Category Archives: Conservatism

Mill, Friedman, Hobbes and the Jews

Latest from Judith Mirville. She is pretty hard to understand, but I can generally understand what she is talking about if I sit back and think about it a bit. She really pushes my brain to its limits, and I love that.

You, Robert, think that with Jewish Libertarians, America has reached the very bottom of the pit : No, you are dead wrong, Libertarians are just at Ground Zero.

Political attitudes can be dispatched among not two but three main categories in a surprising neat way:

Some take pretext of the pursuit of the common good or some form of abstract general good to justify their existence. That is the case with most brands of socialism and also of advanced liberalism such as John Stuart Mill’s. Some Jews, actually a great plurarity of the most vocal ones, not only identify with that attitude but go as far as to define the whole Jewish phenomenon as a kind of vanguard of Humanity’s long march towards a better future.

Some others take pretext of the pursuit of their own personal good only together with that of a certain limited group they identify with as necessary allies as the motivation for their existence at the expense of any others it maybe necessary to destroy or exploit for the advancement of one’s personal good without any concern for any kind of common good in the belief that either such a common good doesn’t exist (as Margaret Thatcher loved to state) or that it will care for itself all the better that way.

In this way the greatest common good cannot but result from the unleashing of as many combined egoisms as possible as the Philosophers of 18th Enlightenment Movement loved to state or more recently Milton Friedman.

Some other Jews that have been more conspicuous as cult figures so as to occupy the limelight identify their Jewishness strongly with that attitude, and may go as far as to define the Jewish condition as the the entitlement to use others and the whole world for one’s own personal good.

The debate seems to have happened only between these two categories, the Left and the Right, and more and more to the advantage of the egoistical Right with the years passing in America, against the backdrop of an external world that is just getting more and more fed up with such a superpower caring only for itself and its holy place Israel.

But this is leaving a third term out of the equation: many other people, far more numerous than we think, vie for the destruction of others and the pursuit of the degradation of their surrounding world as the one sole proof of their worth in their own eyes, of having any worth as human beings, of their very being alive.

They will pursue the defeat of others even at the expense of their own victory; they will kill and make suffer even if it might mean more misery or sure death for themselves, confident as they are that such an attitude guarantees the best survival rate by the very sexual pleasure of crushing as much other beings “for the hell of it”, and makes one capable of developing occult powers stronger than the physical law themselves.

They pursue no common good since they believe the Universe is perfect as it is as the battleground of the war of every being against all other beings for the absolute power of life and death over all other beings, a living being being nothing else than a spark of will to destroy other beings to put forth its own genes.

Such people believe that the greater good, or better said God’s work creating new forms of life through the agency of warring genes, will result from the synthesis of all malevolences of everyone against everyone and especially against the deserters of the grand game of life, the prideful and deluded socialists that hope for another better universe and the lazy and lustful libertarians that think the universe to be a hotel they are entitled to.

This attitude is prevalent in many cultures.

It is prevalent as a rule among Blacks, who seem to be biologically programmed to behave that way or at least to be governed by such an elite of Butt Naked and Idi Amins to the point they will respect none other.

It is also prevalent in India especially within the framework of the Shaivite religion that is very coincidental in its formulation with the theses of sociobiology and see in God none other principle than of ruthlessness of everyone against his neighbor as the sole guarantee the cosmic order will work.

But the primitive Jewish religion (not the Talmud, which many consider decadent as it is too heavily influenced by Greek philosophy and Roman law and Boy Scout style do-gooder attitudes more generally tempered by just a little dosage of egoism and tribal indifference for the outsiders) had and still has the best, simplest and most mathematical formulation ever, which is to be found among Jewish vitalists within the fold of psychoanalysis and sexual liberation based on the unleashing of instincts.


Filed under Conservatism, Culture, Economics, Judaism, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Philosophy, Political Science, Religion, Socialism, The Jewish Question

Know Your Enemies! The Poor Walk among Us!

Remember that conservatives area all for incentives, which is why we all need to be conservatives. And never mind that the rich and the poor are equals. So say conservatives. Or do they?

Remember that conservatives are all for incentives, which is why we all need to be conservatives. And never mind that the rich and the poor are equals. So say conservatives. Or do they?

Recall that conservatives say that contracts entered into by the folks on the right and the folks on the left are “contracts between equals.” Hey, they’re fair contracts! Everyone signed on the dotted line, so everything’s legal and it’s all good. If you think this is preposterous as Hell, please join me.

Also keep in mind that as a Moronican, those humans on the left are the “good people” and those humans on the left are “bad people.” As proven by moral philosophy of course! So your contempt is all science-based, and now you can sleep well at night. It’s always proper to assume that our hatreds and loves are based on science (meaning it is a scientific fact that they are either good or evil). We need to scientifically prove that those we hate are bad and those we love are good, otherwise we can’t sleep.

Americanisms are many and varied. They are required if you want to reside here. Otherwise you are an America-hater. Along with this preposterous idea called “the most pitiful poor of all are my deadliest enemies” we have to follow along with the Jews and their amoral Talmud and agree “anything for a buck” and “all’s fair in love, war and business.”

Once you agree to these basic precepts, you are as American as Mom, apple pie, baseball and jello casserole.

God bless America! Thank you for your service!


Filed under American, Conservatism, Culture, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Regional, US Politics, USA

Obama Comes to His Senses on Syria?

From here.

This is very interesting stuff. Read closely.

Here is the face-saving formula used by US Secretary of State Kerry in London today to signal that the United States is finally jettisoning the absurd and Utopian demand that Syrian President Assad’s immediate removal from power be a precondition for negotiating a political settlement for Syria.

Kerry stated: “Our focus remains on destroying ISIL and also on a political settlement with respect to Syria, which we believe cannot be achieved with the long-term presence of Assad,” Mr. Kerry said. “But we’re looking for ways in which to try to find a common ground. Clearly, if you’re going to have a political settlement, which we’ve always argued is the best and only way to resolve Syria, you need to have conversations with people, and you need to find a common ground.” which we’ve always argued is the best and only way to resolve Syria, you need to have conversations with people, and you need to find a common ground.”[i]

If Assad must depart in the long term, this implies that his short-term and medium-term presence is feasible. This opens the space needed for serious diplomacy and negotiations, which Europe is demanding to stop the Syrian civil war, the driving force behind the refugee crisis. It is expected that a number of European nations will soon end economic sanctions against Syria, re-open their shuttered embassies, and begin cooperating with the legal Assad government.

“Privately, I’m told, Obama agreed to — and may have even encouraged — Putin’s increased support for the Assad regime, realizing it’s the only real hope of averting a Sunni-extremist victory. But publicly Obama senses that he can’t endorse this rational move. Thus, Obama, who has become practiced at speaking out of multiple sides of his mouth, joined in bashing Russia – sharing that stage with the usual suspects, including The New York Times’ editorial page.”[ii]

This suggests that Obama’s public posturing in regard to Putin may represent a charade or dog-and-pony show. The same may apply to Obama’s repeated refusals to meet with Putin on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in just over a week’s time. Obama may be using this issue as a way to dupe the warmonger Republican opposition.

Here we have a very interesting situation. Parry is excellent, and his sources are usually CIA, often dissident, anti-neocon CIA, so the referenced source may be US intelligence.

This actually makes a lot of sense. The US, Israel, Europe and the Sunni Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Jordan and Turkey have long been demanding the removal of Assad a precondition for ending the war. This doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Why does Assad have to go? Because so many Syrians love Al Qaeda and ISIS so much, so therefore Assad has no legitimacy? Who is to take his place? The only people who can take his place are Al Qaeda/ISIS types. The FSA types could take his place, but they only represent 10% of the rebels.

Nobody in Syria much likes the opposition. The last poll taken showed that the rebels only had 10% support with another 20% neutral. The jihadis are widely hated by a good 70% of Syrians.

The FSA is not much liked either. They are regarded as pro-US, pro-EU, pro-Israel dupes who will sell out Syria to the US, the West, Israel and the Gulf. In other words, they’re a bunch of traitors who are out to make Syria into one more US Sunni Arab colony like Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain. Most Syrians wouldn’t be too happy to be ruled by a bunch of traitors.

So there’s no one for Assad to negotiate with. Negotiating an end to the war means negotiating with Al Qaeda/ISIS. Good luck with that. The FSA has no legitimacy and no support.

Apparently the US/EU/Israel plan is to replace Assad with some FSA-type Sunni Arab dupe who could be easily controlled by the US/EU/Israel. This is a long-standing plan, hence the long-standing demand that “Assad must go.”

So as you can see, there’s nothing to negotiate. There’s no one to replace Assad. Anyway, in a free and fair election, Assad would win by a mile, so Assad is the choice of the majority of Syrians.

Apparently the US is finally caving on its longstanding demand that Assad must go. Now we say that Assad must go in the longterm. That means apparently that he can stay in the short-term and midterm. This is a very serious cave-in by the US.

The US doesn’t want to defeat ISIS in Syria at all at the moment. Perhaps we want to defeat them in Iraq, but sometimes I even wonder about that. Sure, we bomb them here and there, but it doesn’t amount to much.

I do think that the US might like to defeat ISIS in the longterm, but surely not now. For now, ISIS is very useful to put pressure on Assad. Probable US goals were:

  1. Take out Assad.
  2. Put in government of pro-US, pro-Israel Sunni Arab dupes.
  3. Possibly try to defeat ISIS.

Notice there’s nothing in that list about defeating Al Qaeda and their minions who along with ISIS make up 90% of the Syrian rebels. I have no idea what the US, Israel and the EU want to do with Syrian Al Qaeda. We have been arming and funding them for a long time now. So what happens if we get rid of Assad and put in our dupes? Then what becomes of America’s Al Qaeda buddies? Who knows?

But the US has a longstanding habit of using various forces, arming and funding them and then turning around, selling them out and arming and funding their enemies to wage all-out war on them. We’ve been doing this crap forever. Just ask the Kurds. This bullshit is called “realpolitik.” Ask Henry Kissinger how that’s supposed to work.

Anyway, it looks there is a complete collapse in the US strategy of keeping ISIS alive enough to threaten Assad, arming and funding Al Qaeda and pals, and demanding Assad’s ouster. It looks like the game-changer was Russia entering the Syrian conflict in a huge way.

And apparently Obama has secretly given the go-ahead for Putin to go into Syria on the basis that US policy has collapsed, and Obama realizes that the best policy is to support Assad against the forces of medievalist terrorism.

However, Obama cannot come out and say this. The Republican Party is still full-throated committed to support for Al Qaeda (and even possibly ISIS) and overthrowing Assad with apparently no plan at all to deal with the Holocaust that would follow. The US “free press” is of course 100% committed to the “support Al Qaeda, overthrow Assad” project. Both of these groups just happen to coincidentally be mirroring their Israeli masters who cooked up the “support Al Qaeda, overthrow Assad” project in the first place.

So Obama can’t come out and say he is supporting Russia’s efforts to defeat terrorism and support Assad in Syria because the neocons in Neocon Central (the Republican Party) and the neocon-controlled press will massacre him.

So Obama cleverly gives Putin the go-ahead to go into Syria and do his stuff, while publicly he blasts away at Putin with the usual anti-Russian bluster that the neocons of him. As usual, observed reality as reported in the controlled press is not at all what is really happening behind the scenes. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain…


Filed under Political Science, Middle East, Race/Ethnicity, Geopolitics, Africa, Regional, Europe, Terrorism, War, Russia, Religion, Islam, USA, Radical Islam, Arabs, Politics, US Politics, Saudi Arabia, North Africa, Egypt, Morocco, Israel, Republicans, Conservatism, Neoconservatism, Syria, Jordan, Tunisia, Algeria, Sunnism, Democrats, Near Easterners, Kurds, Obama, Government, Eurasia

All of America Is Supporting Al Qaeda in Syria

Let’s start with the Jew York Times.


They’ve been supporting Syrian Al Qaeda from Day One. And why wouldn’t the dual loyalists who run the Times do just that?

The Jews* are supporting Syrian Al Qaeda.

The entire US mass media is supporting Syrian Al Qaeda.

The Republican Party is very strongly supporting Syrian Al Qaeda.

The Democratic Party is also supporting Syrian Al Qaeda, perhaps not as strongly as the Republicans, but still very much so.

The CIA is supporting Syrian Al Qaeda. 90% of the money and weapons that the CIA gives to the “Syrian rebels” ends up with Syrian Al Qaeda or groups who fight under their command.

The Pentagon is apparently supporting Syrian Al Qaeda.

It looks like all of American society is supporting Al Qaeda in Syria, right? Are the American people really ok with this? Are they really down with this?

Israel is supporting Syrian Al Qaeda.

US allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE are all supporting Syrian Al Qaeda to the hilt with massive infusions of weapons and cash.

In case you were wondering, US support for Syrian Al Qaeda is a longstanding neocon project.

The neocons have recently become ascendant and have now taken over the Obama Administration where they were sidelined previously.

The entire Republican Party has always been Neocon Central, and most of the US media appears to be run by the neocons.

There are strong neocon factions in the Pentagon but whether they control the Pentagon right now is uncertain, as there are also anti-neocon groups there.

The US SOCOM or Special Operations Command, to their eternal credit, has taken a pretty strong anti-neocon line lately. That is because SOCOM is mostly about fighting Al Qaeda and related groups, and the neocons partner with Al Qaeda more than they fight them. In fact, at the moment some Al Qaeda factions could almost be said to be in part neocon projects themselves.

SOCOM is probably the only entity in the entire US state that is taking a strong uncompromising anti-Al Qaeda and anti-ISIS line. That is more pitiful than anything else.

The CIA has been taken over by neocons lately, but there are definitely some anti-neocon factions in the Agency, though they appear to be a minority.

The neocons are the enemies of the America, and to a large degree, the neocons are the enemies of the world.

*”The Jews” means Israel. To me, the US Jews are synonymous with Israel. Israel? US Jews? Same thing. Someone show me how these are different entities. To the extent that they support Israel, the US Jews are Israel. When the US Jews stop their sleazy, fanatical support for Israel, I will quit marrying the two.


Filed under Political Science, Middle East, The Jewish Question, Military Doctrine, Geopolitics, Regional, Europe, Religion, Islam, USA, Radical Islam, Politics, US Politics, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Republicans, Conservatism, Neoconservatism, Turkey, Syria, Democrats, Obama, Government, Journalism

Vile and Repulsive: America Supports Sickening Illegal Invasion of Yemen


Absolutely sickening.

Yes many Arab countries have joined in on this invasion of a sovereign country. This invasion is not about anything so much as “Kill the Shia.” That’s all it is. All of the invaders are Sunnis. They are invading because a nominally Shia group called the Houthis overthrew the extremely unpopular Hadi government in Yemen.

70-80% of the Yemeni Army went over to the Houthis because they support a former President named Saleh. The Houthis are barely even Shia. They are almost exactly like Yemeni Sunnis theologically, except they may differ on only one or two practices. This is a “Shia” group that 85% Sunni in its practice. Furthermore, Hadi, the President who was deposed, is a Shia himself and not only that but he is also a Houthi! The former President Saleh is also a Shia. So as you can see, the Yemeni Shia, who are hardly even Shia anyway, have been running the show here for a long time.

Actually the Houthi have been the main group running Yemen since the Middle Ages. A middle aged Sunni man who runs the local market supports them, saying, “They are the only people who know how to run the country.” Sadly his sons are infected with lunatic sectarianism and hate the Houthi as “Iranian proxies.”

Really the Houthi have little to do with Iran. Yes, they support Iran and vice versa, but there is no good evidence that Iran has given them much more than moral support.

What is going on here is that Saudi Arabia, the most evil country in the region other than its close ally Israel, is angry because the Houthi Shia Hadi who supported Saudi Arabia was overthrown by the Houthi rebels who are not real keen on Saudi Arabia.

Bottom line is Yemen has been a Saudi colony forever. Yemen has never been allowed to pursue any policy at all that was not pre-approved by the Saudis. For all intents and purposes, it’s not even an independent country and is instead a colony of Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis and other Sunni states have repeatedly intervened in Yemen. The last time Egypt intervened, they got their asses handed to them in a very bad way, losing 50,000 men. I do not think these invaders will have things so easily. They have already destroyed most of the country with bombs. Bombs repeatedly fall on markets and civilian vehicles driving along highways.

The Houthis will not go down easily.

This war is also about Saudi, Qatari, UAE, and Bahraini support for their buddies called Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (Yemeni Al Qaeda). This is the remains of the original Al Qaeda from Saudi Arabia that relocated to Yemen after the crackdown in Saudi Arabia.

Yemeni Al Qaeda has been a Saudi and larger Gulf project from Day One. To the north in Syria, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are throwing their weight behind another Al Qaeda faction called Al Nusra. 90% of the Syrian rebels are either Al Qaeda or fighting under the Al Qaeda banner in some way or another. Only 10% of the rebels are the Free Syrian Army, and I believe that they coordinate with Al Qaeda too sometimes. There really are no moderate Syrian rebels. It’s a great big fat stupid lie that Americans are dumb to figure out is a lie.

So, in Syria: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and Qatar are supporting Al Qaeda massively with weapons and cash.

In Yemen: Saudi Arabia is certainly supporting Al Qaeda as a major project. And by attacking Al Qaeda’s worst enemy, the Houthis, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Egypt, Sudan, and Qatar are supporting Al Qaeda to the maximum by attacking their worst enemy.

Indeed, Hadi, who is supported by the Sunni coalition, generally refused to attack Yemeni Al Qaeda and instead forged some sort of a truce with them. Yemeni Al Qaeda made serious gains under the Hadi government. And since the invasion, Yemeni Al Qaeda has continued to make major gains.

Note that the Sunni coalition has not dropped one single bomb on Yemeni Al Qaeda, and instead has waged all; out war on Al Qaeda’s worst enemy!

All of this sheer lunacy is wrapped up in ridiculous Iran-paranoia and Shia-paranoia. The Sunnis have always ruled the Arab world with an iron fist, and the Shia have been downtrodden from Day One. Sunnis have staged repeated mass slaughters bordering on genocides of the Shia since the very earliest days of the Sunni-Shia split. In the Arab World, the Sunnis are the crackers, and the Shia are the niggers. Sunnis saying “the Shia are out to get us” are like Hitler saying “the Jews are trying to genoide us!” or the crackers saying, “The niggers are trying to kill us all!”

It’s insane nonsense. The typical case of the bully screaming that the victim is trying to massacre him as he beats the victim to a pulp. If you understand human psychology, this is precisely how bullies operate. The bully is always “defending himself” against the “aggression” of the victim. In geopolitical terms, the victim is usually just getting ready to genocide the bully : “They’re going to kill us all!” Most genocides actually start out just like this. Go research some genocides and get back to me. It always goes like this.

So it goes with the madness of the Sunni Arab Idiocracy and their Shia and Iran paranoia. Talk to most any Sunni Arab, and you will hear the most ridiculous idiocy: how Iran is getting ready to conquer the Arab world, how Iran has to be stopped before they conquer us all, about how Iran is going to conquer the Arab world and force all the Sunnis to convert to Shiism, on and on. As insane as this psychotic babble is, a large majority of Sunni Arabs actually believe this nonsense.

Bottom line is that Iran hasn’t invaded another country in hundreds of years, and I can assure you that Iran does not want to conquer one inch of Sunni Arab soil. The last thing Iran needs is a bunch of rabidly enraged Sunni Arabs living under its rule. I am sure that Iran would prefer to rule over as few Sunni Arabs as possible. 2% of Iran is already Sunni Arab and they are nothing but a massive pain in the ass. Iran has absolutely no territorial ambitions on any land in the Arab World. They don’t claim one inch of Arab soil, and there have been never been Iranian plans or aims to conquer Arab land revealed.

In other words, Iran paranoia is a bunch of insane bullshit. And that’s what’s driving this whole ridiculous invasion.

In a fight where there’s good guys and bad guys, generally speaking the US can be counted on to support the bad guys, and of course that is what we are doing here. We are providing a lot of support to the Sunni invading states, apparently because the US is going to support whatever insane thing Saudi Arabia decides to do. We have also bought into idiotic line of the Israelis and Sunni Arabs that “Iran is the real enemy.”

So the US is helping the Sunnis pound Al Qaeda’s worst enemy in Yemen. The US is helping the massive expansion of Yemeni Al Qaeda by refusing to lay one finger on them and by pounding their enemies.

None of this makes any real sense from a geopolitical point of view except that US Mideast foreign policy is Israeli foreign policy. In the Middle East, we simply do whatever our Israeli masters tell us to do. And the Israelis’ worst enemy is Iran. If that means helping ISIS and Al Qaeda fight “Iran” in Syria, then Israel will do just that, and indeed, Israel is giving serious support to Syrian Al Qaeda, including providing air support for their battles by bombing the Syrian Army and taking wounded Al Qaeda fighters to Israel for treatment.


Israel is supporting Al Qaeda. Is that nuts or what?

So, the US attacks Al Qaeda in a few places like Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

On the other hand, the US gives all out support to Al Qaeda in Syria and Yemen.

The lunatic hand of the US neocons is behind all of this idiocy, and the American people could care less.

“Hey did you hear? America supports Al Qaeda!

Yawn. “What’s on TV?”


Filed under Political Science, Middle East, Race/Ethnicity, Geopolitics, Africa, Regional, War, Religion, Islam, USA, Radical Islam, Arabs, Saudi Arabia, North Africa, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Conservatism, Neoconservatism, Syria, Yemen, Sunnism, Shiism

Republican Propaganda Analyzed: “After 1995, Welfare Rolls Crashed, and Disability Payments Soared”

From here.

Figures. Whenever you hear these horrific stories from conservatives that make you want to abandon liberalism altogether, it’s almost always some sort of a lie. That’s why I banned a lot of rightwing commenters on here. For one thing, conservatives are bizarre. I can’t imagine a liberal going to a conservative forum just to fight the wingnuts. Most of think think that would be like taking a swim in a sewer, and that’s pretty much what it would in fact be.

However, conservatives are just weird. They love to fight, and they love to fight their liberal enemies. Now why this is I am not sure, but I can guess. I get why they like to fight. Authoritarian types love conflict and hate peace. But why do they fight us? Well, they think they are Good and we are Evil. They actually believe that liberalism is pure 100% Evil. So when they fight us, they are just fighting Evil.

Conservatives also love to proselytize, while most liberals don’t bother as we consider most conservatives too hopeless to convert, and we don’t like fighting anyway. I get the impression that conservatives simply cannot fathom how any sane human being could ever believe in liberalism. Many conservatives have told me that conservatism is rational, logical, and reasonable: it’s just common sense. Many others say that conservative positions are actually empirically proven to be correct.

Never mind that hardly any politics can ever be empirically proven to be correct – how will you do it? Test it out in a lab under controlled double blind conditions and then run multivariate analysis on it?

Anyway, they think conservatism is commonsensical scientifically provable fact, like saying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. To conservatives, liberals are like folks who are argue that black is white and 2+2 = 5. They simply cannot fathom how any sane person, given the proper facts, would not be a conservative. In other words, we baffle them.

Really there is no such thing as empirical politics.

Rightwinger: After the 1995 changes to welfare (and many of those changes were good, though not all), the number of people on welfare dropped–and the number of people receiving disability payments went up, up, up.

Leftwinger: Welfare rolls plunged, and poverty soared. They plunged because welfare was no longer an entitlement. Since it was no longer an entitlement, one might or might not be able to get any help, regardless of how great that person’s need, and counties put limits on caseloads. If, say, the their caseload limit was 100, and you were the 101th person to apply, you could not get aid. Strict time limits were imposed, regardless of circumstances. Desperately poor people are, indeed, simply dumped off on the streets. Caseloads fell because cases were closed and new cases were denied.

Poverty grew. What we always called welfare is gone. There is no general assistance or AFDC. TANF is a marginally subsidized, time limited work program (only for those with minor children).

Now, on disability: This is fairly complex (much info and links at When one applies for disability, it takes a minimum of a year, as long as 3 years, between the day you submit your application and the day your case is decided. Before you can even submit your application, you must obtain your medical records dating back many years, and official medical documentation confirming not simply that you have a disability (having a disability in itself does not make you eligible for disability aid), but that the disability is so severe that gainful employment impossible.

Only a doctor (not the SSA) can make that decision. All of this said: Many on welfare were the seriously ill and disabled who were not able to manage the (extremely complex, difficult) disability application process. They survived on GA welfare. (The bottom line was that it was simply cheaper to keep them on GA.) When welfare was ended, county agencies had to scramble to find a way to keep the truly disabled/seriously ill from being dumped out on the streets.

This resulted in a temporary surge of of cases being transferred from welfare offices to the SSA. (Nope. No fraud was involved — just saving lives.) One must have a medical (psychiatric) diagnosis of suffering from legitimate mental illness that is so severe as to make it impossible to maintain gainful employment.


Filed under Political Science, Law, Health, Left, Illness, Politics, US Politics, Labor, Republicans, Conservatism, Liberalism, Government, Local

The Right’s “Solutions” to the Single Motherhood Problem

Tulio writes:

“The Right goes on and on how terrible single Moms are for society, but what sort of proposals does the Right offer to deal with the issues of single motherhood?”

They want to cut welfare and make divorce more difficult so that women think twice about raising a kid alone. Any woman that has a kid can collect money and divorce goes entirely in the woman’s favor.

Cut welfare? What is welfare? Define welfare. You mean AFDC or what is now known as TANF? It is only maybe $300/month. You can’t live off of it.

Latin America has zero welfare, and they have a very serious single mother problem. AFDC was eliminated and turned into TANF in 1996 under Clinton. Single motherhood rates have not dropped since then, and in fact, they appear to be rising. Cutting welfare did not reduce single motherhood. It seemed to increase it or more likely it had no effect on it at all, since no woman has a kid to get a welfare check.

The truth is that single motherhood is a sociological phenomenon. People, especially conservatives, are pretty stupid, and conservatives are some of the stupidest humans of all. Why? Conservatives apparently don’t even believe in Society. There is no Society. Apparently there is no such thing as Culture either. Instead of Society and Culture, the only thing that is real is Politics. Everything that happens occurs due to Politics. Bull.

See, conservatives just cannot wrap their minds around this idea that single motherhood is a phenomenon that is caused by Culture and Society – that is, that it is a purely sociological phenomenon like crime and so many other things. According to conservatives, Society and Culture has nothing to do with rising single motherhood, instead it’s all down to Politics! Politics made divorce easier and this created a divorce epidemic. Mind you the divorce epidemic was not caused by Society or Culture or anything like that. Instead it caused by some people who changed a few laws!

Similarly, conservatives cannot wrap their heads around this idea that maybe single motherhood is a sociological phenomenon with roots in Society and Culture that has fuck all to do with Politics. Nope, according to conservatives, Society and Culture have nothing to do with rising single motherhood rates. Well, what’s causing it then? Single motherhood rates are skyrocketing for one reason and one reason only: because of welfare! They’re all having those babies to get the free welfare money! No other reason.

Cut welfare? No. I do not support cutting one penny out of any welfare or social spending programs. These programs need to be increased, not decreased.

Get rid of no-fault divorce? No. No no no no no no no no no, a thousand times no.

Ok someone just shot two conservative positions at him and I blew down both of them. How can I be a conservative when I oppose 95% of the conservative project?


Filed under Political Science, Law, Sociology, Politics, US Politics, Culture, Conservatism, Social Problems, Government

Someone Want to Tell Me One Conservative Position I Should Take on Anything Whatsoever?

Tad writes:

Man, socialist?

I can’t believe that for a second.

Do you realize that 95% of soft-Leftists reading this blog would assume that you are rightwing or far rightwing?

In the new American socialist utopia – you can’t talk about race, DNA etc. The ‘truth’ there whatever it may be may contradict the social view of equality, and it can’t be spoken of. There are no differences between us, by definition. If you were to bring any of this stuff up at a Leftist’s dinner table, you’d be immediately banned from the group.

You realize Janet Napolitano, former Head of Homeland Security is now Dean at Cali UC system has banned the phrases: “The job should go to the best candidate” and “America is a place where anyone can get ahead” – because of the perceived slights against visible minorities who ostensibly have had the same choice? This is the new Orwellian socialism. To even declare that “the job should go the best candidate” will get you fired. Now at UC Cali, coming to Corporate America very soon.

And the PUA stuff? Ok – I get it – it’s extremely interesting from an intellectual point of view, isn’t it – but 99% of popular leftists would view this stuff as total misogynist creep show – i.e. treating women like objects to be acquired? PUA is essentially ‘rightwing’ to any leftwing female – it fully embodies the resentment they have towards men. It’s the most anti-feminist thing you can do!

Also – I do agree that PUA is very interesting because it’s ‘what works’ (i.e. what women like instead of what they say they like) and it’s frankly a little hypocritical that they say they don’t like it (your bits about womanizers alludes to this). It’s 100% frat-boy creep show to most girls, and kryptonite to feminists, who are all leftwing.

Anyhow – it’s funny that you think that you’re a socialist, because 90% of socialists would not agree with you, given your writing. Maybe you are in the academic/Frankfurt school or something along those lines, but practically/popularly – no way man. The popular Leftist narrative can’t deal with many of the simple truths you point at daily because it antagonizes their ideological narrative.

FYI – I was Googling about the new ‘human species’ discovered in S. America a few days ago, and links to your site popped up among a pile of Stormfront links. Yes: Stormfront. That’s how ‘leftwing’ your stuff is? :)

Anyhow – this is a really great blog, a lot of truth-bombs here, the world needs this, please keep it up.

I keep hearing this endlessly. I am a socialist mostly on economics. And frankly, when I go down the line of positions where it lists Democrats on one side and Republicans on another, I line up with Democrats almost 90% of the time.

If I am a rightwinger, how come I never vote Republican? If I am a rightwinger, how come I never support any rightwing political project anywhere – and I have seen a lot of them. Republican Party conservatism is not the only kind out there. There are all sort of other varieties of rightwing projects – I have been exposed to many of them.

Most conservatives are evangelistic and I have some commenters to this site who keep trying to convert me to conservatism, giving me papers and books to read. They show me all sorts of weird conservative hybrid stuff, syncretic stuff, Third Positionist stuff, and I despise all of it. It’s all horrible because…well, because it’s conservatism, and conservatism frankly sucks.

One thing I notice about all of these hybrids is that they mostly smell sort of fascistic in some way or another. Another thing I notice over and over is that conservatism is utterly hostile to democracy and popular role. All of these hybrid forms of rightwing politics promote aristocratic rule in one way or another. And really that is what conservatism boils down to. Conservatism is rule by the aristocracy. Always has been, is now, always will be. Liberalism is rule by democracy, or the popular rabble if you will.

Another thing I notice is that all of these rightwing hybrids promote some sort of worship or hierarchy. Yes, humans practice hierarchy. We have to. But that is more to be lamented than anything else. Liberals are dubious about hierarchy and recognize that while some of it is inevitable, it’s hardly an altar to be worshiped at.

I also notice some sort of fetishization of violence often for its own sake. I assume that is where the fascist angle comes in. Often these rightwingers explicitly disavow peace as even a goal to be fought for and believe that mankind much wage wars apparently as part of the human project.

Yes conservatives hate feminism, but what do they replace it with. The rightwing forms I have all seen are explicitly misogynistic, state openly that women are inferior to men and often with to roll back many of women’s hard fought rights. There are more rightwingers who want to revoke women’s right to vote that you would ever believe out there. Sure, feminism blows, but this reactionary nuttiness is some sort of an alternative? How about none of the above?

Conservatives typically promote traditional values and wish to go back to traditional marriage. There are good reasons for this and indeed, society would probably be better off if we did this. But what’s the likelihood that this is going to happen?

The cat’s out of the bag here. Women have been unleashed. They’re not going back to the cages and prisons we kept them in for 2,000 years. Might be nice if they did, but they aren’t going to do it. They’re roaming free, and it’s causing all sorts of problems, yes, but what are you going to do about it? Women seem to like to roam around free like this, and they don’t want to go back to the old ways. So we are stuck with this modernist feminist world in that sense. Life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Deal with it. Adjust to it.

Yes the growth in single Moms and one parent families is causing all sorts of problems, but what are you going to do about it? What possible political proposal could you put forth that would ameliorate the single motherhood problem. The Right goes on and on how terrible single Moms are for society, but what sort of proposals does the Right offer to deal with the issues of single motherhood? Do they offer anything? What are they going to do about single Moms? Line them up and shoot them? Force them to marry men? Once again, the Right bitches but offers nothing in the way of concrete proposal.

Conservative solutions to the traditional morality issue make no sense.

Get rid of no-fault divorce? No.

Get rid of abortion on demand? No.

Prioritize parents rights over schools and social workers? No.

Once again, conservatives off no workable solutions. Abortion isn’t going to become illegal again. The old divorce laws are not coming back. Parents’ will is not going to trump that of society or the schools. All of these cats are out of the bag and the changes look permanent because no one really wants rollback. Is there a downside to all of this modernism? Sure there is. But people seem to like it anyway, they want to keep these changes in place and they don’t want to go back to the old days.

Sure, the Left is insane about race as it is about most social issues, but what does the Right offer about race? The more radical sections of the Right offer only segregation and a return to legal discrimination. Allow counties, cities and towns to determine their racial makeup. That means maybe a Black couple could not move to Podunkville if Podunkville decided that they had already fulfilled their share of Blacks. I should support this?

Roll back the Civil Rights Acts, the Housing Rights Acts and the Voting Rights Acts. Overturn Roe v. Wade. I am supposed to support this?

Other than the conservative position on illegal immigration, which I support, can someone please point to one single conservative position, project or proposal anywhere in the US that I ought to support? Come on. Throw them at me. I am probably going to oppose every single one of them. Give me your best shot.


Filed under Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Law, Economics, Fascism, Sociology, Left, Immigration, Gender Studies, Politics, US Politics, Illegal, Civil Rights, Feminism, Man World, Republicans, Conservatism, Liberalism, Democrats, Socialism, Social Problems

Change in Comments Rules Regarding the Case of Donald Trump

This is a socialist website and generally we do not allow too many rightwingers on here. They can post, but they are closely monitored and often they are on moderation. Most of them leave sooner or later or get banned.

Part of the Comments Rules is that you cannot support the Republican Party over the Democratic Party. You cannot attack the Democratic Party from the right. You cannot praise the Libertarian or Republican vis a vis the Democrats in a partisan fashion.

I am going to moderate these rules somewhat and allow my commenters to support Donald Trump. I do not think much of Trump. He is just another rightwinger to me.  I went over and looked at his policies and I do not like them. Standard rightwing claptrap down the line. However, I do support him on trade, immigration, and taxes. He’s pretty much running as a rightwing populist. Rightwing populism is troublesome given its history and typical trajectory, but I am finding it hard to see how a rightwing populist could be worse than what we have now. Sometimes I pick up the paper and read some of Trump’s positions and think, “My God! Trump’s running as a socialist!” And in a way, he is. Trump and Sanders are a lot more alike than either one wants to admit.

I am not happy at all about the prospect of a Trump Presidency, but I think I might survive. At any rate, even though I do not want him to win, he is sufficiently less awful than almost all other Republicans that I think it is a reasonable though lamentable choice to support him.

So go ahead and support Trump, but try to do so in a nonpartisan fashion please. Don’t make it like Republicans = good, Democrats = evil. It’s pretty sad that Trump is a reasonable choice for a lot of working class people, but that shows you just how sick and stupid our politics have become.

Bottom line is that support for Trump is the exception to the Comments Rules.


Filed under Political Science, Meta, Politics, US Politics, Republicans, Conservatism, Democrats

Something Wicked This Way Comes

From here.

Schindler is on to something here, something which few have acknowledged. The current trends in America, Wall Street getting richer, everyone else getting poorer, politicians of both parties feeding brazenly at Wall Street’s trough, the party of the Left in full blown attack gear not on inequality, which it has done nothing to address, but picking at and rubbing raw the scabs of identity politics — this can’t keep going on indefinitely without something really bad happening.

Indeed, we can’t go on like this indefinitely without something really bad happening: like, for instance, Donald Trump.

All I have to say about Mr. Trump’s rising candidacy is that Americans deserve him. You morons brought this nightmare on yourselves. Both parties created this Frankenstein. They deliberately created the conditions amidst which a monster like Trump could not only be born but was only certain to thrive.

Infected with blind optimism, the ruling class thought they could push an insane combination of a freakazoid Cultural Left Social Project combined however bizarrely with a vicious Neoliberal Economic Project forever. A project like this is bound to please no one. The Right is sure to hate the Cultural Left Circus Act. The Left or what’s left of it anyway is sure to hate the vicious harvests of the pro-oligrach, any-everyone else, TINA, Neoliberal Human Reaper Economic Project.

An economy for the 1% and fuck everyone else!

A culture for the Freaks, and fuck all the normals!

What a plan! What could possibly go wrong?

And then string all this incongruity together via some Rube Goldberg Machine and let the Media Fog Machine mist it all over until no one can even see it anymore, and it’s just normative Zeitgeist that no one even questions, the sun rising over that hill to the east.

This shitheads want to think that there is no such thing as society when it comes to economics, but there’s an all-encompassing, ever expanding Freak Culture that hates normal people when it comes to sociology. There is no society, except there’s society. There is no culture, except there’s culture. It’s all so clear! How could anyone possibly think it’s a scam?

I have no idea why anyone thought this marriage from Hell was going to work, as it was a circular firing squad from Day One. Your average person may be a fool, but he isn’t stupid. Most humans are not permanent marks, and they’re more streetwise than you think. The Elites are arrogant and think that as long as they control the media and the political parties, they can be con and fleece us forever. The scam goes on forever.

Surely in this case the wolves will always be wolves, but there’s no law that says the sheep won’t catch on. The Elite’s problem is that the masses are just not dumb enough. If we were just a bit stupider, they could con and scam us forever and always leave us holding the bag.

The problem for our sociopathic elites is that victims tend to wise up after a while and turn on their abusers.

Hence I present you with Donald Trump, a monster created by the US Elite and both the political parties.

I really have no sympathy for people who deliberately bring catastrophe on themselves via their own hubris and pigheadedness. I am prepared to say that we Americans richly deserve every bad thing that is going to happen to us in the near future, and that includes a possible President Trump.

You can’t say we didn’t ask for it. Reap what you sow, dammit. We sowed it, and we reaped the inevitable result, so we might as well lie back and enjoy it. As long as there’s TINA, right?


Filed under American, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Democrats, Economics, Government, Left, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Scum, US Politics, USA