Category Archives: Republicans

Robert Stark interviews Luke Ford about Ann Coulter & the Jews

Robert Stark interviews my favorite Jew, Luke Ford. Topic is mainly Ann Coulter and her comments about Jews.

Superjews have a real problem when guys like me say that I love Jews like Luke Ford. The Superjew responds, “Yeah! You like some Jews! You like Jews who hate Jews! You’re still an antisemite!” They’ve actually said this to me. Lots of them. I am telling you, you just can’t win with these people.

As far as the Jews and I, I just pretty much want them to lay off, shut up and knock it off. And if they can’t go that, just go away and leave me the Hell alone. Other than that, I have no ill will or ill wishes towards most of them whatsoever, and I wish most of them good health and good luck in whatever they wish to pursue in life.

Sure, a lot of Jews deserve to be hated (as do countless non-Jews), but I don’t really have the energy for that anymore. I am more at the “please just go away and leave me alone” phase in my life. I guess this is what getting old is like. Sigh.

Anyway, I really think the yelling “antisemite!” think is a great big Jewish con. I really do think that the Jews want as many people as possible to hate them (hopefully not too much or too lethally). So when you hate Jews, you give these idiotic people exactly what they want. You go antisemite, and the Jew claps his hands and jumps up and down, “Yipee! Another antisemite! It’s a mitvah!” I wish I liked these people enough to give them that gift, but I really don’t. If you find these people incredibly annoying as so many do, you should maybe think before you start hating them. Antisemitism is just another Jewish trap. They want you to be antisemitic. Get it? You really want to fall for another one of their scams?


Topics include:
Ann Coulter & the Jews
Ann Coulter’s controversial tweet about Jews after the Republican Debate
How Ann Coulter’s Faux Pas Calls Attention to Jewish Influence
The Jewish Reaction to Ann Coulter’s Tweet
The Jewish Drive To Marginalize Ann Coulter
Philip Weiss: Coulter’s point Is That Republicans Pander on Israel to Win Donors, Not Voters
Ann Coulter’s book Adios, America which has a chapter praising Israel for it’s immigration policies
Whether Ann Coulter will survive this incident, and if she does, it will further expand the Overton Window
Roosh Triggers ADL Cyber Police Investigation for stating Israel’s border walls work
How Jewish organizations in the diaspora oppose nationalism for non-Jews
Donald Trump & the Jews
How Donald Trump symbolizes a resurgence of nationalism and populism
How like Coulter, Trump is also pro-Israel but is opposed by Jewish activists for fear of a revival of nationalism
Orthodox Jews for Trump
Jewish Organizations Supporting Muslim Migrants into the West
Luke Ford’s interview with Roger Devlin about his book “Sexual Utopia in Power”
How Luke often has “Beta male” characteristics in relationships
How when Luke showed his vulnerable side, that was often seen as a sign of weakness
The affects of promiscuity on women
How the more people lack bonds, the more likely they are to engage in reckless behavior
When Beta Males Go on a Shooting Spree and how Luke views the key issue as a lack of social bonds
How narcissists seek attention as a substitute for attachment
JSwipe Vs Tinder
How when Luke showed his vulnerable side that was often seen as a sign of weakness
The affects of promiscuity on women
How the more people lack bonds the more likely they are to engage in reckless behavior
When Beta Males Go On A Shooting Spree and how Luke views the key issue as a lack of social bonds
How Narcissist seek attention as a substitute for attachment
JSwipe vs Tinder


Filed under Anti-Semitism, Europe, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Islam, Israel, Jews, Man World, Middle East, Narcissism, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Republicans, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, The Jewish Question, US Politics, USA

Ann Coulter Blasted As an Antisemite for Telling the Truth about Jews

True hardcore antisemites definitely exist, that’s for sure. But Ann Coulter is not one of them. She is the opposite, a Judeophile. But even Judeophiles are often exasperated by the way Jews endlessly and hyperaggressively push the envelope.

The latest fake outrage concerns one of the biggest Judeophiles on Earth, Ann Coulter. But according to the Jews, even their best friends are secret haters. I guess everybody hates the Jews then! Fine! Now that we all agree, can we stop talking about it?

Coulter simply remarked in exasperation that Republican candidates seem to spend more time talking about what Israel wants and not what America wants. Well, of course this is exactly what all of the Republican candidates do. America doesn’t even matter anymore to most politicians. They care everything about Israel and nothing about America. Everything for Israel, nothing for America. That’s US politics in a nutshell. They would gladly sell the nation down the tubes forever just to sate their lust for the Jewish state.

Why the entire political spectrum kisses Israeli ass is a difficult question to answer, although there are many theories. One reason perhaps is the nuclear missile the Jews launch at you if you stop kissing their butt.

“Ann Coulter made appalling, anti-Jewish remarks which evoked the classic, anti-Semitic trope about Jewish manipulation of America for the purpose of supporting Israel at America’s expense,” said the ‘self-denying’ Klein.

The problem is that this classic anti-Semitic trope is “classic,” meaning it’s been around forever, exactly because it’s true! This exactly what Jews do everywhere they go. They try to get ahold of the levers of power for the nation in order to promote the tribe or at least avoid harm to it. And in the US, of course American Jews manipulate the political process to support Israel at America’s expense! That’s as obvious as the nose on my face.

If that’s anti-Semitism, then apparently the truth is anti-Semitic. I guess the only way not to be an anti-Semite is to lie. If the truth is anti-Semitic, then I am a proud anti-Semite.

And you should be true. We should all support the truth. If believing in the truth makes us “racist,” we should welcome the charge with open arms.


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

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

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

Hillary Sucks Part 1,495


Hillary has been attacking Sanders on the grounds that he is a “socialist.” And just recently she attacked him by connecting him with the “evil” Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Good God. Is Hillary really a Democrat? She sounds like a Republican. Switch parties already, Hillary!

Hillary is so awful.

On the other hand, Bernie is leading Hitlery in New Hampshire and Iowa. So the way to beat Bernie’s lead is…to attack him from the Right? I always knewK Killary was foolish, but apparently she’s also stupid. What’s the point of attacking Sanders as a Leftist when Sanders is leading her? What’s the strategy?

I do have my worries about Sanders, mostly that he is unelectable. And of course I would vote for Hitlery myself over a Republican because stupid beats evil any day.


Filed under Democrats, Economics, Left, Politics, Republicans, Socialism, US Politics

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

Robert Stark Interviews Bay Area Guy about the Bay Area and the Pitfalls of American Exceptionalism


Robert Stark talks to Bay Area-based blogger  Bay Area Guy of Occident Invicta.

Topics include:

Robert Stark’s recent trip to San Francisco where he met up with Bay Area Guy at Union Square.
The Bay Area as a microcosm of American Society and how it combines both the best and worst of what America has to offer.
How the Bay Area represents American capitalism at its fullest.
How SF Is the second most unequal major city in America.
How despite it’s wealth and gentrification, SF has preserved much of the historic character of the City.
How the Bay Area has done a better job at wilderness conservation than Southern California.
The Racial Dynamics of the Bay Area..
San Francisco and The Bay Area’s Progressive Paradox.
How Diversity Destroys Economic Justice.
How the elites are Social Darwinists who pose as progressive humanitarians.
Andy Nowicki’s article The Patrick Bateman Right.
His thoughts on Donald Trump and why he’s supporting Bernie Sanders for President.
How the political ideal would be to combine the best aspects of Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader.
His article The Pitfalls of American Exceptionalism.
How the Left uses the language of American Exceptionalism to justify open borders and Cultural Leftism.
How America is exceptional at obesity, anti-intellectualism, and income income inequality.
How The U.S. has the world’s highest incarceration rate.
Mark Ames’ Going Postal.

1 Comment

Filed under California, Capitalism, Corrections, Crime, Economics, Environmentalism, Labor, Law enforcement, Left, Libertarianism, Open Borders, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, Traitors, US Politics, USA, West

Paul Krugman and Elizabeth Warren Support Donald Trump on Taxes

Shit’s getting interesting.


Filed under Democrats, Economics, Politics, Republicans, US Politics

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