Monthly Archives: October 2016

Mugabe Had Nothing To Do with the Raids on White Farms in Zimbabwe

Phil: “Eleven white farmers have been killed during the farm invasions, and thousands of black workers have been assaulted and forced to abandon farms.”

From one of my articles. So basically that proves that the welfare of blacks wasn’t considered and Mugabe is simply greedy, not caring who he kills.

That makes it much better.

Phil, the Zimbabwe conflict is very complex, but there is massive propaganda in the US and UK against Mugabe. It would take time to explain the whole story, but let us just say that the blame for this whole mess resides in the UK and the US who supported them. All of this was done to keep 2,000 British farmers from having to give up their land (50% of the country and almost all of the good land).

This was a pressure keg just building and building and Mugabe kept trying to negotiate a settlement but the UK with US assistance refused to negotiate then violated every agreement they did reach. At some point, there was an explosion due to all of this pent-up rage. Zimbabwean war veterans, Mugabe’s base, exploded and raided the White farms all over the country. Mugabe knew this was a catastrophe and this is what he was trying to prevent all this time.

Mugabe was 100% opposed to the farm invasions, but once they started, there was not much he could do as it was his base raiding the farms against Mugabe’s expressed will. He had to support his base, but this was not the outcome he wanted at all, and he had spent years trying to prevent just this mess and warning that this was going to happen if a settlement was not reached.


Filed under Africa, Agricutlure, Blacks, Britain, Crime, Europe, Geopolitics, Government, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology, South Africa, USA, Whites

There Is No Genocide Against Whites in South Africa

Chinedu: Robert,

What’s being done to Whites in that country? What discrimination? The most persistent complaints are from Blacks due to the fact that after all the struggles whites continue to monopolize power, land, the financial systems and resources.


Phil, there is no active genocide against Whites in South Africa.

From the Genocide Watch website:

South Africa – Given the history of Apartheid in South Africa, there is deep-rooted polarization between whites and black in the nation. Part of the polarization in South Africa is the legacy of Apartheid and the continuing dominance in the economy of white owned businesses and farms. There is also polarization from the black population, who feel excluded from real power and jobs, even though the ANC now controls the government.

This general polarization created a fertile ground for political radicalization, which was the case with the rise of Malema, former President of the ANC Youth League who is now suspended. Genocide Watch continues to be alarmed at hate crimes committed against whites, particularly against Boer farmers, an important early warning sign that genocide could occur. Those who commit such crimes must be promptly brought to justice, and denounced by the political leaders of South Africa.

Here is the page of countries where GW is worried a genocide will occur or where one is actually occurring. There are three stages

  • First Phase: Genocide Emergency – actual genocide is occurring.
  • Second Phase: Genocide Warning – preparation for or potential massacres.
  • Third Phase: Genocide Watch – Polarization – warning that genocide may occur in the future.

South Africa was in the third phase Genocide Watch – Polarization – Early Warning Phase of Genocide in 2013, which means that hate crimes against Whites were occurring at such a high level that there may be as genocide at some point in the future.

Yes, Genocide Watch has a page on South Africa, but so what? GW has a page on almost every country in the whole world! OK? GW is not saying that there is a genocide going on or about to occur in every country.

Further, some of the so-called genocides are just wars. Supposedly there is a “genocide” going in Syria with Assad killing the rebels who have taken up arms against him along with quite a few of their civilian supporters. That’s not really an actual genocide though because there is no ethnic group called “Syrians who hate Assad.”


Filed under Africa, Blacks, Crime, Economics, Government, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, South Africa, War, Whites

ManWorld: How Can You Tell If a Man Is Straight? (Core Behaviors of a Straight Man)

Jason: Effeminate? Yeah ok. I can be seen as effeminate.

Jason, you are not effeminate, ok? Actually few straight men are actually effeminate. Effeminate means “acting like a woman.” Straight men get this very confused with being soft, wimpy, wussy, pussy or whatever. Now a lot of straight men are soft, a whole lot are wimpy, and yeah I guess there are some wussy or pussy straight men out there, though I cannot think of any off-hand. But really none of these “soft” straight men are truly effeminate. Perhaps they are “feminine” but only feminine in the sense of maybe being quiet, gentle, and liking to read or write or maybe cook. But that is completely different from being effeminate. Maybe 3% of straight men are effeminate, if that.

Effeminate behavior in a man is the sort of thing you see in a gay man. Probably 70%+ of gay men are effeminate to one degree or another. Some gay men are not so much effeminate as wimpy. But wimpy gay men are often extremely wimpy, so wimpy and pussed-out that it’s ridiculous. Wimpiness takes quite an exaggerated form in gay men.

I have been noticing a lot of straight men who might be seen as wimpy, geeky or soft these days because I have been trying to sharpen my, “Is he gay or is he straight?” skills. Some have these men had very soft voices that had me wondering for a while. But in a way, I finally figured out that a lot of them were still quite masculine.

Look at the way they move their bodies. A straight man will often move his body in these rather sharp, rigid, almost blocky movements. It’s almost like a machine or a robot. It sounds lousy, but that is how masculine men are supposed to act in ManWorld, so most just do it. Women do not usually act like this. Instead, women’s actions are flowing, like a river or an ocean. A woman who is stiff and blocky seems very unfeminine and not sexy at all.

Another thing I noticed with even soft, wimpy or nerdy straight men is that many of them have a deep voice. Even very soft-voiced straight men often have a deep timber to their voice. Most straight men’s voices will be rather deep because that is how a masculine man is supposed to act in ManWorld.

Another thing you will notice about a lot of soft, wimpy or nerdy men is that they are often quite controlled emotionally. Typically this comes across as having few or no emotions, once again almost like a machine or even a robot. Once again this sounds pretty negative, but this is how masculine men are supposed to be. We are supposed to suppress our emotions and act rather unemotional. Emotions in general are seen as pussy in ManWorld.

So the true essence of base masculine behavior that almost all straight men (~97%) will engage in is:

  • Blocky, rigid or sharp movements, almost machine-like.
  • Very controlled emotions that almost seems like few or no emotions at all, once again, rather machine-like.
  • A deep timbered voice, even if it is so soft you can barely hear it.

Really even “straight-acting” gay men probably do not engage in all three of these behaviors in my opinion, though they might engage in one or two. The vast majority of gay men (75%+) are either effeminate to one degree or another or they are wimpy, typically in an exaggerated way. They are often a lot more emotional that straight men too.

For a background on ManWorld, see here.


Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Sex

How Common Antiracist Arguments Are Inadvertently Viciously Racist Themselves

We know who is violating the Comments Policy against, well, classism really. There are two of you. They are both blaming Whites who are the victims of Black/NAM crime here and in South Africa for being losers who are too poor or stupid to move. This is really shitty.

It’s appalling too. You are attacking White crime victims with a “blame the victim” game which is objectively rightwing.

And the thing is that this line really insults Blacks and NAM’s. It says that living around Blacks and NAM’s is sheer utter Hell such that any sane person would automatically move away from them. In other words, Blacks and NAM’s are scum. Get it? This is an antiracist argument that ends up admitting that Blacks and NAM’s are the scum of the Earth and that no sane or decent human would want to live around them. So this antiracist argument is actually viciously racist.

The argument that only loser Whites (low income) live around Blacks and NAM’s is very insulting to NAM’s also. It says in effect that NAM’s are losers themselves because the only places they ever live are low income loservilles. In other words, once again, NAM’s are scum. Poor scum in this case.

So this antiracist argument, in order to shift the blame off NAM criminals for committing tons of crime and destroying neighborhoods onto their White victims as an antiracist deflection, ends up calling all NAM’s poor losers and hyper-criminal neighborhood destroying scum that no sane human would want to be around.

Do you see how these nutty antiracist arguments end up being unbelievably racist themselves?

I’ve been pointing out forever how modern antiracism has gone completely off the tracks bonkers for a long time now, and this is just another example of it.


Filed under Anti-Racism, Blacks, Crime, Hispanics, Meta, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Social Problems, Sociology, Urban Studies, Whites

Persistent Comments Policy Violations

A number of commenters lately have been violating Rule #7 of the Comments Policy. The attacks on poor and working class Whites are getting quite extreme in the Comments Section. Someone needs to tell me how it is progressive, leftwing or socialist to attack people for being poor or working class. That’s classism of the worst sort and there is no room for any classism whatsoever on the Left.

In particular, we are seeing all sorts of attacks on Whites who are the victims of criminals, particularly criminal NAM’s. This is called “blame the victim.” This sort of “blame the victim” has very strong roots in American thinking. In fact, it is a particularly American way of thinking. I fail to see what is so progressive, leftwing or socialist about blaming victims.

The idea that any White person who does not wish to live around NAM’s can simply up and move away from them is crazy. In many parts of the country now, if you do not have a lot of money, you simply will end up living around NAM’s. I pointed out that in my city of 60,000 people, there are 18,200 White people who are living around NAM’s. If you want to live in this city at all, you are going to live around NAM’s. If you wish to live in any large city of the US, you are going to end up being around NAM’s quite a bit of the time, if not in where you live than for sure in where you work or play.

I don’t see why we should tolerate this anymore. No more attacks on poor and working class Whites!

7. Support for the dropout lifestyle. I dropped out of society and the world of materialism, money, status and all that crap a very long time ago. Most of my friends are proletarians who live paycheck to paycheck. Many people I know cannot even afford a car, so they walk, ride bikes or take buses. No one I know has any money saved up in a bank account. Most are renting apartments or rooms in homes. You may not attack poor, low income, working class or proletarian people on this site. You may not attack people who are homeless, jobless or without vehicles. This whole line of talk is objectively reactionary and will result in an immediate ban.


Filed under American, Crime, Culture, Economics, Left, Meta, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, Urban Studies, Whites

The Libertarian “Crony Capitalism” Nonsense

Shooter: “All capitalism is crony capitalism, always and forever.” – Well, did WordPress come about because of socialism? Aren’t most of the things you talk about, even the medium you’re on, came about from capitalism?

All civilizations have to have some form of economies to raise capital. No matter how socialist you get, there’ll still be capitalism in there. USSR was not fully Communist but was socialism with state capitalism. Making money is just what nations do. I don’t see how GDP and other forms of wealth are inherently crony capitalism. Sorry, but you don’t get me on this one.

Any normal capitalist country, leaving out various forms of actual socialism and Communism, will generally speaking have an unbelievable amount of crony capitalism.

According to Libertardians, the whole problem with their glorious capitalist system is the fact that government is involved in it. Once the government is involved in the capitalist economy in any way, shape or form, apparently we have some form of “crony capitalism,” whatever the Hell that is. I say that because I have no idea what it is that this term is even referring to. According to Libertardians, if you completely eliminate the state from the picture, then and only then do you have real true capitalism. Anytime you still have a state in the picture somehow, the system is not actually real true pure capitalism. This is some sort of a joke. Their crazy “pure capitalism” has probably never existed, does not exist now and no doubt will not exist in the forseeable future.

If crony capitalism means corruption, well of course capitalism generates corruption. It generates a phenomenal amount of corruption. It does this because the nature of capitalism is to cause a lot of corruption. The corruption is built right in to the system. It’s not a bug. It’s actually a feature! And the more capitalism you have in a country, the more corruption. Countries that went neoliberal and privatized everything typically saw tidal waves of corruption exploding very quickly. They also saw huge organized crime syndicates pop up almost overnight.

Corruption is generally seen at the state level. If it’s in business, it’s called something else. Corrupt officials are usually just stealing from the coffers of the state and sticking the money in their own pocket. How does state corruption help business? It doesn’t do much of anything to business. So how is state corruption crony capitalism?

Fraud is also ubiquitous in capitalism, and the more capitalism you have, the more fraud you have. In fact, fraud, ripoffs, stealing and cheating is so huge of a problem in most capitalist countries that the state typically has to set aside a lot of law enforcement resources to keep a handle on this situation at all. How is the state going after crooked businesses for fraud crony capitalism? That’s not helping business, it’s putting them clean out of business.

They make all sorts of stupid examples of this crony capitalism such as:

The government picks winners and losers in various industries. Of course the government does not pick winners and losers in industries. The market does that.

Companies go to the government and have the government make legislation to help them and hamper all of their competition, resulting in monopolies. This is laughable. The government never does this, ever! Monopolies result because the natural tendency of capitalism is towards monopoly, and illegal monopoly at that.

Businesses go to the government and pay them off so the government will do the businesses all sorts of favors. Actually, the only favors the government does for any of these businesses is in refusing to regulate them! So they are paying the government not to do things. Someone needs to tell me how keeping the government from regulating your industry is crony capitalism.

The government sets minimum wage laws which affect business. Sure, but they usually affect business in a bad way, or at least Libertardians think so, as they oppose any minimum wage. How is the government limiting profits by imposing minimum wages crony capitalism? The state’s not helping the businesses – it’s hindering them.

Universities pick only one vendor, limiting competition. An example given was that a university offered only the local DSL company to students for broadband. Supposedly allowing cable too would allow competition, but as cable and DSL don’t compete anyway, I don’t see how this would help competition. Universities hire vendors for all sorts of things, and I assume for most stuff, they choose a single vendor and go with them. Why buy your textbooks from 50 different companies? Why buy your food from 20 different food companies? And why not pay one company for Internet rather than two companies? It’s so much easier to go with just one vendor. Incidentally most branches of the government do this exact thing.

Government places barriers to entry in industries, vastly reducing competition. Laughable. Apparently this means this zoning laws, business licenses, liquor licenses and whatnot. For instance, we have some corner markets here where I buy my food. No doubt those lots were zoned Business. But to get into that industry, you are going to need a lot of capital. The local store is being sold, and it goes for $1 million. Local gas stations also go for $1 million. That’s the price that the market set for them. The government did not set that price. The market did.

I guess Libertardians would like to get rid of all zoning laws so everyone and his uncle could open their own little “corner markets” on the sidewalks or right here in my apartment complex. That’s not going to work. You need to buy a license, and if they want to sell booze, they need a liquor license. You can’t have everyone opening up a “corner market” out of their apartment. It’s nuts. There would be so much abuse, it’s incredible.

In my town I assure you there is no shortage of corner markets. There is nearly one on every major corner if you include the gas station marts. There are plenty of drug stores in this town. Plenty of supermarkets. Lots of auto repair joints. Plenty of car dealerships. Taco shops and carnicerias everywhere. A number of pizza joints. A small number of nice small restaurants. A number of insurance companies which apparently compete with each other. A small number of bars. A number of different competing banks, including a credit union that gives better customer service than any of them. There are a few different chain auto parts stores in town.

All of these businesses compete on price, service, goods available, quality of product or work, and all sorts of things. The competition is apparently quite ferocious everywhere you would expect it to be. Even the car repair joints seem to compete on price, which is amazing (the Mexicans are cheaper, but they do not do as good of a job).

There is no industry or business in this town that does not have enough players, lacks competition, or needs a lot of new players in the market. There are no monopolies or cases where a business is the only one of its type in town. I don’t understand why we need a ton of new competition. What for? The market’s full up as is. There’s not a lot of room for new players in town, and everyone is competing like maniacs as it is.

Neither business licenses, food inspections, liquor licenses, the cost of purchase of store (set by market and not by state), taxes, nor any of these things are acting as any sort of barrier to entry to business in my city. I might add also that this city is very rightwing and has probably set things up to be as business-friendly as possible. That’s not necessarily a good thing, but it does lower the barriers to entry even more.

I have nothing against WordPress. It is actually possible to be a halfway decent capitalist company, and they seem to be doing that. But they eliminated their tech support, which I thought was pretty shitty.


Filed under Capitalism, Corruption, Crime, Economics, Government, Higher Education, Law, Left, Libertarianism, Marxism, Neoliberalism, Organized Crime, Political Science, Scams, Socialism

Now It’s Miss Finland


Next up to the plate is the gorgeous Miss Finland! Good God, there is not enough newsprint around to print up the stories of all of the accusers that could potentially come forward.

It looks like the Donald never missed an opportunity, eh? Jeez, there must be 2-3,000 women out there like her, just waiting to offer up their stories. Bring em on! Get in line, ladies, and we will get to you in a bit. We may not have time to get to all 3,000 of you, but don’t worry. We will definitely hear your story when the time comes.

PS What is it with Finns anyway? Someone told me they were Finnish before they even started! Is it actually true?


Dang, look at her! Of course he grabbed her ass. You could you be around that and NOT do that?


Filed under Babes, Politics, Republicans, US Politics, Women

In Praise of Hunter Wallace

Sam J: Robert quoting Hunter Wallace! I’m flabbergasted. I agree with most all of the things Hunter Wallace says except I don’t want to break up the USA; I want the whole country.

I don’t agree with him, but he is a superb writer! Does anyone else notice what a great writer he is? Sometimes I think it takes another good writer to recognize another good writer. Maybe for most people, we all seem the same.

But though it is painful for me to say this, I have always thought that Hunter Wallace is a better writer than I am. And I think I am very good. Thousands of people have been telling me this since I was seven years old, so I figure it’s probably true. I’m a failure at everything else, but I can write. No wait, I can get laid. OK, let me restate it. I’m a failure at almost everything, except I can write and I can get laid. Well, that means I am good at two things at least, and that’s probably better than most humans. Actually, I meet people who write better than I do frequently, and it is very humbling. I don’t mind at all if others can write better than me. I don’t have to be #1 or the best. All I need is good or better. You’re an idiot if you need to be the best at anything.

Anyway, Hunter Wallace is a fine, fine writer. He has an excellent turn of phrase, and I find myself repeating his gem-like perfect sentences over and over in my head because they are so right-there immaculate. For instance, that call-out quote by him above defining Liberal Race Realism is the most perfect description of it yet by anyone by far.

And I think Wallace is also an excellent thinker, which makes sense as good writers and good thinkers tend to be the same thing. Few writers write for mere prettiness. In fact, being a great thinker is probably one of the most important qualities in being a fine writer. Most people probably don’t realize that.

Now I also think he is wrong about a number of things. But what most do not realize is that great thinkers can still be wrong. In fact, they are often wrong. The fact that you are wrong does eliminate the possibility of being a great thinker.

Check out Otto Weininger. Now, I happen to think he is wrong about a number of things, but Weininger is great in part because of exactly how he is wrong in that most perfect, glorious and beautiful way of being-wrong. In fact, figuring out how he is wrong is one of the fantastic things about reading Weininger. His greatness lies in how he is wrong, exactly as Wittgenstein, who acknowledged Weininger as an influence, said, and Wittgenstein was never wrong about anything.

Now, I do not agree with Hunter at all on quite a few things, but I have some respect for him. He calls himself an agrarian socialist. Look up a seminal tract by Southern writers from 1935 called I Take My Stand – I believe Faulkner signed it. He’s about as dubious of the rich and powerful and the corporations as I am, and I’m a Leftist. What Wallace is selling is actually the real deal – true rightwing populism. Not that junk snake oil half-rightwing populism Trump is selling, but I mean the real stuff. His project is not as good as Marie Le Pen’s of course, and he’s wrong on race, but I do have to respect him.

Also his discourse is pretty clean and polite. You don’t hear him calling Black people niggers and whatnot, but Southern Whites have a long tradition of this genteel manner when at least speaking about race. And while we don’t agree about race, I think we agree racially on one thing. I love my people. I actually love White people and White culture. I love being White. I wake up every morning, look up at the ceiling and think, “Thank God for making me White!” I’m sure Hunter agrees with me racially in that sense anyway.


Filed under Conservatism, Economics, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Sane Pro-White, Socialism, South, US Politics, USA, Writing

No, DSL and Cable Companies Do Not Compete

EPGAH: And no, the cost of providing WiFi access is nonzero, otherwise you would open up your router, turn off the password, right? WiFi is also slower than hardwire by at least a factor of 10. Hell, that’s the whole idea of MAC Addresses.

Plus, the more people on one access point, the slower it is for everyone. Think of a congested highway – maybe China’s week-long traffic-jam if it helps? – vs. having a country road all to yourself.

Most importantly, at some point, it connects into the Internet by an actual hardwire, and that line has to be paid for, even if it doesn’t have to be maintained.

DSL and Cable fight each other, speed vs. price (Cable is faster, DSL is cheaper) except on university grounds, where AT&T (DSL) is given a LEGAL monopoly. People who can afford it go T1 or even T3 if they have more money than brains, and give the slowpokes on Cable and DSL the Finger.

Satellite IS a natural monopoly, because no one in their right minds would accept speeds just over dial-up if they had ANY other option! BUT if you are THAT far out in the sticks, you have no other viable option. It’s that or dial-up. Or you can pay some ridiculous 5-figure sum to get Cable or DSL to extend their service a quarter mile. This is not hypothetical, I was actually IN such a situation a few years back.

Full Disclosure: I have Cable, 50 mbps. I like my speed and I would not appreciate a bunch of freeloaders slowing it down for me. And no, I would not trust an “If You Like Your Speed, You Can Keep Your Speed” slogan.

I am not sure why universities would give access to a single provider, but universities usually do this with everything. They buy their hamburgers from one source. Hell, they buy just about everything from a single source. Anyway, is there any evidence that the DSL company is charging the students more due to its monopoly? At any rate, it might be interesting to see what the university’s argument for allowing a single provider is. They probably just think it’s simpler that way since they have single providers for most everything, as it’s obviously simpler.

What difference would it make if wi-fi costs money? The cities are trying to offer it for free to their residents (to be paid out of the city’s funds), and the competition-hating Republicans flipped and passed laws banning cities from offering wi-fi to their citizens, as it was thought to be serious competition for the legislator-whores’ beloved DSL and cable johns.

DSL and cable absolutely do not compete on price, service or anything. They each have a monopoly and there is no competition at all. They both offer a total shit product with total shit service for an insanely excessive price. Fact is that in countries where the state is running it the speeds are vastly higher than ours, so much higher it is not even funny.

If you opened up DSL to competition, yeah you would see some real competition. I remember back when we had dial-up, we had the wildest competition. They were all competing on price, service, everything! It was a consumer paradise!

Neither DSL, cable or satellite compete with each other in any way, shape or form. They all offer ridiculously slow speeds, awful customer service and a preposterously overpriced product, and none of them are competing with each other!

Let’s see if DSL and cable companies compete on customer service. Obviously they do not compete at all because the DSL and cable companies are routinely rated the worst in the country at customer service. They are also routinely rated the worst companies in the land. Not coincidentally, they come out last in both surveys because they each have monopolies, one in DSL and the other in cable. When you have a monopoly, you don’t have to have good customer service because the better your customer service is, the more it costs you and the less profits you make.

Really the only reason that any business offers good customer service is because they have to! Most if not all businesses would love to treat all their customers like complete crap because you make more money that way.

The only reason businesses are decent to customers at all is because they have to be due to competition! If you treat your customers like crap, your customers will start migrating over to your competitor to do business with them. I punish a few local businesses that way for treating me like crap. Not coincidentally, every business ever punished that way by me was run by someone from the Indian subcontinent – one by Pakistanis and two by Punjabis. Monopolists generally offer horrific customer service because people have nowhere else to go. And the worse you treat your customers, the more money you make, as good customer service costs money and cuts into profits.

I suppose the state could just buy out the phone lines, cable lines or satellites (though the satellites are probably state owned anyway) and then allow whoever wants to to utilize them to compete for cable, DSL or satellite. I suppose if they wanted to offer faster speeds, maybe they could rent out more of the pipe. I am trying to think of how we could do this. It’s long been known that our Internet service and cellphone services are both complete shit mostly due to the fact that they are privately run.

However, there is now quite a bit of competition in cell service opening up. I’m not sure how that is happening. I believe that the big providers are renting out some of their product as sort of franchisees. Anyway it seems to be working. It seems like there is a lot of competition in cellphone service now.

However, for some time, there were only a few providers, and as with cable, DSL and satellite above, they had agreed not to compete. All of the cellphone companies were offering diabolical contracts, ridiculous pricing and utter shit service – they had all agreed to provide a shit product for a ridiculously high price. Non-compete agreements are extremely common in capitalism. They probably ought to be illegal, but the anti-competition loving capitalists love these agreements as much as they love price-fixing. At some point, the non-compete agreements seem to have broken down, and now they are competing a lot.

Personally I find that the fact that each cell network built its own set of cell towers to be one the stupidest “accomplishments” of modern US capitalism. So we have four or five different cell phone tower networks where we only need one! Retarded! There should only be one cellphone tower network, and it ought to be either regulated by the state or owned by the state and rented/leased out to private companies to compete over public lines. I very much like the idea of the state owning the backbones of industries and then leasing/renting out space to private companies to use them to compete.

The problem is that the people often get ripped off. We own the airwaves, but we auction them off for pennies on the dollar to crooked media companies which we have allowed to concentrate to the point where all of our news comes from six different billionaire networks who all say the same thing. Sort of like Pravda or People’s Daily under Communism. One source of news, and it has one party line. I honestly feel that our modern monopolized, billionaire-owned news is not much better than the media under Communism. We get about the same diversity of views in either.


Filed under Capitalism, Capitalists, Economics, Government, Journalism, Law, Local, Politics, Republicans, Scum, US Politics

Rejoinders to Some Critiques of Obamacare

Shooter: I disagree. Obama had to cheat in order to get it passed.

That was the only way to get it through.

Shooter:  That sounds like a form of cronyism and crony capitalism to me.

All capitalism is crony capitalism, always and forever. That’s the nature of capitalism, and the capitalists love it that way. Read Marx, or read anyone, even Adam Smith. The Libertarian dream can never happen because it’s not possible.

Shooter: But Obama also forced people to buy it or else they’d be fined or jailed. Not really a solution, and the blame game to Republicans kinda dismisses the matter.

Had to be done. That was the only way to make it work. Otherwise you remove all the young healthy people, and any insurance program crashes if you remove the good actors.

What do you suggest instead?


Filed under Capitalism, Democrats, Economics, Health, Law, Libertarianism, Obama, Political Science, Politics, US Politics