Daily Archives: January 12, 2015

Robert Stark Interviews Ann Sterzinger

Looks pretty promising, right up my alley.


Ann Sterzinger is a writer, the publisher of Hopeless Books and an editor at Takimag.

Topics include:

Her Catholic upbringing and how she lost faith in religion.

Her career in Journalism as a proofreader and freelance writer.

The upper middle class women who dominate the journalism industry and why Ann finds them alienating.

The modern Left and how it has become dominated by upper class boutique issues as opposed to class issues.

Why introverted writers develop dark alter egos in their work.

Anti-natalism and the tragedy of the human existence.

Her response to arguments against anti-natalism (ex. “idiocracy” and ethnonationalism).

Her book NVSQVAM (Nowhere).

The concept of when the dreams of your youth are destroyed and you have to face reality.

Her book The Talkative Corpse: A Love Letter.

The concept of loserdom – genuine losers vs. situational losers and those in between.

How the changes in the economy have harmed high-IQ introverts.

Leave a comment

Filed under Economics, Intelligence, Journalism, Left, Nationalism, Political Science, Psychology, Religion, Writing

Je Suis Donbass

Je Suis Donbass

Je Suis Donbass

Leave a comment

Filed under Eurasia, Europe, France, Journalism, Regional, Russia, Ukraine, War

Looks Like the War Is On

Two grenade attacks on mosques in and around Paris the day after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Oh boy.

And see here for the radical Ukrainian feminist group Femen’s response – a half naked young woman with Fuck Quran written on her body setting a Koran on fire.

Things are about to get a lot worse. Expect to see a lot more of these provocations in the name of the “exercise of the freedom of speech” along with probable responses, no doubt violent, by Muslims.


Filed under Europe, France, Islam, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion

Capitalists Hanging Themselves with Their Own Rope Again


I live right in the midst of all this Almond Insanity. It feels pretty hopeless on the ground here. All of the local media is completely controlled by Big Ag. The Fresno Bee is the largest paper in the region. It took me a long time to figure out how they were lying to me constantly. That’s because they do it so well. Big Ag literally runs that newspaper.

And Big Ag controls the entire state government too. That means both parties, Democrats and Republicans, and all politicians, liberals to conservatives. Looks like they’ve even got Jerry Brown by the balls.

Yeah, turn all of California into a dust bowl, that’s the ticket. Thanks a lot, farmers. Fucktards.


Filed under Agricutlure, California, Democrats, Economics, Environmentalism, Government, Journalism, Local, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA, West

Do Good Businesses Drive Out Bad Ones or Is It the Other Way Around?

Dave writes:

a “choice” between:
> Scumbags R’ Us
> Criminals Incorporated
> The Devil Himself Ltd.
> Worldwide Sociopathic Enterprises, LLC.
> Evil Scum Industries
> Ted Bundy’s Spawn Corporation

Are corporations the problem or the people running them? I ask because I have 2 corporations, and I believe they have done zero harm. Where am I wrong?

Couldn’t the argument also be made that your above list applies to everything in life from finding a mate to politicians?

I doubt there is any police manual that says to shoot unarmed kids, yet human officers keep doing it. I doubt there is any corporation policy that says to screw people, yet humans use corporations to screw people. I doubt any government constitution says to strip citizens of freedoms yet human leaders have used the power of government for centuries worldwide

Isn’t the real problem humans?

Unfortunately, this is the typical conservative argument whenever anyone brings up the significant downside of capitalism. If they acknowledge it at all, they generally say that the problem is human nature. The moral to the story is that nothing can be done.

I am not saying that all corporations are evil. Personally I think there are many good businesses in the US and elsewhere. But you end up with the diabolical list above when you refuse to regulate an industry. Look at the Internet. Totally unregulated. A very large % of for-pay Internet sites are apparently run by criminals. I have never seen so many criminal businesses as I have seen on the Internet. Obviously there is nothing inherent about the Net that causes criminals to flock to it to run their ugly enterprises. So many Net businesses are evil because the Net is totally unregulated. The % of raw, naked fraudulent businesses on the Net would blow you away.

For example, let us look at dating sites. Really there are no good dating sites. There are scummy sites, less scummy sites, more scummy sites and extremely scummy sites. The vast majority of the people running dating sites are criminals and most of them belong in jail or prison in my opinion. You ever wonder why every dating site is headquartered in Panama or Cyprus? Because that way they will not be susceptible to our laws.

The proliferation of evil businesses under the rubric of Internet dating sites gives the lie to the Libertarian propaganda that good businesses will drive out the bad ones. Libertarians acknowledge that due to the sociopathic nature of capitalism, quite a businesses will spring up that will be very bad for consumers. However, Libertarians argue that if you are a consumer and some business is screwing you via their product, you can simply vote with your wallet and take your business to a more consumer-friendly business. If enough consumers are angry at consumer-hostile businesses in some industry, consumer-friendly businesses will spring up to lasso all of that demand. Consumers will flock to the consumer-friendly businesses and abandon the consumer-hostile ones.

Problem is it doesn’t happen. Instead you get whole industries where all of the businesses, or maybe 95% of them, are fraudulent ripoffs run by the scum of the Earth. Where are you supposed to go? In many industries, it seems that the worst, most consumer-hostile businesses drive out the better, more consumer-friendly ones, presumably because the more you rip off and screw the consumer, the more money you make. And this doesn’t work in industries where every business is run by a crook.

Unregulated capitalism is a world of shit. Properly regulated capitalism allows us to harness the significant benefits of the market while limiting the inevitable sociopathic downside in any capitalist economy. With unregulated capitalism, you get the panoply of the bad side effects of capitalism and few if any of the good effects. It’s great for the crooked capitalists, but bad for workers, consumers, the environment and society.


Filed under Capitalism, Capitalists, Conservatism, Crime, Economics, Libertarianism, Organized Crime, Political Science, Scum

Money Changes Everything

From the Internet:

Money trumps everything. The underlying rule when it comes to unregulated capitalism.

No shit.

I hate to say it, but to live under unregulated capitalism (US capitalism) in a lot of ways is to live in a world of shit. I guess you can always pop open a beer and vow not to think about reality anymore, but denial and repression only do so much good, and then the insanity of unregulated capitalism is punching you in the face again.

What is most frustrating about living under unregulated capitalism is how helpless all the sane people feel. Really nothing can be done. Any political party of any reasonable size is controlled by the unregulated capitalists, so they run government at all levels. Elections are a pitiful joke, pitting one whore for the unregulated capitalists against another one, with both of them yelling as hard as they can that they are really not whores but are actually for the people themselves, when in fact none of them are.

The mainstream media is completely useless. Large newspapers are always just shills for the unregulated capitalists. In addition, they are totally controlled by whatever is the main industry in the region. State governments are worse than useless as they also are controlled by the largest industries in the state. National governments are corporate controlled, with the “regulators” cycling back and forth from the very industries they are supposed to be regulating. Pitiful.

We, the people, feel like mutes. We scream as loud as we can, but no one can hear us, or if they do, they pretend they don’t. We are constantly organizing wildly outspent campaigns against the unregulated capitalists. Some we win, some we lose. As soon as we get through fighting one battle, we have to pick ourselves up from the floor of the ring and go another round. It’s all so exhausting.

Towards the end of his life, Marlon Brando, who was as fat as an island himself, moved his very large ass out to a Polynesian island where he set himself up in a grass hut and said FTW (fuck the world).

I am getting more and more tempted.


Filed under Capitalism, Economics, Government, Journalism, Politics, US Politics, USA

Ownership and Regulation of Basic Utilities in the US, 2014

Daniel writes:

What about a mostly free market domestically, but limited economic internationalism (since I think globalism is a sovereignty stealing scam), a basic income (partly as a way to say “that’s it, you get nothing else. Spend it wisely” so as to avoid entitlement culture and single motherhood subsidizing), good immigration based on a points system?

And utilities and infrastructure done by the gov.

I have no problem with most of this other than the anti-single mother stuff and the “mostly free market” stuff which I dealt with other posts.

The rest of it is not bad at all.

Economic nationalism is going to be very hard to do. Both parties in the US and every major party in every large country on Earth is down with this IMF, World Bank, TPP, NAFTA, WTO free trade agreement scams. Even the “liberal” or “Leftist” Democratic Party is on board with all this stuff. If you look at Europe, apparently most social democratic parties in Europe are down with the globalism thing too. The globalist madness seems to have captured the elites of much of the world from Right to Left and it is going to be very hard to build any opposition to them. This is mostly because most governments in the world supporting globalism are controlled by the corporations of that nation. We have made some progress in Latin America with the Bolivarian system and with the BRICs plan of Russia, but it is an uphill battle.

How do we promote a project that both the Republican and Democratic Parties are determined to implement. How do we oppose it when much of the rest of the world is drinking the globalist crack. It is a depressing project.

Infrastructure and utilities run by the state would be a good thing. I think infrastructure is still run by the state here, but there seems to be a determined bipartisan project led by the Republicans do defund infrastructure spending at every level. Why do the Republicans want the country to fall apart. I don’t know. Why doesn’t someone ask them?

Utilities run by the state is a great idea, but just recently we had electricity degregulated in a number of states. It was a disaster at least in California, but the deregulators don’t admit it, and they have stated that they are determined to keep pushing this until they get it through. Privatization of water has not yet succeeded in the US, though this is a corporate goal. We deregulated the phone and cable companies with the Communications Act in the Clinton Era, but what is bizarre is that the vote was somethign like 450-14. Yes that is correct. The vast majority of liberal Democrats voted for that scam. And here we are, 20 years later, with the ruins of communications degregulation lying all around us for anyone to see, and hardly anyone has turned against it. Neither party wants to re-regulate the phone or cable companies.

The cable companies obviously need regulating as they are a classic example of an unregulated monopoly. You see anyone even suggesting that we should regulate the cable monopolies? The phone companies are formally still regulated, but the truth is that it is pretty much a hands-off approach now and they get to abuse any way they see fit. The phone companies are for all intents and purposes unregulated monopolies in the US. The cable and phone companies run the Internet, and the Internet is not regulated at all. Instead it is run by tow of the most evil industries in the US, the unregulated phone and cable companies. There are efforts now to put in some basic regulations (to treat the Internet as part of the regulated public airwaves which clearly it is) but they are having a very tough time. The terrifying battle over Net Neutrality shows just how badly the pro-people forces have lost control of the narrative.

The cell phone companies are also using the public airwaves, at it is obvious that they need to be regulated too whether they are monopolies or not. They are actually not monopolies, but the industry is extremeely stupid and wasteful (for example, each company built its own cell towers instead of having one set of public towers used by all of them), and while the companies are not yet monopolies, there is not much competition. The cellphone companies are operating on the model of Let’s all collude to screw the customers! This is actually the case for a number of industries. All of the “competitors” in the industry agree that they are going to screw the consumers as much as possible to rake in maximum profits. One would think that a pro-consumer company would rise from the muck but it doesn’t seem to happen. This is a clear case of market failure and it is more common than you think. We are now seeing the beginnings of some real pro-consumer competition with these cellphone rats, but it’s been slow going.

So as you can see, we are having a hard time holding onto regulating the utilities that we do regulate and there is a constant danger of looming deregulation. New monopolies were deregulated and there are no plans in sight to re-regulate them. Existing regulated companies are poorly regulated and given largely free reign to abuse society as much as possible. The possibility of regulating new utilities such as the Internet have run up against tsunami-like corporate lobbying and overcoming these colossal efforts seems daunting.

As you can see, having the state run or at least regulate (For Chrissakes!) utilities is a great idea, but it is running into all sorts of problems, probably the worst of which is that both parties and a huge sector of the population including all the corporate media are hooked on the Deregulation Crack. The deregulation narrative has penetrated deeply into ordinary society such it has nearly become a national Zeitgeist.

1 Comment

Filed under Bolivarianism, Capitalism, Democrats, Economics, Latin America, Left, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Russia, Socialism, US Politics, USA

Why Capitalists Must Be Regulated

Daniel writes:

What about a mostly free market domestically, but limited economic internationalism (since I think globalism is a sovereignty stealing scam), a basic income (partly as a way to say “that’s it, you get nothing else. Spend it wisely” so as to avoid entitlement culture and single motherhood subsidizing), good immigration based on a points system?

And utilities and infrastructure done by the government.

I do not believe in a mostly free market. The capitalist must be regulated or the whole marketplace just gets turned over to sociopaths. In any industry, you would have a “choice” between:

  • Scumbags R’ Us
  • Criminals Incorporated
  • The Devil Himself Ltd.
  • Worldwide Sociopathic Enterprises, LLC.
  • Evil Scum Industries
  • Ted Bundy’s Spawn Corporation

They would all be headquartered in Panama or Cyprus so they not liable under any US laws.

Boy, that’s a Hell of a choice, ain’t it! Pick your poison.

There would not even be one decent company that was not trying to maximally screw its workers, consumers, the environment or society.

In an unregulated marketplace, evil drives out good every day of the week.


Filed under Capitalism, Economics, Government

The “Single Motherhood Problem” and the “Solutions” to This “Problem”

Daniel writes:

What about a mostly free market domestically, but limited economic internationalism (since I think globalism is a sovereignty stealing scam), a basic income (partly as a way to say “that’s it, you get nothing else. Spend it wisely” so as to avoid entitlement culture and single motherhood subsidizing), good immigration based on a points system?

And utilities and infrastructure done by the gov.

I do not want to get rid of social programs. If you stop “subsidizing single motherhood” than women and kids are going to die, bottom line. And further, a desperately impoverished and perennially stressed out single Mom is going to raise much worse kids than a single Mom who has a halfway adequate income so she can barely get by and her stress levels while elevated are marginal. The more miserable you make it for single Moms, the more screwed up their kids are going to be. And apparently the whole argument against single Moms is that they raise screwed up kids.

Truth is there are very high rates of single motherhood in many European countries and it is causing little to no problems. It is only causing problems here insofar as the single Moms from the Black community are said to be fomenting the children that are causing disaster in the ghetto. However, I know many young Whites who were raised by single Moms, and they do have problems, mostly obesity, poor diet, introversion, addiction to video games, lack of responsibility, overprotection, poor social skills and a number of other things. A lot of the young White males produced by these single Moms seems to be some sort of ultra-spoiled Omegas, fat, out of shape, video game addicted and socially retarded. White communities full of ridiculous Omega males is somewhat disturbing, but it’s not Detroit. Further, most of these guys seem to snap out of it and grow up at some point some time in their 20’s.

I have no idea what effect the single motherhood epidemic is causing among White girls. The consensus seems to be that the worst thing single Moms do to daughters is to produce sluts, but I don’t necessarily consider that a bad thing.

Bottom line is these White single Moms are not producing children that are turning our White communities into White versions of Black ghettos.

So the whole societal line about “single motherhood” is a gigantic fraud. If single motherhood is causing tons of problems, it is causing them in the Black community and only in the Black community. All other communities seem to whether single motherhood fairly well. So the line that “single motherhood is destroying society” is wrong. The line that “single motherhood is a universal catastrophe anywhere on Earth” is wrong. If it is a problem at all, it is only in the Black community.

Various programs have been proposed to deal with this problem. The main problem is that the men do not seem to stick around. No program has yet been devised that will cause these men to stick around. Young Black women will continue to have 1-3 children in their 20’s whether the man sticks around or not. These women don’t care. They care going to have their kids come Hell or high water.

So let’s cut off the welfare. What good will it do? You think these Black men are going to say, “Oh baby! They cut off your welfare! Now I am going to do the right thing and stick around to support you!” Give it up.

These women are going have a couple of kids in their 20’s no matter how much or how little money they get. This is their only chance to have kids, and they are going to go for it.


Filed under Blacks, Europeans, Government, Race/Ethnicity, Social Problems, Sociology, Whites

The Important Role of Bullying in the Construction of White Liberal Opinion

Daniel writes:

A man who worked with Tony Blair (Andrew Nether, not sure on spelling) said they wanted to rub the right’s nose in non-White immigration. Other Labour councilors have been caught saying the country is “sickeningly White” or “full of inbred drunks” by which they mean the Whites.

I think it is ethnic and cultural masochism

What does rub the Right’s nose in it even mean anyway?

The White nationalists keep talking about how the “Left” hates Whites and how White liberals hate White people. None of this is true. Sure there are a group of White self-haters among whom it is cool and hip to beat up on your own people, but those are Leftists, not liberals. White nationalists and racist conservatives are always conflating Leftists and liberals, and let me tell you, they are very different. Most White liberals are quite normal people. All these real out-there Whites are White Leftists, and all this crazy stuff is coming out of the universities.

Most of the people pushing this “Whites are evil, White privilege, genocidal Whites” and that other stupid anti-White stuff are mostly non-Whites! The only Whites pushing it are White Leftists. These non-Whites are liberals to Leftists, mostly Black, some Hispanic and Asian. This line has really taken root among Blacks, but among the others it is mostly restricted to the universities. There is a lot of pressure on White liberals to go along with this idiocy which was all started by Blacks and Leftist Whites, and some of them seem to be caving in to all the browbeating. But a lot of us White liberals really hate this nonsense.

The commenter really does not understand how conformist liberalism is. To be a liberal in good standing, you have to along with the Liberal/Left Project. The Project changes in small ways pretty regularly. White liberals who refuse to go along with the project are harangued, pressured and browbeaten. They are called every name in the book.

They call us names like sexist, misogynist, racist, KKK, bigot, cracker, redneck, homophobe, anti-Semite, Nazi, hater, Islamophobe, etc. Most liberals don’t like any of the people who really and truly fall under those categories, so when your fellow liberals start saying you are just like the people you hate most of all, it is pretty painful. I can deal with it (sort of), but it isn’t easy. I suppose a lot of White liberals just shut up, change their tune or go along.

Liberals who don’t cave in to the pressure are ostracized by the entire liberal-Left, and since conservatives hate them too, they become politically friendless and homeless. It is painful and lonely. Their enemies hate them, and their allies seem to have them even more.

Sure a few brave types can handle the abuse, but most White liberals just give in to pressure to stop the beatings.


Filed under Higher Education, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, US Politics, Useless Western Left, Whites