Category Archives: Conservatism

Resolved: The Republican Party Is a Fascist Political Party

mt wrote:

Hi Robert,

In your post, you say “reinstating Jim Crow voting restrictions on Black people and a Republican Supreme Court threw out a landmark civil rights law called the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”

Can you cite cases where Jim Crow like voting restrictions have been put in place? Also, The Voting Rights Act was not thrown out. Only one or two sections were considered unconstitutional. These deal with certain states and municipalities being required to get pre-approval for certain voting changes, e.g. moving poling locations, redistricting.

In your comments, you refer to the “racist war on US Blacks.” Can you add some detail to this phrase? I assume the Supreme Court’s decision to find certain parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act as part of the war. What else?

Thanks for the response.

Your first charge is false. Those states were still under Voting Rights Act restrictions and they were being monitored by the Civil Rights branch of the federal government. Many other states were also being monitored, but they stopped violating the Voting Rights Act by suppressing Black votes, so they were freed from supervision. The only reason that those states were still under the supervision of the DOJ Civil Rights Department is because they keep incessantly violating the Voting Rights Act by suppressing the Black vote. We have been spanking them over and over about this since 1965, but they just cannot help themselves. These states are the equivalent of incorrigible career criminals.

The Supreme Court said that they need to be freed from supervision because such supervision was unfair. It was not unfair. It was proper oversight for incorrigible voting rights violators. The Supreme Court basically set these voting rights career criminals free.

All the voter ID bullshit is about suppressing the Black vote. That’s all it is. It is all about keeping Black people from voting. Also, they are purging voting rolls in many places of suspected “illegal voters.” Almost all of the “illegal voters” are Black. Katharine Harris threw 60,000 Blacks off the rolls in 2000 saying they were illegal voters. Not one of them was. This has been going on in every state where the Republicans win and get a Republican Secretary of State. They immediately set about trying to suppress the Black vote.

The Supreme Court already threw out the Voting Rights Act by allowing Texas’ voter ID law to stay in place. There is no need for voter ID laws as voter fraud in the form of people voting twice in national elections simply does not exist. Nor does people voting once in one state and again in another state.

Furthermore, once you are denied because you have no ID, it is very hard to get back on the rolls. People are placed in the Kafkaesque position of trying to prove that they actually are who they are. They present former state voter ID’s student ID’s, former state ID cards, gas bills, electric bills, etc. and all of these are turned down. In other words, none of these are acceptable as voter ID’s. Presumably all of these are faked, including the utility bills.

So as you can see here when many forms of ID’s are refused on the grounds that a human being is pretending to be someone else, this stuff isn’t even about fighting nonexistent voter fraud in national elections. It’s about suppressing the Black vote. This ought to be illegal as it is similar to Jim Crow era poll taxes, but the Supreme Court said it is legal.

Furthermore, in many locales, early voting rights have been restricted. Voting hours have been severely restricted, weekend voting cut off and the number of days you can vote early has been restricted. There is no reason for this other than to suppress Black and democratic votes. This is voter suppression and it ought to be illegal. And anyone putting these policies in place should go to jail.

7 million people are on Republican database of suspected illegal voters. They are suspected of voting once in one state and another time in another state. The list is insane and probably not one person did this. Almost all of these people are Black, Hispanic or Asian.

The Republican racist war on Blacks is the attempt to keep Black people from voting, which was exactly what they were doing under Jim Crow.

A rightwing government that refuses to let people vote, suppresses the vote or steals the vote is by definition a fascist government. Fascists are far rightwing governments who reject democracy in favor of authoritarian rule. Therefore, the Republicans have been fascists since 2000 when they stole that election. A characteristic of fascism is a corrupt judiciary that legitimizes the rightwing authoritarian anti-democratic nature of the state. As you can see, the Supreme Court has done this over and over since 2000. Therefore we have a fascist Supreme Court.

Far rightwing governments are not necessarily fascist as long as they are democratic. However, any antidemocratic authoritarian regime is automatically a fascist state.


Filed under Blacks, Civil Rights, Conservatism, Fascism, Government, Law, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Republicans, US Politics, White Racism

What Americans Want

As we can see, Americans just voted for a bunch of Republicans. We can conclude the following then:

Americans no longer want social security, nor do they want a living wage.

This is correct. Republicans have been on record for many years now affirming their commitment to destroying Social Security completely. That’s right. They are going to end up. Wipe it out. Zero it out. Get rid of it. So I guess most Americans want to zero out Social Security?

Republicans oppose a living wage. Not only that, but they oppose raising the minimum wage. Republicans are always hostile to labor and working people. In fact, conservatives are always against workers. Conservatives have always been opposed to workers and labor, and they are against workers and labor everywhere on Earth. That is one of the definitions of a conservative – one who opposes labor and the working classes. So apparently Americans are opposed to labor and working class people and oppose raising the minimum wage. What a bunch of idiots.

In this Christian nation, the majority of voting age women wish to rescind (lose) all reproductive rights.

This is correct. The Republicans are on record for wiping out all abortion rights in the US. If you support abortion rights, why in the Hell are you voting Republican? Are you mad? So what we can tell by this election is that most Americans want to completely wipe out abortion rights in the US. Incredible.

The majority of voting age citizens wish to rescind (lose) the right to vote.

This is somewhat correct. What is true that the majority of Americans want to impose severe restrictions on the right to vote. They especially want to make it hard for Blacks and Hispanics to vote. So in other words, we do not live in a democracy. We live country that systematically restricts the right to vote and revokes voting rights for many Americans in a fascist-like manner. Americans also wish to destroy the Voting Rights Act, a hallmark Civil Rights law.

So apparently Americans are opposed to the civil rights movement that allowed Blacks to vote. Further, Americans wish to revert to Jim Crow type voting restrictions that make it very easy for Whites to vote but make it very hard for Blacks to vote. Apparently then American Whites are an incredibly racist people who do not believe that Black people should have the right to vote and wish to revoke the right to vote from many Blacks.

A plurality wishes to elevate billionaires into feudal (fascist) lords, while the rest of us live in squalor, while we toil for basic sustenance.

This is odd. The serfs believe that the feudal lords should get all the money while we serfs should wallow in misery. American serfs love their feudal masters and wish to perpetuate the system that makes them serfs. They support their feudal masters, who are actually their deadly enemies.

I don’t get it. What’s wrong with Americans? Are we masochists?

No matter how bad things are under a Democrat, all you will ever do is make everything worse by voting Republican. It makes no sense.


Filed under Civil Rights, Conservatism, Democrats, Government, Labor, Law, Political Science, Politics, Racism, Regional, Republicans, Sane Pro-Woman, US Politics, USA, White Racism

Chile Sucks

Jason Y writes:

I looked at World Book Encyclopedia article (1986) edition, laying around the house. It said Cuba, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay have literacy rates above 90 percent. Note that one of those nations, Chile, is both right wing, and has a high mixed race population. Of course, now the rates could even be higher, considering it’s 30 some years later.

Chileans are only about 20% Indian and 80% White. They are pretty much White people. Only 7% of the population are Indians.

Argentina and Uruguay still have functioning social democracies installed during the boom years of the 1950’s (Argentina’s was installed by Peron) that were never successfully dismantled. Argentina and Uruguay are now ruled by Leftists who refer to themselves as socialists.

Chile is not really a rightwing country. The newly elected leader is from the Socialist Party and she proudly calls herself a Leftist.

They have a very well developed social democracy and Pinochet was never really able to dismantle it. All of their good health and education figures stem exactly from that social democracy. In addition, in recent years, the state has badly neglected the public schools as a result of rightwing ideology. Many of the public schools are literally falling apart. I mean the roofs are caving in, stuff like that. The students hate it and are very angry. They protest and riot in the streets constantly.

No rightwing country will ever have a good educational system because all conservatives the world over are utterly hostile to the idea of public schooling. Bottom line is that conservatives the world over have been completely hostile to public education from the moment it started and they’ve never let up. I think that conservatives simply do not believe in the notion of pubic schooling. Instead, conservatives tend to send their kids to private schools.

Chile is shit. Basically what you have here is some sort of a rightwing dream. However, first of all, it’s not really all that rightwing, and second of all, there is a horrible price to pay for a rightwing paradise.

The classes absolutely hate each other’s guts. In particular, the poor and the workers have an extreme hatred of the rich. The rich hate the poor too. The right represents the rich as it does everywhere and the left represents the poor and the workers as it should everywhere. A while back they were having alternating rallies in the streets that usually turned violent. The Left would have a demonstration burning Pinochet in effigy and the Right would stage a counter-demonstration and soon it would turn violent. Basically there was regular street fighting between the Right and the Left, the rich and the poor and workers. People got hurt all the time and quite a few people got killed.

As recently as 20 years ago, the Left was heavily armed and there were bombs going off all the time.

The rich live on hills in big houses that are surrounded by big walls and barbed wire. Every night whole armies of poor people creep up from the slums below to steal from the rich. Crime is very high, mostly property crime. Chile has one of the worst income distributions on Earth. As you can see, you can either have the state redistribute income or the people will just do it themselves. Income gets redistributed in one way or another.

The rich, even the more progressive college educated rich, is unbelievably racist and classist. I had a friend once, a wealthy college student whose father had worked in the Allende Administration and who claimed to be a progressive person. He was an incredibly racist and classist individual.

In Chile, a man must have “soft hands.” If you have “hard hands,” then no woman wants you because you work with your hands like a worker. Soft hands means you are rich and never worked a day in your life so all the women want you.

This man also told me how poor people were poor because as soon as they got a paycheck, they spent all their money on booze and gambling. If they only saved their money, they would all be rich like he was and live in mansions. Blaming the poor for their poverty is very common among Third World elites. The Filipino elites talk like this all the time.

This fake Leftist was also shockingly racist towards Chile’s Mapuche Indians. He was always laughing his ass off about them and commenting on how ugly they were. To him, Indian = ugly. Chileans really hate Peruvians and you can see a lot of online battles between them. It is common for nations to be rivals, but online you can see the Chileans ripping the Peruvians to shreds calling them “Indios.” To have Indian blood is to be worthless. Chileans are contemptuous of Peruvians because they are seen as Indians, and supposedly Chileans are White. Actually Chileans are mestizos too, but they are much Whiter than Peruvians.

I finally decided after reading some stuff and talking to this guy that Chile was a really shitty country. If this is the Right’s poster country, that is really pitiful.


Filed under Americas, Amerindians, Argentina, Chile, Chileans, Conservatism, Crime, Economics, Education, Fascism, Hispanics, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Mestizos, Mixed Race, Peruvians, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Socialism, South America, Uruguay

Percentage of Americans Calling Themselves Conservatives Increases Greatly

I forget the exact figures, but I believe it went something like this:


Centrists (neither conservative nor liberal): 50%
Conservatives: 30%
Liberals: 20%

Deep (4-6 years) into Obama rule: 

Centrists (neither conservative nor liberal): 40%
Conservatives: 40%
Liberals: 20%

As you can see, Centrists suffered a 10% share loss and conservatives experienced a 10% share gain. What happened here is that 20% of people calling themselves Centrists went over to conservatism.

A couple of questions.

Who were those Centrists to conservatives? Almost all of them were White people.

Why did this strange and sudden political change happen? America elected a nigger.

Honestly, I cannot think of any other possible reason for such an extreme shift rightward of White opinion, remarkably and coinciding (and not by chance) with the election of the first Black president. To me, this is as clear as the nose on my face. I do not see anyone could dispute such an obvious analysis.


Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Liberalism, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Racism, Regional, US Politics, USA, White Racism

The Problems of Centrally Planned Socialism

The typical rightwing argument which everyone, including most liberals and even many Leftists, subscribe to nowadays is that centrally planned socialism doesn’t work due to some flaw inherent in its very anti-capitalist nature. In other words, only capitalism could ever work because only capitalism works according to the psychological laws that motivate human behavior necessary to produce a working economy. Socialism does not work, it is said, because it goes against human nature.

But the capitalist argument is that it is human nature to be a selfish shit and against human nature to be a decent person who shares with other humans. This seems dubious because there are many examples of more primitive or traditional preindustrial or often hunter-gatherer societies that were run very well for thousands of years on a socialist or primitive Communist basis. For instance, all Amerindian societies were generally run on a primitive Communist basis and it worked out just fine for millennia and obviously it did not go against human nature.

It is true that socialism works against some basic human instincts and that this causes a lot of problems. Under socialism, many workers just do not work very hard. Why this is is uncertain. Perhaps the fact that they cannot get fired has something to do with it. Chronic pilfering is a serious problem in all socialist societies. There are many complaints that the Cuban military is now running much of the Cuban economy but the sad fact is that the Cuban military is the only group of people in the country that could be relied on to run the state economy without stealing everything in sight.

Why do people steal state property in socialism? One problem is the Black  Market. There is always a Black Market and the state stuff you steal can always be sold for higher prices on the Black Market. Another problem is that state property is really the people’s property and it belongs to everyone. If it belongs to everyone then it belongs to me, so goes the reasoning. If it belongs to me then I can steal it logically follows from that. Chronic shortages also cause a lot of pilferage and sadly create even more shortages. But one of the biggest problems was this:

This is just one way in which you can be too clever. Another is to choose a complicated solution over a simpler one, because the complex one all fits together in your head, where it also leads to a better outcome. Central state-planning is one such historically disastrous example.

Not exactly true. The amount of decisions needed for Central state-planning is beyond the capacity for any computer or person to issue them. In the USSR toward the end it would take the combined computer power of every computer on the Earth to run of over ten years to produce one year worth of orders. We are not even talking about intelligent decisions only ones that produce lawful orders for every possible action for a year.

At the end of the day, the collapse of the USSR was a technological failure, a failure of science and man’s industrial development to keep up with the needs of a socialist country. While everyone seems to agree that the USSR was a failed system, it is a good question to ask whether the radical capitalism that followed is a better system, is working better than Soviet socialism or is not a failed system itself.


Filed under Amerindians, Anthropology, Capitalism, Conservatism, Cuba, Cultural, Economics, Government, Labor, Political Science, Regional, Socialism, USSR

The Two Constitutional Arguments about the Second Amendment

There are two principal sane legal Constitutional arguments about the 2nd Amendment.

One says that no American has any right to a gun under the Second Amendment as the Amendment was fulfilled in 1876.

The second states that the amendment was written for another time and is no longer relevant today, but nevertheless, serious attempts at gun control would necessitate overturning the 2nd Amendment.

There are other arguments out there argument by rightwing hacks who call themselves Constitutional scholars. This arguments are crazy, like most things conservatives say, and in my opinion, they hold no legal value whatsoever. They are wholly specious. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has already argued some extremely stupid, irresponsible and legally invalid cases on the 2nd Amendment and the Court simply tends to follow precedent on this matter. One of the worst cases of all took place I believe in the 1930’s.

This is a Constitutional argument, and the argument goes on both sides.

For the first argument, I have actually read some very good legal arguments that say that the Founders really were so crazy as to believe that the militia meant nothing more than the local guys armed with guns. Not that they thought that that militia was necessary to protect the people from the state or anything like that but that that is exactly what they had in mind when they wrote the Amendment – that the militia or guard was really only going to be the people themselves.

However, if the intention at the time was for the militia to be nothing more than the local guys and their guns at home, then the 2nd Amendment is frozen in time. It is frozen in a time that is no longer relevant to our modern era, like so much of the Constitution. However, a strict Constitutionalist reading could be that at the time they had no notion of a guard other than the local men and their guns at home, and that the amendment was intended to allow for such a guard, and if we were to have a guard, local men would have to keep guns at home in case they got called up.

According to this argument, the founders never intended for every house to have guns to protect themselves. The guns were only for the men of the house in case they needed to be called up for the local guard.

Nevertheless, this argument states that you still can’t take guns away anyway because of the amendment and that any effort to control guns would necessitate the overturning of this amendment. This argument is that the 2nd Amendment really is nutty in that it is frozen in time and that it refers to an era that no longer exists.

The second argument is that the 2nd Amendment simply calls for a National Guard. At the time, the National Guard was simply whatever local guys were around and their muskets. They had no concept of a guard other than that.

In 1876, an actual National Guard was put into place. This argument states that the 2nd Amendment was fulfilled on that date in 1876 and that the people no longer had any right to have any sort of guns as we no longer need an informal citizen’s militia as we have a professional citizen’s militia.

I am not aware of any evidence anywhere in Constitutional discussions that stated that people all needed to be armed in order to be able to overthrow the government at any time that they thought the state was getting out of hand. That seems quite irresponsible.

This is the gun nut argument – that the Founders were so nuts and irresponsible that they thought that the citizenry should be armed to the teeth and use their guns to stage violent revolutions and overthrow the democratic state by force any time they didn’t like what was going on. I am quite sure that that was not their intention, as if it was, that would be one of the most irresponsible Constitutional sections ever written in the history of man.

As I said though, the argument among the sane people is presently divided into two groups, one that says that the 2nd Amendment has been fulfilled and no one has a right to have a gun, and the other that says that lamentably, this outdated, no longer relevant, frozen in time amendment would need to be overturned for any serious efforts at gun control.


Filed under Conservatism, Government, History, Law, Political Science, Regional, US, USA

Why Amazon Is Evil

I never knew exactly what the Hachette-Amazon tiff was all about. I read a number of MSM articles about it and none of them seemed to tell me what even happened. Every MSM article I wrote took a pro-Amazon spin. I assume that the entire US media structure is in bed with Jeff Bezos and his dirty company in some way or another. I am also a member of a writer’s group on Linkedin.

This subject was the topic of debate on the list, but I never learned much of anything there either. I never even learned what the debate was all about! The most common complaint was “Amazon sucks, but Hachette sucks too. I hate both of them.”

Quite a few of the posts defended Amazon’s behavior on the basis of, um, capitalism. Yeah, Amazon’s behavior is…just…capitalism. And all of these posters cheered on the wonders of glorious capitalism. Quite a few posts railed angrily warning against the evil specter of “government regulation” of the book-selling market, because, you know, that would interfere with the capitalism thing.

But I am starting to think that government regulation is just what the doctor ordered here.

I never knew so many people in the book biz were reactionaries! I thought we were a pretty liberal progression!

Finally Paul Krugman, in a very short column, explains in simple terms exactly what Amazon was doing. Abusing its market power. In a very similar way to how Standard Oil abused its market power in the days of the robber barons.

Amazon had been demanding a larger cut of the price of Hachette books it sells; when Hachette balked, Amazon began disrupting the publisher’s sales. Hachette books weren’t banned outright from Amazon’s site, but Amazon began delaying their delivery, raising their prices, and/or steering customers to other publishers.

You might be tempted to say that this is just business — no different from Standard Oil, back in the days before it was broken up, refusing to ship oil via railroads that refused to grant it special discounts. But that is, of course, the point: The robber baron era ended when we as a nation decided that some business tactics were out of line. And the question is whether we want to go back on that decision.

Does Amazon really have robber-baron-type market power? When it comes to books, definitely. Amazon overwhelmingly dominates online book sales, with a market share comparable to Standard Oil’s share of the refined oil market when it was broken up in 1911. Even if you look at total book sales, Amazon is by far the largest player.

Isn’t it incredible? It took Krugman one whole sentence to explain to me what several baffling MSM pieces and a silly book biz list discussion could not seem to get around to telling me, probably because they didn’t want to tell me what was really going on.

And it is exactly like what Standard Oil was doing. Precisely.

One more thing. Jeff Bezos is a reactionary. Oh excuse me. A “Libertarian.” That is so much more hip-sounding. He treats his workers like garbage. He is called to task over and over in the alternative press for abuse of employees. Well, that’s the Libertarian thing. Libertarianism is all about a big race to see who can abuse their employees best and hardest. The winner dominates the market, and their stock goes up.

Bezos is pushing his politics on his dirty website.

Last month the Times’ Bits blog documented the case of two Hachette books receiving very different treatment. One is Daniel Schulman’s “Sons of Wichita,” a profile of the Koch brothers; the other is “The Way Forward,” by Paul Ryan, who was Mitt Romney’s running mate and is chairman of the House Budget Committee. Both are listed as eligible for Amazon Prime, and for Mr. Ryan’s book, Amazon offers the usual free two-day delivery. What about “Sons of Wichita”? As of Sunday, it “usually ships in 2 to 3 weeks.”

What to do about this slimy little capitalist turd? I have no idea. I would say something should be done about the infectious pustule called Amazon, but for the life of me, I can’t think of what to do outside of villagers with torches marching into Amazon headquarters and walking out with Bezos’ head on a pike.


Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Economics, Government, History, Libertarianism, Modern, Political Science, US


The Three Percenters.

Basically the militia movement. They are “preppers.”

Apparently these fucktards think there is going to be some sort of a revolution in the US. The US government, apparently led by Democrats or liberals, is going to institute martial law in the US and a state of emergency.

People, I guess conservatives, will be arrested and detained with no charges. Warrantless searches will be conducted everywhere, apparently only on Tea Partiers though. Detention camps will be set up, I guess for conservatards. Cities, I guess Republican cities, will be blockaded by Liberal Government armed forces. Food will be prevented from entering and water and power will be shut off in an attempt to shut down the Tea Party guerrillas. Foreign troops will be called in (Apparently because the Liberal US military can’t do the job!) to keep the order. Proud, conservatarded states will secede from the unholy Union, prompting Liberal Government forces to attack.

Looking through their news releases, these people are just ordinary Republicans or more specifically Tea Party types. Their hero is Ronald Reagan. They hate the federal government. On their Facebook page, it may as well be Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz or Newt Gingrich talking. In fact, they love Paul Ryan. That page simply looks like Republican Party Central.

The only thing I can gather is that increasingly this type of lunacy is becoming normal on the Republican Right. On the US right, radical is normal. All the moderates left the party long ago. The people we used to consider jokes and laughingstocks are now in the dead center of the party. This is not your father’s Republican Party. Looking at how nuts the GOP has gone lately, you really wonder why any sane conservatives are even with the party anymore. You would think they would have taken off by now. To where? Who knows? But if I were a sane conservative, I would try to get as far away from the RNC as possible.

I work in mental health and in my opinion, the people who follow this organization appear to be mentally ill in some way. I am not sure if they actually are nuts, but they appear that way. They also look somewhat psychotic. Once again, not saying they are psychotic, but they look psychotic.

A friend of mine from the US was talking to me about US politics. He kept shaking his head in disbelief. “I don’t understand American politics,” he said. “It’s so irrational.”


Filed under Conservatism, Government, Liberalism, Lunatics, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA

Brave Syrian Christian Woman Destroys Senator John McNeocon at Town Hall Meeting

Good show! Good show!


Filed under Conservatism, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Syria, US Politics, War

Only Socialism Makes Capitalism Work Well

Capitalism inevitably results in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Soon you have a small group of rich at the top, a massive group of poor at the bottom and a small, battered besieged middle class in the between them. This is precisely what we see in the Latin American Capitalism that the US demands and enforces by force all over the world. It resembles feudalism more than it resembles any more advanced economic system.

Capitalist apologists attack Marx by saying that Marx was wrong that the rich always get richer and the poor always get poorer under capitalism. The 20th Century proves this wrong, they say. But they are lying again (capitalist apologists always lie – it’s what they do).

The only reason that Marx’s rule often did not play out during the last century was due to the power of labor and the intervention of the state. It is only via artificial means of interfering with the free market – giving massive power to workers in management of production, heavy taxation and regulation of the market – that this natural tendency of capitalism is avoided.

In other words, the only things that creates a strong middle class and avoids the Latin Americanization of the world are anti-capitalist tools that the capitalists hate – labor management of production, government taxation and regulation of markets.

So it is only the Left that creates a middle class and widespread prosperity via redistribution of the fruits of the market. The Right will always only and ever produce a Latin Americanized, neo-feudal world with a small elite, a vast angry group of poor and a shrinking, disheartened, exasperated and exhausted middle class with shrinking incomes.

So we see that it is only socialism – workers assisting the management of production in the market, heavy state taxation of the rich and large businesses and regulation of the market to redistribute wealth and reign in the excesses and evils of the market – that makes capitalism work well in the first place. A capitalism without socialism is a Hell. It looks like Latin America. You have seen it already. A generous helping of socialism suffices to oil the machine of capitalism to keep it running at its best.


Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Economics, Government, Labor, Latin American Right, Left, Political Science, Socialism