Category Archives: Republicans

More Election Predictions

Ed writes:

What you are really saying is that Hillary Clinton will defeat Donald Trump at the polls because she is more popular than Trump is. More people want her to become President. That is all you are saying.

But you did not make the argument until challenged in the comments. You hid it behind all this pseudo-sophisticated Electoral College nonsense.

It’s not pseudo-sophisticated, and it’s not nonsense. The Electoral College is all that matters. Everything else is crap. Trump is the most toxic Presidential candidate in recent memory. Over half of Republicans say either they are uncertain he would be a good President or they say he will be a lousy President. Fully 40% of Republicans say Trump will be a lousy President. 40%!

Hillary will win all of the battleground states, well, at least if the election were held today. She will win Florida, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and even North Carolina. Colorado, Virginia, and North Carolina have gotten much more liberal in 20 years. Ohio and Pennsylvania are flat, but they lean ~3-4 points Dem. Florida is flat, but she will win there. A Republican barely won the governor’s race recently despite spending a mountain of money.

Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Hampshire, have all gotten quite a bit more liberal in the last 20 years.

Not one single battleground state is getting more conservative over the last 20 years. Not one!

Hillary will not turn any red states though. At best, she could win Indiana and Arizona.

This is the longterm trend, and it will not be reversed.

Black turnout will be the same as 2012. Women despise Trump. Trump will win no more than 15-20% of Hispanics and maybe less than that. He has to win 66% of the White vote, and he might not even win 60%. His gains with working class Whites will be wiped out because Whites with some college hate him. Hardly any working class Democrats support him. Yes, working class Whites support him, but those people have been backing Republicans for a long time.

At least as of right now, he can’t win. She has 347 electoral votes. Total blowout. The election is over and it hasn’t even started yet.

Nate Silver puts Trump’s chance at winning at 2%. I would say that is optimistic.

Look at who the bookies are betting for. These people are willing to lay down their money to bet who wins. If Hillary wins, you will get a 33% return on your money. If Trump wins, you will get 150% return. The betters are favoring Hillary by a large margin.

4 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Colorado, Democrats, Florida, Government, Hispanics, Liberalism, Michigan, Midwest, Nevada, North Carolina, Northeast, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, South, US Politics, USA, West, Whites, Wisconsin, Women

Why Trump Cannot Win

Two words:  Electoral college.

People who keep insisting that Trump is going to win just don’t get it. Not only can Trump not win, but it is highly likely that no Republican can win the US Presidency in the forseeable future. This is because US elections are decided based on the Electoral College tallies and not the popular vote. And the country, believe it or not, has been getting more and more liberal over the last 20-30 years.

There is now a solid wall of blue states that have voted for a Democratic for President for the last 20+ years. Some states go back further than that and have not voted Republican in thirty years. California is an excellent example. Look at how California has been voting for the President for the last 35 years, and while you are at it, look at who we have been voting for for Governor.

That solid wall of blue has 238 delegates. I do not believe that Trump can crack even one state out of that solid blue. That would almost be like California voting for Trump. Not going to happen.

So Hillary has 238 electoral votes before the election has even happened. She only needs 270 to win. She needs only 32 more electoral votes, and she’s won.

There are 12 swing states. Hillary now leads in nine of the 12 swing states. Nine of the 12! Trump would have to win all of the red stares (which he can probably do) and on top of that, I believe that he has to win all of the swing states. That’s right. All 12 of them. Guess what? That’s not going to happen.

Because the country as a whole is getting so much more liberal and Democratic in recent years and due to the massive Blue Wall that has sprung up in the Electoral College, it is hard to see how the Republican Party can win a Presidential election in the forseeable future. Probably the only future for the Republican Party is to move left with the rest of the country. The Republican Party will probably have to become a much more liberal party than it is now if it wants to win another election. Unfortunately for them, they seem to be moving in the opposite direction.

38 Comments

Filed under California, Democrats, Government, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA, West

Swing State Election Forecast

Swing states include states like Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida.

Nevada and New Mexico are Western states that were former Republican strongholds, but have gone over to Democratic in recent years. Most of this is due to more Hispanics in those states. Hillary will win both states.

Colorado is a bit more red, but it is also getting more Democratic. Colorado was former hard conservative Western state, but it’s changed. This is also due in large part to a growing Hispanic population. This state is very much up in the air, and Trump is leading at the moment. It will be a challenge for Hillary to win here, and Trump may well win Colorado. The percentage of gun nuts in this Wild West state is very high.

Iowa has also been trending Democratic. Reasons are not known. Hillary will probably win, but it may be quite close.

Wisconsin has been trending heavily Democratic for some time now. Hillary will win this state handily. Hillary is not even spending one nickel on ads here now because she knows it is in the bag.

Michigan has also been getting more more Democratic lately, and Hillary will win here easily. Hillary is not buying any ads here either.

Ohio is very much up in the air. This is another state that has been trending Democratic lately. Hillary has been ahead in the polls by 4-5 points though. This state could probably go either way.

Pennsylvania has not voted for a Republican in nearly 30 years. Polls show a close race, but Hillary is not spending one nickel on ads here yet. Hillary’s campaign says their internals show a much better race for Hillary. Apparently Hillary thinks she has it in the bag. Pennsylvania as a whole has been getting more Republican if you go county by county, especially in the east and center of the state. However these rural counties are not heavily populated.

The problem with Pennsylvania for Republicans is Pittsburgh and especially Philadelphia. Most of the state’s population lives in these large urban centers that are heavily minority. Philly in particular has a huge Black population. The Democratic votes in the cities should easily outweigh the rural red counties. Hillary should win Pennsylvania.

New Hampshire was long famous for being a conservative state, but it has been voting Democratic in recent years also. Hillary will easily win this state.

Virginia is very much a swing state. This was long a conservative Republican stronghold, the capital of the Confederacy. However, many Northerners have been moving down there in recent years, changing the state. This is very nearly a blue or Democratic state now. It’s incredible. Hillary will most probably win Virginia, but it will be close.

North Carolina is very much up in the air. This state was a conservative red state for a very long time. However, it is now moving towards the Democratic Party, but it is not all the way there yet. This is because many young hipsters have been moving down there for the good jobs to be had in the region, especially in the Research Triangle, where many high tech firms have moved.

It seems hard to believe that the state of Jesse Helms is now moving Democratic. The state is now flip-flopping back and forth between voting for Democrats and voting for Republicans. The state government is still very conservative. This was where the famous transgender bathroom bill was passed recently. This will be a very close race, and it could easily go either way.

Florida is the ultimate swing state and has been flipping back and forth between Democratic and Republican votes for President for the last 20 years. I have no information how the state was voting before then. If anyone knows, please tell me.

Northern Florida is like the US South and is very conservative. The center of the state is very mixed, and the south is also also a very mixed bag.

Many Jews from the Northeast have been moving down to Southern Florida to retire. These people vote Democrat. The state also has a very large Black population, especially in the northern part of the state. South Florida is very Hispanic but these Hispanics are conservative as they are mostly Cubans. Cubans have long voted Republican, but a lot of the younger ones are voting Democrat. There are also large populations of rightwing Venezuelans and Nicaraguans living here who fled leftwing regimes. However, there are also many Haitians here, and they vote Democrat. There are many Puerto Ricans in the center of the state, especially around Orlando. They vote Democratic.

This state will be incredibly close as it has been since at least 2000. The state government is run by Republicans, and there are major voter suppression efforts underway. Florida is completely up in the air and could go either way.

11 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Colorado, Conservatism, Cubans, Democrats, Florida, Haitians, Hispanics, Iowa, Jews, Michigan, Midwest, Nevada, New Mexico, Nicaraguans, North Carolina, Northeast, Political Science, Politics, Puerto Ricans, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, South, US Politics, USA, West, Wisconsin

The Anglo Anti-Immigrant Right Are Awful People, But So Are Their Enemies

Ed writes:

To comment on Raja Hindustani’s (great fake name!) comment, one thing I am increasingly amazed by is the repeated insistence by self-identified “left wingers” that supporting more immigration is not only a left wing cause, it is THE left wing cause, if you don’t support more immigration you are not on the left and every other left wing position has to be sacrificed in favor of more immigration. There is a coup ongoing against the leader of the Labour Party in the UK because he is not sufficiently vocal in favor of immigration and in favor of the (anti-democratic and pro-capitalist) EU.

Its pretty obvious that immigrants are being brought into countries which have had strong labor movements, in order to drive down wages and weaken working class solidarity. Many of the immigrants are basically peasants from backwards countries -actually backwards parts of developing countries- that can be relied on for a few generations not to cause too much trouble for the upper classes. And historically the left used to recognize (eg Cesar Chavez) that this was a strategy to break the left.

The only explanation I can come up is that the left in the developed world and its institutions has been thoroughly infiltrated by moles, but that project seems to be so successful that you wind up hardly needing the immigrants.

This is about it. Everyone on the Left, I mean everyone, has to support “the immigrants.” You have to. If you don’t, you are not on the Left. So the problem then with us anti-immigrant Lefties is really we have nowhere to go. The anti-immigrant crowd is 100% rightwing, White, racist, sexist, backwards, you name it. Abd they’re all for rightwing economics, all of them. We go over there, and well, that’s not for us.

And everyone who takes any sort of a strong antiracist stance automatically turns into an “I love the immigrants” type. Because, you know, if you hate the racists, then you have to love the immigrants! But it doesn’t have to be that way. You can be like me instead. You can hate the racists and hate the immigrants! How bout that?

Also when people turn anti-racist, liberal/Left and pro-immigrant, they almost always turn anti-White and they usually start bashing White workers, especially working class White workers. Because it is working class White workers who are getting screwed by the immigrants. So if you are for the immigrants, then you have to hate the working class Whites. And this is exactly what you see. The liberal/Left “we love the immigrants” absolutely hate the White working class. Of course it doesn’t help that working class Whites can be somewhat backwards on race, gender and other identity issues.

So we see a lot of liberal/Lefties going on and on about how all working class Whites are just lazy worthless bums anyway who won’t “go out and get an education” and better themselves.

And of course this same mindset is seen on the Right. A writer for the National Review said the same thing recently. As Trump rose, he penned a piece contemptuous of working class Whites. When told that working class White towns like Muskogee, Oklahoma were crumbling in chaos, he wrote an article in which he said that working class White towns and cities needed to die, and the sooner the better.

Of course, the Republican Party is a plutocratic party, and they have never supported the interests of working class Whites even though these Whites have been voting Republican for decades now. In fact, I would say that Republicans are contemptuous of working class Whites.

And we saw something very similar in the UK. As it become obvious that working class White areas of the UK were falling apart, we only heard sleazy, oily comments about “class mobility.” Supposedly the Tories were creating a society in which people could be class mobile! Actually they were creating the exact opposite of that, but never mind. But the unspoken idea here was that being a working class White was the worst thing on Earth and that we should thank the Tories for making it possible for the white working class to move up the class ladder.

But that’s not the way it should be.

The idea is to make it so working class job pays well in the first place! To make it so working class towns are nice places to live! To make it so being working class is not seen as the last thing anyone wants to be!

And we see the same sickening thing on the Left. I have long heard Leftists shower contempt on working class Whites who resent illegal immigration. “Those Whites are just lazy, that’s all. The Mexicans work harder than those lazy Whites, and that’s why employers hire the Mexicans.” This was the old “White workers are lazy” line that the Reaganites started back in the 1980’s. To hear a Leftie talk like about the working class of his own country this is utterly repulsive.

We also hear liberal/Left types saying that any job taken by an illegal is a worthless, crappy job anyway, and any White person who would work at such a job is nothing but a loser. A Mexican standup comedian made a joke out of this by saying that the most pitiful thing that any White person could say was, “I lost my job to an illegal.”

Then we hear the “Well, the working class jobs are all gone anyway, and they are not coming back. The future is in high-tech, high-skilled jobs.” So in other words, let the immigrants flood in and take all the crap jobs anyway, who cares. Sure, but have you ever considered that not everyone is cut out to be a high-tech,  high-skilled worker?

We have created something truly bizarre here in the US, and possibly elsewhere in the West. We have a Left which actually hates their own native born working class! Isn’t that incredible?

47 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Britain, Conservatism, Economics, Europe, Illegal, Immigration, Labor, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics, USA, Useless Western Left, Whites

Burn in Hell, Globalization

That’s the message of Brexit.

Death to globalization, neoliberalism, corporate rule, horrific free trade agreements, races to the bottom, Triangulation, neoconservatism, invade the world/invite the world, trickle-down economics, austerity, financial conservatism, privatization, vouchers, wild inequality and the whole ball of dung.

Death to it all!

The people have spoken. They hate it. They don’t quite understand what they hate, of course, but the idiots are finally waking up and realizing that they’ve been getting screwed from 35 years of Reaganism/Thatcherism, a project which included the rightwing drift of leftwing parties in the West such as the Democratic Party and the Labour Party. Both parties are now corporatized but milder versions of the Republican and Tory Parties. That is correct: Clintonism and Blairism are part of the same neoliberal/globalization process as Reagan and Thatcher. In some ways, Obama is too, and Hillary is just Obama Part 2, except somewhat worse.

The idiots who run our countries don’t get it. Or maybe they are not that stupid. Anyway they either cannot read public opinion, or they do not want to, but elites in both countries are not going to change much of anything after the Brexit vote. The UK looks to become much more rightwing, which is odd as what caused the Brexit rage in the first place was British working class rage over 35 years of Thatcherite neoliberalism which has eviscerated their living standards.

The people know they are getting screwed, but they don’t quite know who is doing it to them. So they are lashing out, and this time many of them are heading to the Far Right. Of course this is typical, as whenever you have a serious crisis in capitalism, people either move to the Hard Left or to the Hard Right, as these are the only people offering solutions. Everyone in the Center is offering the status quo, which was what caused the crisis in the first place.

Problem is that the Hard Right isn’t going to do them much good. Donald Trump is very much a Hard rightwing Republican. His policies are not that different from those that got us in this mess in the first place. It’s still neoliberalism but without the globalization. It’s not going to work. The Right in the UK offers nothing at all. The Leave wing of the Tories is much more rightwing and economically conservative than the Remain faction.

It was rightwing economics that got us in this mess in the first place. That’s what these working classes all over the world are reacting against – righting economics, globalization, neoliberalism. It hardly makes sense that the solution to a problem caused by rightwing economics is more economics, this time, harder, faster.

You would think our leaders would be idiots to propose such a “solution,” but they are not as dumb as you think. These lowlifes who have been running our countries have been making out like bandits from this neoliberalism-globalization charade.

They are not going to quit doing it just because public opinion has swung against it.

They don’t care about public opinion anyway.

They do whatever they want, and the Hell with whatever the people think. We are nothing to them. They do not represent us at all. They represent only themselves and their class, and that’s it. Partly this is our own damn fault because we do not punish politicians who give us the finger and go ahead and do things that we are dead set against. We scream and yell that we are opposed to some issue, then they go ahead and do it anyway and when the election comes around, we march right off and vote for the very people who gave us the finger and did the opposite of what we demanded. We don’t hold politicians’ feet to the fire. Politicians do the opposite of what we want, and we go and vote for them anyway.

After that’s been going on for a while, politicians figure out that it doesn’t even matter what they do, as even though they go against popular opinion, they won’t be held accountable for it anyway, and the people they went against will just elect them again anyway. Get it? They get to do whatever they want to. Why? Because we are such a bunch of retarded monkeys that we let them, that’s why.

If these people are getting rich off the present system, they are obviously going to keep on doing until we force them to stop. This is the way these people think.

They don’t stop and say, “Hey look! The people are against neoliberalism and globalization! Let’s stop doing it!”

Instead they say, “Oh look. The people are against this. Let’s keep doing it anyway and hope we can somehow stay in office. Meanwhile let’s ramp up the lying, the propaganda and the tail-waging and all rest to distract the people and fool them.”

Or they will lie to themselves as the Republicans do and say, “No the people are not against neoliberalism and globalization. They are really against Obama and Obamacare and BLM and OWS and tranny bathrooms and gay marriage.”

Or they will say, “Oh look. The people re turning against neoliberalism and globalization. We need to do a better job of reaching out to the people on this issue (lying about it) and selling it to them (lying about it).” So they enlist the 100% controlled media to sell their snake oil for them with a fancy new ad campaign.

The take-home point here is that most politicians are ideologues. They don’t represent the people or serve the people or any of that. They represent their ideology, which is typically tied directly in with their class interests. In other words, their ideology is often all wrapped up in their money. Rich people don’t go against their class interests. They just don’t. They will pursue their class interests all the way to their own deaths, if it takes that.

Serving the people or representing the people would mean throwing out your ideology and supporting what your constituents want, not what you want. Capitalist minded politicians won’t do that because they never get rid of their ideology, or even modify it one inch. In fact, they will fight to the death for it. This is because going against their ideology means going against their money. You can hardly expect a rich man to go against his monetary interests.

As with so many things in human existence, this all boils down to follow the money.

26 Comments

Filed under Britain, Capitalism, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Europe, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics

Hillary Clinton, Neoconservative Dream Candidate

Here.

Good God, she’s a nightmare. This election is going to be about who we despise least. I hate Trump, but I definitely despise Killary/Hitlery Clinton, neocon warmonger maniac.

Trump is truly catastrophic and must be stopped by all means. But Hillary is a nightmare. Hillary’s a turd, and Trump is 24 hour diarrhea. I really hate both of them, but I hate Hillary less. But that ain’t saying much, because there are few humans I hate more than Donald Trump.

4 Comments

Filed under Asia, Britain, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Iran, Iraq War, Islam, Middle East, Nationalism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Republicans, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sunnism, Syria, US Politics, US War in Afghanistan, Vietnam War, War

“Western Moral Decline or Capitalist Decadence?,” by John Kovas

This is a good piece. You can find it at Kofas’ website, or I got it off of Academia.edu. Looking at his website, it appears that the rest of his stuff is pretty good too. I need to read this guy more.

I actually think he is onto something here, and you need to be hip to this argument because the Right is always trotting out this “moral decline” argument that I think needs to be countered.

Western Moral Decline or Capitalist Decadence?

by John Kofas

Historically, during periods of economic contraction, the intelligentsia, politicians, business, academic, community and church leaders invariably try to steer the debate away from what has gone wrong with the political economy to the subject of values.

This was certainly the case during the 19th century when the depressions of the 1840’s, 1870’s and 1890’s took place. Well-meaning individuals as well as opportunistic propagandists questioned society’s values, despite the fact that structural causes in the political economy accounted for the economic contraction and social ills.

A somewhat similar situation existed during the Great Depression of the 1930’s when novelists, philosophers, politicians and others decried the values of the 1920’s. There are similarities between those historical periods and the economic contraction and diminishing of the Western middle class that started during the Reagan-Thatcher era and continues to the present.

The universal topic of values served its purpose when the Industrial Revolution was causing socioeconomic problems, and it serves its purpose today when Western Civilization is captive to banks and corporate capital that are concentrating capital while weakening the social fabric and democratic institutions.

The very elites suggesting to the masses redirection toward reexamination of values are the same ones that:

1. do not practice the values that they preach;

2. are responsible for the widening socioeconomic gap and sociopolitical instability that ensues;

3. benefit by deflecting the focus of the masses from the essential problem in the systemic flaws of the political economy to values.

Naturally, there is the salient question of the vast differences in value systems between societies and individuals; differences between religious and secular values within a pluralistic society, or the differences/nuances of values within a community whether it is predominantly religious or secular.

That scholars, politicians, businesspeople, priests, and the laity have been concerned about western civilization’s decline is a story as old as Oswald Spengler who wrote about the topic after the German Empire lost the First World War, and Europe as the world’s global power center began to give ground to the US and USSR.

But are the values of Bismarck and his generation of imperialist politicians and business titans the ones that Spengler’s generation lamented against the background of the Bolshevik Revolution and its global impact? Is it the Western values of imperialism, nationalism and militarism that led to global war in 1914 that were lost along with the decline of Western Europe?

Spengler focused on Western decadence, but the question is one of the underlying assumptions of what constituted decadence and what constituted ascendancy, the degree to which humane and communitarian principles rested behind assumptions. Was it dreadful that imperialist Europe of the old elites began to decline as a result of militarist confrontation, or was it tragic that millions of people died, injured, displaced, impoverished as a result? If one values power, then one laments the decline of Europe’s power. But what if the value system is human-centered, instead of power-based?

When the Great Depression erupted to cripple societies across most of the planet, why was there a sharp turn to a discussion of values, whether by US President Roosevelt who favored a quasi-communitarian orientation that mirrored the New Deal or ultra-nationalist one that Hitler advocated who was interested in ethnic cleansing as a means of restoring the purity of the mythological Aryan race as Alfred Rosenberg conceived it and the NAZI party practiced it.

In a very strange way, the NAZI regime’s populist ethnic collectivist approach intended to achieve the same goal as that of FDR and for that matter Josef Stalin who advocated superimposed collectivism.

The Third Reich manufactured a value system that a large percentage of Germans and Austrians, accepted and lived under with the hope that it would propel them to greatness as the NAZI party defined the concept. Why did millions of people accept an utterly barbaric and inhumane and racist value system under Hitler, and why did they not retain humane principles based on the wider philosophical framework of the Enlightenment that revolutionized European culture in the 18th century?

Is it merely a question of brainwashing – no matter how good German propaganda was – or one that a large segment of the population actually embraced values because they perceived benefits accruing to them – everything from keeping their jobs to feeling great that the ruling party told them they were ‘superior’ to other races.

From the end of World War II that marked the end of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and militarist-imperial Japan until the end of the Vietnam War, Western and non-Western (Communist regime) societies operated on broader values – in theory and certainly not in practice – of communitarian principles as part of an ideological mix.

Certainly in Western societies, led by the US, the value system of individualism, business progress, consumerism, commercialism of culture, and hedonism were prevalent, but the existence of the welfare state entailed tangible evidence that communitarian values mattered. The beginning of the breakdown of that value system comes when the US and the West in general begin to gradually eliminate the communitarian aspect in the societal mix because it interferes with finance capitalism and the neoliberal model of capital accumulation.

More than political trends, material conditions influence evolving value systems, something that is evident in the consumerist values (to which we must add hedonist and atomistic) of much of the world in the last fifty years. After all, values too are class-based. The relative decline of compassion for humanity, and a rise of alienation which many try to cure by going to therapy and with legal and illegal drugs, has been sharply on the increase in the last half century to the degree that we now have a Western culture of therapism thriving.

Ethical ambiguity naturally translates into ambiguity of values, thus reflecting cultural relativism. In a recent public opinion poll, the vast majority of the people in Finland agreed that if their close friend committed murder, they would notify the authorities. In the same poll, the vast majority of Greeks agreed they would not turn in their friend. Not surprisingly, Greek elites, including academics, praised the virtue of honoring friendship, while the people of Finland stressed the virtue of social conscience.

What accounts for the absence of convergence in the values of the two societies? History, tradition, religion, culture, etc., and what does this example teach us about the values of ambiguity? How could any human being with an once of moral fiber not report a case of murder? How could someone betray their friend, even in case of murder?

Beyond values of ambiguity, there is a much clearer case regarding basic values that are time-tested and transcend time and place.

1. Lying is clearly immoral. Not the kind of lying involving little lies that cause no harm but big lies that bring about great harm to a great many people. Yet, lying is at the core of both business and politics, but it is passed on as public relations. Lying to an entire nation about the reason for going to war is acceptable because it is a matter of national security. Lying to consumers about a product is acceptable because it is in the name of peddling a product or service.

2. Stealing is clearly immoral. I was hardly surprised to read stories about people across southern Europe actually stealing food because of the current hard times. However, stealing in the framework of institutionalized ‘appropriation’ of government subsidies to make banks stronger, is morally acceptable. Yet this is a process that forces people to steal food. Are we back in the era of Victor Hugo’s Jean Val Jean?

3. Killing is clearly immoral. However, mass killings of collateral damage victims in time of war is just fine. Why do human beings categorically reject the individual who kills her husband that abuses her but accept mass killings in wars? What does this tell us about our values and how they are molded?

How does a politician, a journalist, an academic, or much less a leading businessperson tell the masses to reexamine their values against the background of austerity economics that benefit those preaching reexamination of values?

For more than half a century, the same elites now preaching reexamination of values were advocating consumerism, commercialization of culture, hedonism, and atomistic proclivities, all in the name of an open society when in reality the only interest was the thriving of the market economy.

Having conditioned citizens as consumers steeped in that frame of mind and value system, how do elites now try to tell them that embracing everything from nature to God, everything from family values to community values, filter down, and even if it did, what exactly does that do for the high structural unemployment and underemployment, low wage structure, lack of opportunities for college graduates, and lack of job security?

When Ronald Reagan was beginning to dismantle the welfare state and strengthen the corporate welfare state, his administration, various think tanks, journalists, academics, clergy and business leaders began to speak of values, namely ‘family values’.

One odd thing about many of the people advocating ‘family values’ is that they themselves were not practicing them. Another odd thing was that these values advocates were interested in pushing society in the direction of conformity to the changing status quo, so value discussion was one tool they used.

Of course, there was a contradiction between ‘family values’ rhetoric and policies – government and business – that were contributing to undermining the family by forcing both parents to work, in some cases at second jobs to make ends meet.

At the same time, reorientation to values discussion did not mean that workers must stop shopping, given that the population remained under the spell of increasingly intrusive advertising that helped shape consumerist and atomistic values. Are we witnessing a Western moral decline or merely a decline of the capitalist system and its apologists trying desperately to distract the masses by shifting the focus to values?

1 Comment

Filed under Asia, Austria, Capitalism, Conservatism, Culture, Democrats, Economics, Ethics, Europe, Fascism, Finland, Germany, Government, Greece, History, Imperialism, Italy, Japan, Labor, Left, Marxism, Military Doctrine, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nazism, Neoliberalism, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Regional, Republicans, Revolution, Social Problems, Sociology, Ultranationalism, US Politics, USA, USSR, Vietnam War, War, World War 2

Psychopathy/Sociopathy

Enoch writes:

Robert, you seem to be very knowledgeable on sociopathy/psychopathy.

While most people would turn crazy if they are isolated from people during a long period of time, do you think a psychopath would not (since he see peoples as objects)?

What famous people (excluding serial killers) do you think are true psychopaths?

Do you met people you think were psychopaths in real life ?

Would you consider yourself above or below average in psychopathy?

One by one.

While most people would turn crazy if they are isolated from people during a long period of time, do you think a psychopath would not (since he see peoples as objects)?

Hard to say, but I suppose they would be ok with it.

What famous people (excluding serial killers) do you think are true psychopaths?

See separate post. Clinicians now agree that Hitler was definitely a diagnosed sociopath. George Bush? I almost think most major politicians are, or at least they act like sociopaths. You have to behave like a sociopath in order to hold high office in many countries. If you don’t act that way, you can’t do the job. Lately I think Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are acting very sociopathic. Kerry especially worries me with his Vietnam record. Kerry definitely acts like a psychopath, but everyone who is a Secretary of State for the US has to act like one. It goes with the territory.

Do you met people you think were psychopaths in real life?

I am not sure. I met a fellow recently who was the most sociopathic person I have ever known, let’s put it that way. He was so sociopathic that I was actually stunned because I had never seen one that bad before. Sociopathy is a continuum ranging from 0-40 on a Psychopathy Scale, and this fellow was pretty sociopathic. Whether he was an actual sociopath (whatever that means) I do not know, but he may well have been. He’s a gang member. I used to let him into my house. I turned my back on him, and he stole an Indian knife from Guatemala from my home. It was worth $175. He is Cuban, part Black, sort of a mulatto.

I met a local Black man who was a pimp a few years back. One of the smarmiest people I have ever met. I definitely got a sociopathic vibe off of him.

My brother’s best friend had a girlfriend who seemed like a sociopathic female, but I do not understand sociopathic women at all. They definitely don’t make sense.

There was another longtime friend who was pretty high in sociopathy. He is out of my life finally, and I am so grateful.

I know a lot of people who act bad and are basically ratfucks, scumbags and lowlifes, but whether they are actually sociopathic or not, I have no idea. The idea that every ratfuck bastard out there is a sociopath strikes me as wrong. There is so much more to it than that.

I do not understand these people, and I do not know how to identify them either. It’s so hard to tell who they are. I wish I could know who they were so I could identify them and study them. The disorder frankly makes no sense to me. I have been studying them for years now and they still don’t make sense. I simply cannot understand how anyone could think that way. I honestly don’t get it. I think the only way you can understand them is maybe to be one.

Would you consider yourself above or below average in psychopathy?

I would think I am below average, or I would hope I was anyway. I have often worried that I was one, but of course no true sociopath would ever worry about such a thing. I surely had not developed signs of it by age ~18, and if you don’t have it by then, you will probably never get it. Psychopathy is one of those early-onset conditions that nearly always appears first in childhood. If you make it to age 18 and do not have it, you will probably never develop it.

1 Comment

Filed under Democrats, Mental Illness, Personality Disorders, Politics, Psychology, Psychopathology, Republicans, Sociopathy, US Politics

Robert Stark Interviews Bay Area Guy about the New American Civil Wars

Superb interview with Bay Area Guy, a former commenter on this blog who went off with another frequent commenter here to form their own site, Occident Invicta. Many of the more conservative commenters here actually followed BAG and Dota over to their new site, which is quite ok by me.

This interview is superb, and I agree with most things that Bay Area Guy says here. I wish BAG would not be so serious, but maybe that’s just the way he is. Radical Centrism sounds like something I could really get behind, and maybe a lot of you commenters could too.

Interview here.

Robert Stark and co-host Alex von Goldstein talk to Bay Area-based blogger Bay Area Guy of Occident Invicta.

Topics include:

How Bay Area Guy is one of the Alt-Right’s few Bernie Sanders supporters.
How Bernie Sanders was the only candidate to not attend AIPAC, and Bay Area Guy’s view that the Alt-Right gave Trump a free pass for pandering to AIPAC and the Neocons.
How the most crucial aspect of Trump’s campaign is his role in expanding the Overton window and undermining the establishment.
How Trump supporters are primarily anti-establishment rather than conservative ideologues.
How Donald Trump is running to the left of Hillary Clinton and whether he will appeal to disaffected Sanders supporters.
Red State article about Trump Democrats “ruining” the GOP, who are described as racist Democrats who want handouts for White people.
The decline of Conservative Inc.
How the political coalitions on the left are also breaking down.
How Bernie Sanders undermines the Neoliberal/Social Justice Warrior Alliance.
Thomas Frank’s (What’s the Matter with Kansas?) new book Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People
Social Justice, Social Darwinism, and the Curious Case of SF’s Housing Squeeze
Steve Sailer’s article San Fran Whitening Plan.
The civil war among the Bay Area’s Left on the housing issue, including wealthy NIMBY‘s, anti-capitalist anti-gentrification activists, and pro-density groups such as BARF.
Michael Hudson’s book Killing the Host about the FIRE economy based on the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate sectors.
London’s new Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan, and how Bay Area Guy views him as another Identitarian neoliberal like Obama.
The California Senate Race and how the Democratic front runner Kamala Harris also fits that mold.
Why Bay Area Guy views the Democratic runner-up Loretta Sanchez as preferable to Harris.
Senate Candidate Ron Unz’ Radical Centrist Platform, which combines the best aspects of the Left, Right, and Libertarianism, and how Radical Centrism is an emerging trend in politics.

11 Comments

Filed under Britain, California, Capitalism, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Europe, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Sociology, Urban Studies, US Politics, USA, West

Omar Mateen: Self-Hating Homosexual

Latest news.

That is absolutely incredible news, but knowing psychology as well as I do, I ended up saying, “Well of course,” as I so often do nowadays as I become more wise and crystallized and less quick and fluid in my midlife.

Self-hating gay, extremely homophobic, hung out in the gay bar he shot up all the time, used numerous gay dating apps with his friends to hook up with gay men for gay sex all the time. It all adds up so perfectly.

Whether he was really gay, just bisexual or whatever the Hell his sexual orientation was is not known, but I doubt if most predominantly straight men would hang out in gay bars all the time and use gay hookup apps to meet men for sex on a regular basis. It just doesn’t work that way. Yes, straight men have sex with men, and predominantly straight bisexual men exist, but they don’t act like that. The sex they have with men looks a lot different from this. This guy is looking more and more like a closet case.

It doesn’t make a lot of sense that he got radicalized online as the FBI says. He said he was a member of Hezbollah and also praised the Chechen bombers in Boston (Yemeni Al Qaeda inspired) and and a Florida acquaintance who went to Syria, joined Al-Nusra (US-backed Syrian Al Qaeda) and blew himself up in a suicide bombing attack. He also pledged allegiance to the leader of ISIS in the middle of the act. None of that makes sense. Al Qaeda and ISIS hate each other, and they are both the worst, deadliest enemies of Hezbollah. No one supports all those groups at once. It’s madness.

The guy is looking more and more like a nutcase. His wife says he was a bipolar, abusive wife-beater. Co-workers at various places described him as a time bomb.

Yes, the FBI watched him for a bit, but do you have any idea how many people get on their watch lists at one time or another? Lots. The watch lists change all the time, and the FBI is incredibly overwhelmed with the watch lists that are current, not to mention the old ones. Even being on a watch list does not mean a lot, as it certainly doesn’t mean that the FBI is watching you all the time. We still have a democracy here for now anyway, and you cannot go around locking up everyone on a watch list. The crime of “dangerousness” does not yet exist here, at least not unless Donald Trump becomes Dictator.

The perpetrator was a nut, a nutcase not a lot different from another heavily armed nutball who traveled to LA to bomb and shoot up the LA Gay Pride Parade. That man was a non-Muslim White man, and he was going to do the same thing this guy did.

In this highly charged modern environment with simple access to highly powerful military weapons for any buyer in the country, there are heavily armed time bombs all over the country stockpiling weapons and waiting for the right moment to go off and kill as many people as they can. A few of these types are claiming to be inspired by terrorist groups, but most are not. All of these characters are more or less lone wolf attacks by lone or dual terrorists acting alone or in pairs. You can’t stop lone wolf terrorists. There’s nothing to be done. Look at Israel’s experience.

This will not be the last of these attacks. There will be more. It’s only a matter of time.

Exactly how Mr. Trump is going to stop this sort of thing is news to me. I’m all ears to hear his great plan, except that so far he doesn’t have one. Mr. Trump needs to tell us just how he is going to stop this sort of thing, and he’s yet to do so.

24 Comments

Filed under Crime, Florida, Government, Homosexuality, Islam, Politics, Psychology, Psychopathology, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Republicans, Sex, South, Terrorism, US Politics, USA