We live in shades of gray, when we deserve to understand the stark black and white reality of good and evil to honor accordingly. Our daily actions are much more sound than we are led to believe. And of course, who do we have to blame for being misled? Time to find out.

Life’s Ancient Opposition

She’ll breed. You’ll die.” —Alien Resurrection

The True Sides. From the dawn of time, mankind has been in a class war; not between rich and poor, white and black or weak and strong, but between rational motive and irrational motive; between dependence and independence; between Fear-driven Man and Self-made Man. Civilization eliminated irresponsible savagery from social action, but not from thought. All men understand the ideal of living competence, but one kind desires to enjoy the benefits of competence while remaining incompetent; to enjoy the deliverance of a long chain of knowledge without expending the effort, bravery or discipline to obtain it. The productive men and women live by their own effort, but the parasites seek to live off ours. The producers obey their own nature, which the parasites attempt to defy. To remain alive, the parasites had to devise a means of extorting their sustenance from those who produce it, without being thrown off. What they had to secure was our acceptance of their supremacy; some non-debatable justification for enduring their ridicule and submitting to their guidance. Their arch-enemy became the perceptivity and self-esteem of their betters.

To gain control of a man, one must destroy his intellectual independence. To this end for millennia, the parasites have subverted every living premise, dividing cause from result, work from reward and pride from choice. Only the unproductive, the fear-ridden and the incompetent could psychologically benefit from keeping the productive, the self-confident and the competent in a state of moral uncertainty. So like any scheming dictator, they began stripping us of our defenses when we were just children. They took the radiant, shining standards of our love and made it unconditional. Original Sin and its modern descendent, environmentalism, damned the very nature of Man and robbed us of our innocence. They labeled us grafters if we worked hard, taking our honor and our pride. Money, a product of social stability and Man’s civil means of exchange, was damned as the root of all evil. Any self-motivated action was considered destructively selfish, the pinnacle of which is one’s life’s purpose, while the pursuit of money was considered pure hedonistic greed. By denying us individual purpose, we became a society that could work for nothing but money. Their trap was complete and the circle closed.

Instead of encouraging the refinement of our competencies in preparation for life, they made their heaven a stagnant utopia of effortless treasures. Afraid of using their minds, they set up rules based on how they wished things to be versus factual reality, which only made life miserable for those who had to provide it all. Fed from birth ideas that were laced with cyanide, our pursuit of happiness was replaced with a battle against suffering. We were harnessed by an inverted morality brought to life through the eyes of panic. Like cancer, it grew into a system which destroys the rewards of life, limiting us and degenerating our living potency in mind and body. Life’s ancient opposition is a battle against the nature of Man, against the pleasure of living and against existence itself.

Their Vile Substitution. Take a look at what is universally considered the domain of moral action: doling out soup to the poor, emptying bed-pans with a smile and being proudly victimized by the wretched: hand-outs, volunteer work and martyrdom. Proponents of this view respond to normal life in emergency fashion: wishing to seize what products they see, bandaging what wounds they see and cowering to whatever is an immediate danger; reacting to the now, as their consciousness does not extend much further. Morality to them is to answer disasters. Such non-intellectual beliefs uphold as our ideal—as our reason for living and as proof of our goodness—servitude to the most indigent, inattentive and unstable entities. In our quest for nobility, we inherently seek a shrine on which to stand; a hero’s pedestal. They present to us instead, a hospital ward of living nightmares to attend to, which offend and retract every sense—without mind, without joy and without hope. Our typical exposure to their view is boxing up a few things for Good Will, canned food drives and at the extreme of dedication, a mission to some backward village to supply food and medicine. We have come to consider moral action to be the exception in life, but not the exceptional. No wonder a futile sense of drudgery accompanies all contemplation of morality!

It is particularly painful as we are wide open in that moment, expecting to experience a deserved elation. Do you think their timing is only a coincidence? Where does the pride we wish to express come from? What makes us wish to stand in the sight of the whole world to be admired? It comes from our life-sustaining productivity: a sum that grows every day; a source they refuse to name or honor. They hand to us as the climax of our triumphant productive effort, not a ceremony with the solemnity of Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No. 5, but a stupid grin under a chef’s hat, “giving something back” at the local soup kitchen, implying that our initial achievement was a form of robbery. Our most significant moral progress has been prompted and maintained by science and industry, and has gone completely unnoticed as such even by us, as we have been taught to believe that moral action means the distribution of goods and services required to sustain anonymous, immediate needs, without any consideration for their source. God we’ve been fools. The business of mankind—the production and exchange of products—is not evil, it keeps us alive! It is the means of civil human living. We fight to justify the existence of our business world, lacking the one weapon that would assure victory: the knowledge that it is moral.

In our time, where free trade has put so much distance between ourselves and our crudest needs, they wish to reduce the world’s focus back to worrying where our next meal will come from. Their intention is to reduce us to the same terror of their own limited range. The truth is that charities, civil service and other such volunteer work are very minor league moral actions, if at all. And have you ever tried turning the other cheek to a criminal? So how was the hospital food? They tell us to permit and forgive any evil, therefore placing the whole burden of responsible action upon the innocent. Does it make sense that our moral worthiness is tied to whether or not we can catch a speeding bullet and reform the shooter in the process? Is there a rational moral code to follow for the time when we are not starving to death or dangling from cliffs? Why have they set moral standards to make sure that we can’t be moral? Does the productive ninety-eight percent of the population need focus on the ailing two percent and fall victim to the criminal .01% in order to be virtuous? With a ratio of more than fifty-to-one, you can’t possibly spend your life serving those in need. Does that mean that you spend the other ninety-eight percent of your life doing things that are immoral? In their code, that is exactly what they mean, and culturally it is accepted as a forgone conclusion. Why is the majority of life’s activity not considered moral? Why is preserving the lives of the healthy and able, dismissed as hedonism? Does it make sense that morality is designed, not for our protection and fulfillment, but against it?


Ronald E. Springer

Ethics Underground