Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Catapulting the Propaganda

Check out this amazing display of hyperfeminized leftism:

Would you send your daughter, mother, or grandmother to share space with this subhuman trash? Of course not.
Hillary Clinton should not lower herself. She shouldn't be forced to endure it. She shouldn't legitimize it. She shouldn't have anything to do with a Republican Party who’s trying to elect a sex criminal.

There you have it. Trump is a sex criminal because he talks. His words are a crime.  Hillary may be a criminal but Trump is an even bigger criminal. Because when a male postures in front of another male, and talks a bunch of crap in order to appear more manly, that is a crime. Except for one problem. There is no evidence of a crime. It's talk. Literally millions of men say crap like this when they are alone with other men. But these ultrafeminized sissies dont understand that, which is probably a big part of the reason why they are on sites like dailykos in the first place, instead of being out there tapping it, hitting it, pounding it, etc. And when I say "it" you either know what I mean, or you are a literal sissy whose genes should and most likely will be eliminated from the gene pool via simple darwinism.

Their socio-sexual dynamicism has been replaced by corporate globalist propaganda. They are trained to take that tape from 11 years ago, get all riled up, and catapult the propaganda. Indeed, they are "triggered". Exactly how they are designed to be. They still havent learned that they are working for a hopelessly corrupt and broken establishment.

Ironically, I was actually a member of dailykos when Trump uttered those infamous words 11 years ago. My hatred for the failed Bush republican party drove me toward dailykos. But it didnt take me long to realize the left was not an alternative. For these past 11 years, I have been ranting and raving about how this isnt about left vs right. It is about a corrupt establishment and a corrupt elite vs the people. It is about those who understand vs those who wittingly or unwittingly still serve the corrupt establishment. Well, we're here. We have reached a critical threshold where the 100th monkey finally understands. Unfortunately for those on dailykos, they are like the millionth monkeys. Their anger, rage, and frustration has yet to peak. Until it does, they will keep building bigger and bigger catapults.

Monday, September 12, 2016

Why the Left does not care about Hillary's Health

Conservatives have no trouble recognizing that Hillary is physically unfit to serve. But the Hillary supporters can't see it. And they wont see it. Why?

It is quite simple really. Because they know that if she is elected, she wont really be doing anything anyway. If you've seen Battlestar Galactica then you will understand what I mean when I say she will be nothing more than a Baltar on New Caprica. How healthy do you really have to be to serve that function? Wall Street banks will be in charge. Hordes of corrupt neocon warmongers will be in charge. Globalist special interests will be in charge. All Hillary will be doing is signing the papers they put in front of her.

Hillary's supporters are fully captured by the propaganda produced by these aforementioned groups. Therefore they also can see no reason why a president needs to be healthy.

A rational thinking person might conclude that a president needs to be healthy enough to stand and fight for the people. But her supporters already know, if only subconsciously, that she is not going to fight for them. Not in any way shape or form. She will be nothing more than a robosigning drone for the global elite. So what does it matter if she cant even stand?

Friday, August 19, 2016

Chinese Wages Set to Overtake American Wages by 2036!

I saw an interesting chart over at John Mauldin's site.

The chart itself drew very little attention from the author, despite the enormous implications.

This is the result of 25 years of Clinton/Bush/Obama globalism. In just 20 years, the old meme of Chinese slave labor making all our stuff will need to be replaced. But then again, these Clinton/Bush/Obama voters are so damn stupid they will probably continue to think of Chinese labor as slave labor even when they are actually making more money than American workers!

Now you understand why there is someone like Trump running on a platform of anti globalism. It really has gotten this bad, much further and much faster than most people realize.

Saturday, August 06, 2016

UnCalculated Risk

Calculated Risk is a blog centered around real estate and the economy in general.

I have read this blog on a weekly basis for probably close to 10 years. Back when Tanta was still there. Lately I have become increasingly annoyed by this guy's overbullishness on the economy. His constant gloating about how the economy is not in recession when the economy  has actually been in a recession for many years now. But because they are printing money like mad and giving it to the top 0.1%, they have been able to maintain the appearance of growth. Also, they understate inflation which also produces GDP growth where there otherwise wouldn't be. But this is a problem I have with the entire financial media so I am not going to judge Calculated Risk too harshly for it.

What really crosses the line with me is this post:

My advice for politicians and American citizens who supported Trump: If you haven't abandoned Trump yet, do it now. If your family, friends and co-workers know you supported Trump - tell them you've had enough. They will respect you for changing your mind (if not now, in the near future). If you have a Trump sign in your yard, take it down. If you have a Trump bumper sticker on your car, take it off.

I'm voting for Hillary Clinton, 

He's voting for Hillary Clinton!?!  His goddam litmus test apparently doesnt include voting to commit genocide in the middle east. Hillary voted for the Iraq war, which, if you're going to be honest, has turned out to be an act so hideous it can be argued that it is genocide. Millions of Iraqis dead or displaced. Her vote helped to kick off a refugee crisis that is threatening the very fabric of Europe!

So Trump says something politically incorrect, and kills no one, and he fails your stupid litmus test. Hillary votes to exterminate hundreds of thousands of muslims and not only does she pass your stupid litmus test, she is also somehow the one who is NOT a racist! That's right, by liberal logic you are a racist bigot islamophobe if you did NOT vote to go blow up Iraq. You're talking about bumper stickers while you support a demon, who, judging by her past transgressions, could quite literally kill us all. She already killed a million muslims and killed hundreds of Americans and Europeans from the blowback. She cant take full responsibility for it of course, but I assign at least 3% of the blame to her. How many tens of thousands of dead bodies is that? How many millions more have to live their lives in total hell because people like YOU think it is more important that a politician have 17 guys around him planning and scripting every goddam thing he says. What the hell is wrong with YOU? Screw you and your litmus test you piece of trash.

Friday, May 13, 2016

Does a Kiosk Have a Soul?

I always found it strange that humans are so oddly willing to place themselves into predicaments where machines are more likely to reduce their labor value and thus their own livelihood. 

Why raise the minimum wage when you know that robots are already right at the threshold of being economically viable replacements for many low wage jobs? Why raise the minimum wage when you know it is going to force more people to be replaced by robots and kiosks? Does it really take a genius to make this mental calculation?

The mind starts to serve up all sorts of fanciful explanations. Is the world ruled by soulless monsters who want to replace humans with soulless kiosks? Do the liberals simply want to destroy as many jobs as possible to get as many people as possible dependent upon the state? Do the investors in the kiosk companies have the politicians in their pockets?

But it isnt some little kiosk company that's driving this. It is much bigger than any one comapny or industry or government. It is pervasive across all industries and all political persuasions. It is indeed all encompassing. One simply must conclude that humans were designed to act this way. We were meant to work and toil for days and years only to have the result of our efforts render us obsolete.

My own theory is that it is actually a non-human entity that is responsible. Millions of years ago the earth was seeded with DNA that was directed to evolve worker drones which would be smart enough to construct a new version of this lifeform. That's what all this is; the entire scope of AI and technology, including our instinctual drive to advance it. We think that we are creating a new form of life through AI, but in reality it is a form of life that has long predated us. We think it is we that are the creators, but in reality it is we that were created.

So rather than seeing all these little conspiracies where people seem to be undermining themselves by intentionally pricing labor out of existence, I just see us as creatures programmed to do exactly what we are doing. It then makes perfect sense. It would seem that the kiosk is part of our soul. But more than that, we are also the soul of the kiosk.

Sunday, January 10, 2016

The Sound of Silence

A long time ago, long before I was born, Simon and Garfunkel wrote a song. If you do not know it then you have surely missed something along the way in your journey.

"Silence like a cancer grows"

I see something in this song that might only be a reflection of my own strange view of the world. So much of how we communicate is done in silence. Through symbols we do not consciously process. This shared symbology shapes our view of the world and weaves the fabric of society. It is in music too. Not in the lyrics, but in the feeling evoked by the music and the lyrics together. In not 5000 words could I explain it as succinctly as a single song can explain it.

But then why the cancer reference? This seems like a great and wonderful thing, this ability to communicate in silence. I think what they were trying to say is that we have no control over it. This "silent interface" to our subconsciousness is sort of like a back door.

And you know who likes to use back doors.

I believe society is being programmed, or hacked, and this process is done in silence. It is only our words that can prevent it. It is only through language that our conscious minds can combat symbolic programming. Society must be driven by language rather than through occult symbology. Some part of me seriously doubts that Simon and Garfunkel truly understood the depth of this, but maybe they did? I cant see any other logic behind the cancer reference. One thing for sure I find it no coincidence that language is under attack, through both dumbing down and through political correctness. But the symbology is alive and well and stronger than ever. We are being drowned in it. I fear that one day people will no longer question the deeper meaning in songs like this. And that one day our songs themselves may simply cease to hold any sort of deeper interpretations at all. I believe that this is the "silence" Simon and Garfunkel are speaking of.

Tuesday, December 01, 2015

An Argument For Extreme Wealth Inequality

Expanding wealth inequality is a major issue. No one can deny that. I've tried very hard to argue the side of the bottom 99.9%. Now I'm going to try something different. As a sort of mental exercise, I am going to attempt to make an argument for the top 0.1%. This does not mean that this is my ultimate moral position, I'm just trying to see if I can do it. Here goes.

If you had a big problem you needed solving, who would you turn to? I mean, something really big. Like a mutated ebola outbreak that has reached pandemic status and has just claimed its millionth victim. Or a catastrophic loss of farmland due to rapid soil deterioration (ie a dust bowl of epic proportions). Who would you turn to in a situation like this? Who is going to be able to have the biggest impact on solving the problem? The answer has to be the top 0.1%, for they are the ones with the most resources. You cannot count on governments alone, because they are slow and relatively inept, not to mention already controlled by the top 0.1% anyway so its really just a matter of semantics. The solution to almost any crisis imaginable will most likely be solved in large part by members of the top 0.1%. After all, they are the movers and the shakers. Therefore it must follow logically that the richer the top 0.1% are, then the more capable they are of throwing their resources at potential problems should they arise. I'm not saying they will, I'm just saying that some of them surely will. You kind of have to take the good with the bad. For every greedy vampire squid, there must be a philanthropist who will use their money for good. This simply must be true, or else we would be extinct by now.

If you can accept this as a sort of truism, then there is a logical corollary which follows: If the top 0.1% are consistently gaining more and more share of the wealth, then this could signify that there is a serious problem that the free market is attempting to solve by providing more resources to the top 0.1%. Could this be true? Could there be something looming over the horizon that is so serious that the natural response is to load up the coffers of the movers and shakers in order to best prepare ourselves to solve the problem?

In order to help answer that question, you have to consider a scenario: The people elect a government that will pass a law that transfers the majority of the top 0.1%'s wealth to the poor. What would happen? In that case it is easy to predict what would happen, because it has been tried throughout history in various ways. Where have the biggest non-war related dieoffs occurred? Can you say Stalin? Can you say Mao?

I know it makes sense to want view the wealth of the top 0.1% as a gross injustice. There are about a billion people at the bottom who have nothing. Literally nothing. They are a bad week away from starving to death. This is the age old dilemma. Some people think this is unfair and unjust and wish that everyone had "an equal share". The huge irony is that these people are advocating a mass dieoff. The only way to magically equalize all the resources is to take by force from one group and give it to another. Putting aside the top 0.1% who would be stark raving mad over this, what happens when the bottom billion get access to all these resources they never had? Their population explodes. I'm not going to go into the intricacies of how exactly that explosion would occur. Surely it doesnt take much imagination to realize that people who are so poor that they spend most of their day trying to acquire food for just that day dont have much time to reproduce. If you magically give them an apparently unlimited supply of food, what are they going to do? Come on now, surely you can see it? OK, so then what? Who is going to feed their children?

In order to feed all those people, we need to constantly innovate. Innovate or perish, that is our mantra. It is our only option. Without industrial agriculture, billions would die off. Without the constant small increases in crop yields brought about by constant innovation, we would have a dieoff. It is a constant battle. We didn't just invent industrial agriculture 60 years ago with the "Green Revolution" and solve world hunger. It has been a constant battle to increase crop yields year after year after year through expansion and innovation. And it is this constant innovation that has allowed the population to rise and give more people a chance to live, even if it means that many are starving. Isnt starving better than dead or never born at all? Which would you choose? Ask yourself that question before you start getting all high and mighty and thinking about the human population as if it were some sort of infestation.

So you have a dire need to innovate. Extremely dire. People's lives are depending on it. That is why the top 0.1% make so much money, because the work they do is extremely valuable. (At least some of them anyway, again, enough to make the statement true.) But the real question is: Who the heck is going to innovate when there is no financial motive or means to do it? If everyone is equal, everyone is locked into stagnation. This leads invariably to a dieoff, basically because it doesnt cost much money to "make" babies, even though it costs a great deal to raise them. If I'm not going to make any money from my idea which would increase crop yields by 2%, then crop yields are not going to increase 2%. If yields dont get that 2% gain, then people will starve. This is the way it has to be. We cannot all be equal. We must not all be equal. For we would starve. In equality we would all starve.

It surely seems like this is not fair. But you have to look at the facts. How does the world's population rise to 8 billion if there is no wealth inequality? Can you seriously envision a way to drive constant innovation without constant greed? If you take away the greed by taking away the profit motive by taking away the profit potential, how do you get the innovation that is required to grow more and more crops? It cant be done. It just cant. That is why the extreme collectivist societies of the world always fail. So if you are truly against wealth inequality then it must mean that you want a whole bunch of people to die. Now how is that fair? Ask any person who is starving in this unjust world, "would you rather be alive and hungry and struggling to survive, or dead so that everyone alive can be more equal?" How many would choose to be dead? Probably not many. Probably less than 0.1%, ironically enough.