absurdity.

i like a guaranteed income because it's a blind arts grant. it comes with no obligations, no test of value and no requirements to check speech or content for alignment. it allows the artist to access a source of funds without any strings attached, and to then create at will - as much or as little as is felt appropriate.

but, let us have this debate about work. we need to get on the other side of this.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/dec/28/tory-mp-condemns-universal-basic-income-on-moral-grounds

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

and, so, we see the outcome of our religiously organized technocratic colonial outpost in the desert, our hopes for the modernization of the region through the proxy of western influence, here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42507968

the jews are going to destroy themselves, anyways, just wait it out. they always do. this religion of theirs is absolutely toxic. it puts useful bounds around their ambitions, but they're never a moment's away from absolute collapse into brutal theocracy. when it comes, they will squander their advantages - the technology will rot, and the people will be at these crumbling walls, howling for it to stop.

the turks don't still do this kind of thing, do they?

this saudi created mess in the middle east may end up with what the saudis really wanted, which was political maps redrawn to demonstrate actual influence. but, the map they imagined wasn't representative of actual influence. and, the map may be redrawn quite counter to their influences.

we're losing turkey at the worst time, right when the historic eastern mediterranean superstate is beginning to reconstruct itself. that was an alliance that the west should have tended closer to. but, i've written a few rants about the turks, and their rejection from europe really forces them to look to their southeast for cultural integration. europe is forcing turkey back into it's days of empire.

the existence of such an east mediterannean superstate is the historical norm. the phoenicians and greeks were initially very different people, but they were united under the control of the persian empire, and the eastern coast then hellenized rather willingly under the influence of alexander's descendants. from this point on, this region took on a fundamentally greek identity, including with the adoption of christianity, which is part of what allowed it to gain independence in the partition of the roman empire, as a greek state. this superstate was split into two by the advancing arab armies, not to be effectively reunited again until the turks recreated it in the form of the ottoman empire.

the saudis clearly had intended to dominate this region with religious warlords that were subservient to their commands, with no foresight as to the eventuality of revolt from such actors. but, they've been prevented from doing this by a coalition of russians and turks, operating in syria. they are going to get to redraw these maps, that do truly need to be redrawn.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.