Category Archives: Conservatism

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

Hilary Clinton, Republican


There doesn’t seem to be any limit to how low she will stoop. She has also proved herself to be a 100% dyed in the wool neocon. She’s more hawkish than Barak Obomber. As a young woman, she protested against the Vietnam War. Then she sat on Congressional subcommittee that drew up articles of impeachment for mass murderer Richard Nixon.

One of the charges against him was his secret bombing campaign in Cambodia that killed 500,000 people and directly led to the radicalization of the Khmer Rouge and their genocidal takeover of the country. The man who ran that bombing campaign? Hilary’s hero, Henry Kissinger, the man she lauds as promoting “values-driven foreign policy.” Sure he promotes a values driven foreign policy. The values of a psychopath. Apparently sociopath Hilary Clinton thinks a psychopathic foreign policy is the way to go. She would.


Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, US Politics, Vietnam War, War

A Brief History of the Neoconservatives

Jason Y writes:

How does this relate to the neocons, as some have said they had Trotskyite roots? I always had a hard time understanding this. I mean, how could W. Bush, the furthest thing from a leftist or communist you can think of, could be in with communists?

I am not sure. Many of the Trots were Jewish. For whatever reason, many Trots turned into neocons. They began turning away from Communism with the revelations about Stalin and Stalinism, including Khrushchev’s secret speech.

A lot of them simply left Communism and formed the anti-Communist Left, or became anti-Communist liberals like my later father. The CIA set up a number of organizations and journals to work out of starting in the 1950’s. One was called the Congress for Cultural Freedom.

It was during the 6-Day War that many really turned against the Left. As I said, most were Jews, and Jews the world over who had never cared much about Israel rallied round the Israeli flag in 1967. This was the start of this group’s big break with the Left.

The Vietnam War was going on too at this time, and many of this group were pro-war. They were sickened by the pro-Viet Cong and what they saw as anti-patriotic attitudes of the antiwar crowd. Many of this crowd were older conservative Jewish guys, and they were disgusted and sickened by the counterculture, especially by the fact that many of its leaders were Jewish, which they saw as bringing shame on the Jews.

This group began to merge with Jewish conservatives who had always been around but had not been very common. This goes back to the time when Jews first came here and many were poor and living as renters. Many of their landlords were rich Jews. A lot of these poor Jewish renters became leftwingers and specialized in taking their Jewish slumlords to court all the time. This caused a major split in Jewish society and the Jewish landlords saw the Jewish leftwing tenants as some sort of treasonous
“enemies of the people.”

This group nevertheless stayed with the Democratic Party, but they had started to become the rightwing of the Democratic Party. In the 1970’s, they began to congregate around Henry “Scoop” Jackson’s office. Jackson was known as “the Senator from Boeing” and he was widely known as a super hawk. He strongly supported Israel and the Vietnam War. Support for Israel and the Vietnam War became intertwined in this crowd.

In the 1970’s, some early proto-neoconservative publications came out, mostly published by Jewish rightwing Democrats.

When the Reagan Administration came around, many of these proto-neocons got jobs in the Reagan Administration. Most of them specialized in Cold War politics where they become wild, crazed, fanatical Cold Warriors. Particular focus was on ramping up military spending and opposing nuclear arms reduction.

They made alliances with such characters as Frank Gaffney, a wild-eyed Cold Warrior. This was the trajectory of characters like Richard Perle who cut their teeth as Cold Warriors under Reagan. Paul Nitze was another proto-neocon from this era. Jean Kirkpatrick can also be seen as a proto-neocon. Really Reagan’s foreign policy was already a neocon activist foreign policy as we supported fascists and mass murderers the world over in the name of opposing the USSR.

I am not quite sure what happened to the neocons during the 1990’s. I think they may have formed a lot of their classic neocon organizations. Some of them worked closely with Israel’s rightwing government during this period.

With Bush’s selection and theft of the election in 2000, many neocons ascended into power. After 9-11, they gained a lot of prominence.

Both Trotskyites and neocons could be seen as radical revolutionaries. Generally conservatives are supposed to be cautious folks. The Trotskyite plan was always “world revolution.” Since socialism in one country was not possible, Communist revolutions the world over would have to be sparked in order to ensure that large states like the USSR could succeed. The neocons are also wild revolutionaries like the neocons and they also believe in a sort of world revolution involving attacking and undermining their enemies all over the world and instituting regime change in many enemies of the US.


Filed under Capitalism, Cold War, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jews, Left, Marxism, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, Revolution, Trotskidiots, US Politics, USSR, Vietnam War, War

Critique of Putin

From here.

Putin is neither a communist nor socialist. Russia’s social safety net is pathetic to non-existent, and the economy is basically a capitalist (and crony-capitalist) free-for all riddled with organized crime. If right-wing is defined by economic policy and reactionary attitude to social issues (which is the standard definition), Putin is, in fact, the right-wing authoritarian dictator the Foxbots would kill to have in the US, the vanguard of the fascism Putin is always accusing Ukraine of having. Putin is wish-fulfillment for the American right, and oh, so manly to boot.

So Putin is basically a rightwing authoritarian? How much of this critique is true? Can any of you on the Left critique this paragraph?

I do know that much of the economy is still state-owned and the state also owns partial (often 1/2) share in many other enterprises. The KPRF (Communist Party of the Russian Federation) supports Putin. The state still spends a vast amount of money at all levels. How is this US-style neoliberal/laissez faire economics? Someone clue me.


Filed under Conservatism, Economics, Eurasia, Left, Marxism, Political Science, Regional, Russia

A Short Primer on US Party Politics of the Past 25 Years

Ronnie writes:

Ok, just another insight upon how non US people find US politics so obscure. There are the Democrats, who obviously want to instigate a democracy, hmm, that doesn’t equate they have one of those already. Oh well, then there are the Republicans, who obviously want to get rid of the Monarchy, hmm, that doesn’t work either. Ok, so is it obvious to anyone outside of the US which party is the one left of center and which is to the right of center. Well no not really.

There are the predictable arguments about specific issues which arise, and who has made the most mistakes on budget spending, but specifically what differentiates one lot from the other. Which are to the left, and which to he right? The vast majority of those outside of the US are baffled by it. What does not help the image on an international basis, is the game show host type presentation of political speeches when on election campaigns, complete with trumpet music and the like. All very, very obscure to non US people.

Well of course as a general rule, the Democrats are more to the Left and obviously the Republicans are way to the Right. That’s pretty much noncontroversial. However, the Democrats are not a very leftwing party! On a worldwide scale, probably both parties would be on the Right, and the population in general is probably one of the most rightwing populations on Earth. In fact, when people talk about what makes America so great, they usually rattle off a list of a bunch of rightwing attributes. The super patriotards are almost always rightwingers, and the America that they love is a very rightwing country. To them, that’s the real America.

There really is no large leftwing party in the US. There are the Greens, but they do not get any votes.

The base of the Democratic Party is called the left wing of the Democratic Party. These are Democratic Party liberals. This is probably one of the most leftwing groups in the US. However, even here, on a worldwide scale, they are not all that leftwing. For instance, most of these folks would not call themselves European style socialists or social democrats. The problem is that the Democrats elected to office are usually to the right of the base, because if you run on the base’s agenda, it’s often thought that you are going to lose because the base of the party is too leftwing for America as a whole.

Democrats like Obama are either in the center of the party or on the rightwing of the party. The rightwing of the party is called the DNC Democrats, or Democratic National Committee Democrats. They took over in 1990 and decided that the party is just too liberal to keep winning elections and that if the party wanted to keep on winning elections, it would have to move to the right. They also decided that it costs a lot of money to run for office these days, and the only way to get that money is to suck up to the rich and the corporations to get the money.

So the party started becoming pro-upper class and pro-corporate and moving away from supporting working class people and unions. There was also this idea that the party was “too hostile to business,” which has never been true as the party has never been anything close to even a European style socialist party. And I doubt if Democrats lose elections because they are “too anti-business.” Corporations have among the lowest favorable ratings in the US at ~22%, lower than the media or government. Nobody likes them.

The two wings of the party pretty much hate each other’s guts. The base thinks the DNC Obama Democrats are nothing but a bunch of Republicans in Democratic clothing. Any real leftwing people keep peeling off the Democratic Base to leave the party, vote Third Party or maybe quit voting. For the last 25 years, lefties have been continually leaving the party every year. This has accelerated in recent years since Obama came in. The problem is that in the US voting 3rd party is crazy because all you are doing is voting for the other side or at best throwing your vote away. Unlike in Europe, no 3rd party candidate can ever win national election.

The DNC wing is governing now under Obama. These people actually hate the base of the party as they feel that if they cater to them, they are going to lose elections. So the DNC types play to the base in elections to get their votes, and then give them the finger once they are in office. Obama and his advisors refer to the Base as “those fucking hippies,” the professional Left” and other epithets.

DNC Dems govern by now and then doing something leftwing for their base and then sticking it to the base by doing something rightwing. So the project is Feed the Base -> Feed the Right, Feed the Base -> Feed the Right, Feed the Base -> Feed the Right. This nonsense is also called triangulating. It’s a crazy way to govern, but that is how they do it. When DNC Dems are feeding the Right, they look much like Republicans. Of course the base hates this governing style because the party is pushing rightwing stuff half the time.

Anyway, this was the DNC thinking: if we don’t move to the right and fast, we are going to become a dinosaur party. So for the last 25 years, the party has been moving further to the right. The Republican Party has been doing the same thing. Ronald Reagan seems like a liberal Democrat nowadays.

Every year, the Republicans move further to the right, they move the goalposts and shift the Overton Window to the Right, and call the Democrats socialists and Communists. The Democrats are stung by being called Commies, so they follow by chasing the Republicans to the right to try not to be called Commies. Then they steal some of their rightwing ideas, water them down and pass them.

Welfare reform was a Republican idea passed by Democrats. Obamacare was a hard right health care proposal from the Heritage Foundation and the Republican National Committee in 1992. Now either the Republican Party has moved so far to the right that 1992 Republicans seem like socialists or else the Republicans hate it because the Democrats are pushing it. The Republican agenda is simply to oppose everything that the Democrats promote. So the Democrats steal a Republican idea, water it down and try to pass it, and the Republican go apoplectic and scream, “They are stealing out ideas!” and call the Democrats Communists.

The Republican Base is extremely rightwing, almost fanatically so. It is probably one of the most reactionary movements on Earth in many ways. The Tea Party is the Republican Base. The Base is very White and very much openly racist. The Republicans appeal to them with coded racist “dog whistle” stuff which is more or less a rhetoric of “stick it to the niggers” or “fuck the niggers.”

A vast number of Whites vote Republican because it’s seen as the party of the Whites, and the Democratic Party is seen as “the party of the niggers and the Mexicans,” as a friend of mine bluntly put it once. Nevertheless, the Republican Party doesn’t really benefit Whites in any way, so it’s irrational to vote Republican because it’s the White party, but that’s what people do. Once Republicans get in power, they don’t do anything for average White people except screw them over as the Republican Party is a Tory like party of the very rich and the corporations that thinks everyone else can basically go the Hell.

Recently there has been a mass rebellion as the Republican Base has flipped out and turned on the RNC group as RINO’s (Republicans in Name Only). They have tried to throw out a lot of RNC Republicans, saying they are nothing more than Democrats. Of course that is stupid, but that is how these people think.

The Republican Base represents about 20% of the population. Their politics is bizarre, irrational, fevered, conspiratorial, aristocratic, anti-democratic, anti-government, anti-liberal, militaristic, anti-environment, anti-woman, anti-gay, fundamentalist Christian, pro-traditional values, racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, Islamophobic, anti-social spending, anti-regulation, atomistic, radical individualist, economically Libertarian and fanatically partisan. They actually celebrate inequality as some sort of a virtue!

The RNC Republicans are not as rightwing as their base, but they do play to them, and the differences are not great. Whereas the DNC Democrats hate their base, the RNC Republicans fear their base. They are terrified of being replaced by the Base, so the RNC types are always trying to cater to the Base’s positions without having to actually vote for them. The end result of all of this is a race to see how far rightwing you can go without falling off the cliff.


Filed under Blacks, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Europe, Government, Hispanics, Left, Liberalism, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, Socialism, US Politics, USA, White Racism, Whites

Liberal Zionism 1947-2014


Leave a comment

Filed under Conservatism, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jews, Liberalism, Middle East, Palestine, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, USA, War, Zionism

The Alternative to PC Liberal Insanity

The insanity of American conservatism – the Tea Party, and the Republican Party base. I grew up around these people. Most of my friends had a lunatic ideology like this. In fact, all my life, most of the White people around me have been exactly like this. American conservatism is probably one of the stupidest and most unpleasant political movements in the world today. Nothing they say makes sense. Almost everything they say is a lie. Their partisanship is ridiculous.

There literally is nothing of any value here at all. It reminds me a freak show at the circus selling poison snow cones to smiling fairgoers. There really is nothing here to like. This is a movement that is almost physically repellant. I go to their webpages, and experience an actual physical revulsion that propels me away from the page, as if I just experienced something that was actually physically disgusting.

The problem is in the US, you can either line up with these nutballs, or you can go with the alternative – crazy PC liberals. Now granted, liberals make a lot more sense on a lot more issues and and are not generally physically repellent, but Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism are both preposterous and irrational movements.

Idiotic liberals or conservative  nutcases.

What the Hell kind of a choice is that? How about none of the above?


Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, US Politics, Useless Western Left