China, please stop eating bats, cats, and dogs

The biggest event in today’s news is the spread of coronavirus, a new plague that China is desperately trying to contain.  This seems to be basically a newer and worse version of SARS.  What might have caused it?

There’s been some speculation that it was genetically engineered and managed to break out of the laboratory, something rather similar to the opening of Stephen King’s The Stand.  There’s been some other speculation that it was effectively an anti-Asian race bomb which the Chinese unleashed on themselves.  If so, it was unintentional and they didn’t know what they were doing.  Luckily for them, China doesn’t have cultural Marxism, so their politicians have no reason to behave treasonously or self-destructively like this.

The official and non-conspiratorial explanation is that coronavirus emerged from a bad batch of bat soup at a seafood market.

It’s possible that multiple of the above explanations may apply.  That seafood market just so happens to be located very close to a biological warfare research facility.  (The Google Maps location has been changed for unspecified reasons.  Explanations?What if one of the workers at the lab was told to destroy samples, but then thought of making a few extra yuan by selling dead bats to this seafood shop?  What’s the worst thing that could possibly happen, right?

One question that needs to be asked is, why the hell does anyone eat bat soup over there?  Bats are unique and special creatures, of course.  Still, they’re flying rodents.  If you eat them, then you can catch whatever chupacabras they’re carrying.  Some bats even have rabies.  (Those who’ve read Cujo, another Stephen King classic, should be aware of that one.)  It’s time to cut it out!

On that subject, it’s not just rodents that should be avoided.  It’s time for them to stop eating cats and dogs too.  They’re our friends.  They love us, and we should love them back.  They certainly don’t belong on the dinner table.  As much as I admire Chinese culture, this is something that leaves me horrified.  After five thousand years of civilization, it’s time to do better.

China, please stop eating bats, cats, and dogs

Why libertarians and others are wrong about maximally deregulated markets and laissez-faire economics

I do have an admiration for certain facets of libertarianism.  These days, any ideology that doesn’t favor pointless globalist wars, and doesn’t care for the present Orwellian degree of domestic spying, certainly does have something going for it.  However, there are some flawed characteristics about “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” (SLFC) ideologies such as libertarianism, Objectivism, anarcho-capitalism, and neoconservatism.  (The latter is worse than the others because it actually does like spit-in-your-eye wars and domestic spying.)  Their laissez-faire economic position is one of these problems, a sort of free market absolutism emphasized heavily throughout the SLFC spectrum.

This is going to be a wild ride.  I’m afraid that I’m about to piss off some readers royally here.

One problem is the SLFC tendency to use The Market as essentially a barometer of absolute good.  One way it comes out is equating what’s good for the economy with what’s good for everyone.  In conditions where a rising tide lifts all boats, that much is so.  However, it’s kind of worn out now that we’ve experienced half a century of stagnation in real wages while business productivity has been climbing steadily and upper management swims in gravy.  Lately, they’ve been introducing the idea that we’ll have to eat bugs and live in pods.  How precious.  “Let them eat cake” sounded a lot better.

Another way is equating maximum permissiveness (deregulation) for businesses with maximum liberty for the public.  This is implied by the political compass test, a popular recruitment tool for libertarians, where they take the square symbolizing freedom on both axes.  Freedom sounds great, of course, but there’s always the question of “freedom to do what?”  Regulations on businesses are meant to keep them from putting their hands in the cookie jar.

Is what’s good for The Market good for everybody?

First of all, let’s make it clear that The Market is an abstraction.  It’s a reification of the effect of lots of people buying and selling inside a marketplace, which is a domain of exchange, or several of them.  (Is there anything particularly magical about that?)  Still, in SLFC ideologies, The Market is given great emphasis; much like the Word of God is emphasized in theocracies.

The comparison is hardly an exaggeration.  As the theory goes, sooner or later, The Market will take care of any sort of problem that might arise.  That makes those supply and demand curves on a chart into sort of a universal healer.  Not only that, The Market is the force of destiny.  Economic trends are the Prime Mover, and the cosmic law that must be obeyed.  Objectivists usually are atheists, and so are some other SLFCs, but they end up all but worshiping The Market.

I’m familiar with Adam Smith’s theories.  The Market finds its own level, and prices set themselves.  I could go into a long explanation of why this is so – the “invisible hand” effect – but any introduction to supply / demand curves can do that much.  Artificially interfering with the prices will have consequences of one sort or another.  This lends itself to an anarchistic argument for having no limits whatsoever.  That means no regulations – again, the thing that keeps businesses from putting their hands in the cookie jar.  It’s quite true that too much red tape will lead to inefficiency and unnecessary hassle, but that’s not a good argument to do away with all regulation whatsoever.  The critical factor, of course, is a regulatory climate that keeps hands out of cookie jars but isn’t burdensome to legitimate trade.  Still, even that is bad according to laissez-faire doctrine.

The theory goes further than that.  Any impediment to trade is considered an absolute bad thing.  Obviously tariffs are a big no-no, and free trade agreements (in practice, a bipartisan fuckup) were a big priority in globalization.  Borders wouldn’t even exist if globalists got their way, and everyone would use one currency.  (Everyone would look the same too, but all that’s another matter.)  This isn’t so much to do with warm, fuzzy One World internationalism.  It’s so that the big players can make more money that way.  Also, getting as rich as possible isn’t enough; the NWO types expect to call the shots in any future world government.  Imagine there’s no sovereignty, it’s easy if you try, ooh ooh ooh…

Economism

SLFCs are usually economites.  In this context, this means people whose sole gauge of worth is money.  To an economite, anything you can’t put a price tag on has no value.  Therefore, a beautiful, primeval forest isn’t worth a nickel more than what you could get if you sent a logging crew to clear-cut it and then sold it to become a big parking lot.  The fact that all that natural beauty would be destroyed forever matters nothing.  Also, if an endangered species of birds lived there, tough luck for them.  Tough luck for all the other forest creatures too.  Economism ignores factors like these, among many other externalities.  Those are inconvenient details that get in the way of the theory.

If a factory closes so that it can be relocated in a country where the workers are paid peanuts and labor laws are a joke, then this is something considered to be good.  If this wipes out a small town’s economy back home, tough luck for them.  If globalization becomes a trend and devastates entire regions – such as the USA’s “Rust Belt” or Britain’s northeast – tough luck for them too.  (Feel free to imagine greedy management types rubbing their hands together gleefully.)  If The Market says that cities, regions, or even entire countries must be blighted, then so be it.  The government mustn’t try to do anything to stop it, because that would interfere with CEOs trying to squeeze pennies until they bleed.  Moreover, the politicians know which side their bread is buttered on; both parties get payola from the same major donors.

Libertarianism has much to say about individualism.  However, when economism prevails, people are merely economic units; atomized and replaceable cogs in the machine.  Does that maximize freedom for everyone?  I’ll leave that for the reader to decide.  On an odd side note, Marxism – quite different from Libertarianism – is another economite ideology, though they have a different context for the term.

Are corporations always wonderful?

As I wrote about the SLFCs in Deplorable Diatribes:

It’s rather odd how much neocons, Libertarians, and Objectivists idolize corporations. Haven’t any of them ever worked in a cubicle hell resembling Office Space? Anyone who has experienced kiss up / kick down management culture should understand that not every corporate officer is John Galt. Some of the suits are more like James Taggart, occupying themselves with looking important, claiming credit for other people’s work, and otherwise screwing up everything.

Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists especially have a preconceived bias that governments are bad and always screw up everything.  (There’s at least something to that; our present globalist regime certainly has been a mess for a long time.)  Meanwhile, they and other SLFCs often believe that corporations are always good, a position which is perfectly silly.  These ideologies do have a lot to say against collectivism.  Granted, governments are collectives, but what exactly do they think corporations are?  Why haven’t the SLFCs figured this out yet?

Corporations can be (and often are) just as capricious as the government of a banana republic.  Employees often are expected to kiss ass, just as they would be if they were citizens under a petty tyrant.  A company can’t put you in a gulag because they don’t like your opinions.  However, they can deprive an employee of his or her livelihood for nearly any reason, except in places protected by unions or strong labor laws.  Some others have vast powers over society, which I’ll describe in another article.  SLFCs tend to have an odd idea that something bad is wrong only if the government is doing it.  They don’t mind if corporations do the very same thing.

Are regulatory agencies like the EPA necessary?

There is a popular anarcho-capitalist YouTube commentator who certainly is quite intelligent, but really needs to take off the ideological blinders.  (I won’t say who this is, because he’s come a long way so far.  If you guessed who I’m talking about, you’re probably right.)  He said that we don’t need the FDA, because if any company sold bad food or bad medicine, then word would get around and it would hurt the company.  This is a perfect example of the SLFC notion that The Market will fix everything.  In this instance, he was dead wrong.

Once upon a time, hucksters plied a steady trade selling fraudulent snake oil cures and ineffective patent medicines.  Standards in the meat packing industry were pretty atrocious around that time; Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle provides the scoop on that.  These two things were the very reason why we got the FDA in the first place.  When The Market failed to fix these problems, the government had to step in.  I can imagine how it went over back then:

  • “What, I can’t sell my miracle cancer cure salve without actually proving it works?  You’re taking away my freedom as a businessman!”
  • “How dare the government tell me that I can’t sell rotten meat!  What a bunch of Fascists!”

Finally, none of the above is to say that all businesses are bad.  They do have a legitimate place in society, of course (which doesn’t include calling the shots).  The point is that they tend to be flawed to one degree or another.  This is not so different from all other human institutions, including governments.  A sensible regulatory environment is a check against companies misusing their powers, just as Constitutional protections keep enlightened governments from becoming tyrannical.  Finally, we should remember the proverb that money is a good servant but a bad master.

Why libertarians and others are wrong about maximally deregulated markets and laissez-faire economics

Reasons why it’s better to be a leftist

Being a rightist is kind of a downer sometimes.  For one thing, society is going to hell in a handbasket, we know it, we understand why this is happening, and we’re not applauding it as some kind of “progress”.  On our side, it’s painfully clear that we need to step up our game in certain areas.  If we did so, we’d actually be getting somewhere.  From the following, you should be able to ascertain some of these areas.  Other stuff here is just my usual caustic ventilations.

How are things different for leftists?  It must be great for them.  For starters, leftists can dispense with inconvenient bourgeois nonsense like logic, consistency, principles, and taking showers.  Yes, this was a cheap shot, and get ready for more.

As the Neoreactionary proverb goes, “Cthulhu always swims left.”  (I’m not convinced that the Overton Window is some impersonal force that moves all by itself.  Neither will it inevitably go in the same direction, even if it’s been doing so for the last 75 years.)  Still, as long as the political climate keeps headed the same way down the primrose path, leftists will be on the winning side.  Moreover, they get to sneer and gloat immodestly with every advance.  Already it seems they would be happy to dance on our graves if they get the chance.  It sure seems to be taking a long time for rightists to figure out about gradualism and dialectical strategies, doesn’t it?

They say and do what they want, with no apologies

drag queen with kids 5
Optics just doesn’t get much worse than this, but they don’t give a damn

Leftists don’t have to worry about “optics”.  Never, ever, ever.  If you want proof of that:

  • The typical gay pride parade looks like a BDSM convention in motion, right down Main Street, and all that is no big deal.  They don’t get called out for being tasteless, told to put on some clothes, or arrested for public indecency.
  • Minority activists can say that the USA’s founding population deserves to be dispossessed, and they’ll get applauded rather than deported.
  • Drag Queen Story Time has been going on for years in several major cities, and everyone who isn’t an idiot knows what it’s all about.  Sure, there’s been a little controversy here and there, but nobody’s gotten tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for “trying to groom the next generation” as one of them admitted.
  • Feminists can say that partial birth abortion is the neatest thing since sliced bread, and they’ll get lauded as women’s rights activists rather than be shunned as bunny boilers.  Sweet!

All the above, among other examples I could cite, demonstrates that they know the power of audacity.

As easily “triggered” as leftists are, calling them extremists has absolutely no effect whatsoever.  They certainly don’t make themselves look silly by taking pains to deny it.  (Meanwhile, calling mainstream rightists “extremists” is the command that causes them to roll over and play dead.)  In fact, short of outright calls for violence, leftists can get as extreme as they want without running into trouble, and they’re happy to do so.  They certainly don’t go around taking pains not to be perceived as further to the left of mainstream figures like Joe Biden.

Neither do they wring their hands that they must never, ever, ever say anything that might seem anything close to totalitarian ideologies of the left.  If someone calls them out for being pinkos or comsymps, they don’t care.  Those who actually are Communists can declare their affiliation without moderates falling all over themselves to denounce them.  Leftists don’t punch left!  Must be nice, huh?  Again, they can make whatever political statement they want, and as incendiary as they want, short of inciting riots or the like.

In fact, if they declare that Communism is awesome, they’ll probably have no repercussions whatsoever.  If they say that Fidel Castro was great, it’s no problem.  They can wear a Che Guevara T-shirt and that’s no big deal either.  If they write a book saying that the Viet Cong were the good guys, it won’t get banned.  If they want to claim that gulags were posh hotels, instead of forced labor camps with starvation rations, that actually has been done.

But wait!  There’s more!  Leftists can express their views with no risk of retaliation.  No online mobs will write to their employers urging them to be fired.  They’re not going to get doxed and have their privacy invaded.  They won’t be put on lists by well-funded “watchdog” outfits that have the ear of law enforcement agencies.

Neither do they have to watch what they say or someone might rat them out to their Internet service provider or social media company.  Neither do the tech monopolies write programs to detect liberal content and ban their users for it.  Their banks or credit card processors won’t shut off their accounts (possibly without returning money that belongs to them) because these businesses dislike their politics.  Even while gigantic corporations are doing an end run around the First Amendment, leftists are not the ones on target and still have freedom of speech.  Actually, that’s how it used to be for everyone regardless of their beliefs.  Who knew?

Information control

philosophy

Leftist ideology is not exactly its strong suit.  As Ronald Reagan put it long ago:

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Luckily for them, there are mitigation strategies.  If the facts aren’t on their side, then they can make up new “facts”.  Another thing to do is to keep people from seeing contradictory information.  One huge advantage is that the left has opinion-forming institutions firmly on their side, which allows them to do all that, among some other benefits.

One of these institutions is the mainstream media, an enormous propaganda mill.  It’s composed of five toxically leftist conglomerates, and one lame neoconservative conglomerate representing the controlled opposition viewpoint.  Together, these are 90% of the media outlets.  This kind of monopoly control is an enormous advantage, even better than having an unlimited advertising budget.  (Hmm, I wonder what would happen if all the rightists out there quit buying movie tickets, stopped subscribing to MSM magazines and newspapers, and cancelled their cable bills?  What if we used the extra dough to support small, independent efforts that don’t lie to us or insult us?)  Another top opinion-forming institution is the World Council of Churches, which has converged most Christian denominations.  Another is academia, which deserves its own discussion.

Leftist professors and other scientific figures of dubious distinction have been known to stretch the truth, use fuzzy statistics, or outright make up data to support The Narrative.  Examples include Franz Boas, Trofim Lysenko, Margaret Mead, Stephen Jay Gould, and so forth.  (Happily, there are some honest exceptions who stick to the truth like Robert Putnam and Alan Sokal.)  Those in the soft sciences have expended much effort on creating rhetoric like intersectionality, White privilege, The Patriarchy, the “prejudice plus power” line, and other tautological arguments carefully crafted to lead to the conclusions they want.

Granted, these are mediocre minds who have been educated beyond their capacity to understand, but they get paid to spend all day teaching propaganda.  Therefore, they get pretty good at delivering it and occasionally come up with new sophistry.  Thanks to postmodernism, they even can dispense with evidence and reason altogether, because they think nothing is real.

They’re able to do these things because academia has been a major power base, a long story going back for close to a century.  As we can see, the fact that the university system has been converged provides side benefits, beyond merely having access to impressionable youths for four years.  It took the right about sixty years to figure out what the left had been up to all this time.  Where’s our grand counterstrategy?

Protesting until the cows come home

I made a sign iuAEA9ZMAK

Finally, demonstrations are important events for leftists.  It’s always been that way.  I have to wonder if the hippie couples who first met at all those peace rallies and so forth increased the Generation X population by tens of thousands.  Lately, demos are more important than ever.

Now that social media has made us all less social, protests are a great way to meet other like-minded folks face-to-face.  At least it gets the leftists out of Mom’s basement and into some fresh air and sunshine.  Many of them couldn’t be dragged into a church even by a team of wild horses.  Therefore, attending a protest might be the best large group enthusiasm experience they get to have.  I can say in perfect sincerity that waving cardboard signs and chanting is better than sportsball.

There is, of course, a small risk that a demonstration might turn ugly.  (Pro tip:  if you’re being bused into another city and paid to raise hell, then you’re an outside agitator.  Surprise!  By any chance, is the money man at the apex of your chain of command a billionaire who looks like Emperor Palpatine?)  Those who riot, loot, or burn the city down might actually get away with it.  Nonetheless, I recommend keeping things peaceful.

Fortunately for leftists, incidents where things go seriously off the rails – and they weren’t the ones who immoderately escalated matters – are pretty rare.  Luckily for them, the authorities won’t go out of their way to fuck with them.  Neither is a rightist counterdemonstrator going to hit them over the head with a bike lock, spray them in the eyes with bear mace, or attack with other improvised weapons.  In the rare cases when shit goes down that they didn’t instigate directly, their fellow leftists will not – I repeat not – engage in pointless armchair quarterbacking.  As I wrote in Deplorable Diatribes:

After the Kent State shootings, did the antiwar movement put on a big samokritika session? Did they blame their leaders for creating a climate of tension leading up to it with militant rhetoric and disorderly activities? Did the peaceniks decide that holding demonstrations was a failed tactic? Did they resolve that they’d better not appear any further left than George McGovern? No, they raised holy hell about the National Guard’s itchy trigger fingers. It was indeed a godawful mess, and they did their utmost to make the administration look terrible over that. I’ll have to give credit where it’s due – leftists have the sense to point fingers at their enemies rather than their friends.

Anyway, maybe all that is food for thought.

Reasons why it’s better to be a leftist

Some exciting unseen perspectives about St. Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Unexpectedly the government released a small amount of information about the eminently notable Dr. Rev. MLK Jr. in a report from 3/12/1968 called Martin Luther King, Jr., A Current Analysis.  This is merely twenty pages out of probably hundreds that we don’t have access to yet.  That’s because some of his associates sued to have the records destroyed, and the judge compromised by sealing the records for fifty years.

What possibly could there have been about this leftist hero that they didn’t want you to know?  We got a new tidbit of this ahead of time.  Here’s what the brief FBI document contained.

Camping out on the White House lawn?

After a short statement of purpose, it describes the Washington Spring Project (also known as the Poor People’s March on Washington).

He has announced that he will lead a massive civil disobedience campaign that will disrupt the normal course of business and, in fact, close down the Nation’s Capital.

Well, gosh, shutting down Washington DC seems a little drastic.  But at least it’s nonviolent, right?  We can rest assured that the motives were pure, isn’t that so?

King predicted that this massive civil disobedience will be more effective than riots.  Concerning civil disobedience, King declared, “To dislocate the function of a city without destroying it can be more effective than a riot, because it can be longer lasting, costly to society, but not wantonly destructive.”

Uh, that’s interesting.  It also paraphrased MLK’s plans to:

…conduct sit-ins, camp-ins, and sleep-ins at every Government facility available including the White House lawn.

Following this in the document was the discussion of the possibility for violence.  It doesn’t discuss the following, but I’ll add a couple of my own observations.  First, quite a bit of violence often followed in the wake of King’s demonstrations, which is rather odd given his reputation of being a peacemaker.  Second, he did indicate at least once that he didn’t mind this, since these incidents worked to his overall favor.

The way this event really happened didn’t go quite so far as camping out on the White House lawn.  However, there was indeed a tent city lasting six weeks, which had some of the problems Occupy Wall Street suffered much later.  If that public nuisance was anything like the Selma brouhaha, I’m sure it was a sight for the tourists.

MLK in bed with the Reds

MLK Highlander Folk School
September 2, 1957. The Highlander Folk School, pictured here, didn’t exactly give lessons in square dancing, tartan weaving, haggis recipes, and bagpipe musicianship. Instead, this front group instructed in what’s now called “community organizing”. Others in this picture are Comrades Abner Berry (Daily Worker correspondent), Myles Horton (Highlander Folk School founder and director), and Aubrey Williams (President of the SCEF, another front group). Rosa Parks was once a student too – surprise!

There’s been much talk about whether the ol’ Drum Major of Social Justice was a fellow traveler, but the document does add this and quite a bit more to the discussion:

Another complicating factor in the picture is the degree of communist influence on King.  One of King’s principal advisors is Stanley David Levison.  Ostensibly only a New York City attorney and businessman, Levison is, in fact, a shrewd, dedicated communist. Levison has spent the major part of his life advancing communist interests.

The next two paragraphs explained how Comrade Levison helped MLK with finances, speeches, and public appearances.  Moreover, he ghost-wrote some of MLK’s material.  However, Comrade Levison didn’t think too much about his figurehead’s overall faculties:

Stanley Levison has told Clarence Jones, another advisor to King, that under no circumstances should King be permitted to say anything without their approving it.  Levison also informed Jones that King is such a slow thinker he is usually not prepared to make statements without help from someone.

The document describes numerous other radicalinski connections.  Deplorable Diatribes recaps the following commentary about all that:

A previous surveillance effort, codename “SOLO”, discovered that Levison moved Soviet money into the CPUSA’s coffers. (I’ll add that obviously he must’ve been a very trusted apparatchik to handle this illegal money laundering.) The document further names several other Communist connections.

JFK and many others tried to convince MLK to purge the pinkos. The President agreed wholeheartedly with civil rights, but Communist involvement led to strained relations with the Kennedy administration. (It’s understandable; there was a Cold War going on, which almost went nuclear not long before.) After repeated pressure, King reluctantly made some token moves to distance himself, but he duplicitously maintained connections with them. That included characters like his consigliere Comrade Levison, who was King’s top advisor, financial consultant, and ghostwriter for several of his speeches.

I’ll further add that Vasili Mitrokhin’s The Sword and the Shield provides an interesting counterpoint to this dialogue.  From the KGB’s perspective, it turns out that Levison’s influence certainly was there, but they considered it inadequate.  Other than that, the FBI document later goes in depth on MLK’s shift in position on Vietnam under the influence of a couple of his Red advisors, which was a subject that formerly didn’t interest him much.  Maybe the KGB spooks were being entirely too particular.

MLK in bed with capitalist running dogs

Later in the document, his major sources of donations are described, an interesting litany of woke capital.  One contributor was the precursor to Merrill-Lynch.  Limousine leftists are nothing new, right?  Then $6K – which was a nice chunk of change in 1960s dollars – was kicked in by the Edward Lamb Foundation.  (Tell me about the lambs, Clarice…)  Then this:

It was learned in November, 1967, that the Ford Foundation was about to give SCLC $230,000.  This money was to train Negro ministers in 25 cities throughout the Nation to become qualified leaders in the ghetto areas.

That’s about $1.76 million in today’s currency.  Looks like the Ford Foundation doesn’t have any problem with mixing religion and politics!  How many “community organizers” do you think they trained up with that kind of swag?  Moreover, I wonder what Henry Ford would’ve thought about the foundation he created being converged and used to support leftist causes?

Then it says Nelson Rockefeller chipped in $25K.  (That’s worth $191K now, but was pocket change to that trust fund kid turned politician.)  It names a couple of other celebrities.  Rather surprisingly, a couple of government agencies contracted with MLK’s SCLC.  Back in the day, this detail might have given a few bureaucrats a case of indigestion if they were called out for it.

MLK in bed with skanks

So what happened with all that moolah?  The FBI document states:

With the funds that he had received from the Ford Foundation, King held the first of two workshops in Miami, Florida, in February, 1968, to train Negro ministers in urban leadership.  One Negro minister in attendance later expressed his disgust with the behind-the-scene drinking, fornication, and homosexuality that went on at the conference.  Several Negro and white prostitutes were brought in from the Miami area.  An all-night sex orgy was held with these prostitutes and some of the delegates in attendance.

One room had a large table in it which was filled with whiskey.  The two Negro prostitutes were paid $50.00 to put on a sex show for the entertainment of guests.  A variety of sex acts deviating from the normal were observed.

Precious, isn’t it?  The rest of the document discusses the Moral Giant’s personal conduct.  Reading what this phony preacher had been up to makes me a bit nostalgic for Bill Clinton.  For example:

This activity is not new to King and his associates.  As early as January, 1965, King engaged in another, two-day, drunken sex orgy in Washington, D. C.  Many of those present engaged in sexual acts, natural as well as unnatural, for the entertainment of onlookers.  When one of the females shied away from engaging in an unnatural act, King and other of the males present discussed how she was to be taught and initiated in this respect.

These days, something like that would get someone #MeTooed to hell and gone, even if all this went down in the 1960s.  That shit didn’t fly even back then.  However, for people who are high enough up on the food chain, another set of rules applies to them, much more lenient than the rules applying to peasants like us.  That’s the same reason why Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein got away with what they did for as long as they did.

There’s more to it, but for all the details, you’ll just have to read the report.

And finally

To make way for the MLK holiday, Washington’s and Lincoln’s birthdays got collapsed into Presidents Day, when you also can honor the immortal legacy of Millard Fillmore and Jimmy Carter.  Therefore, MLK now remains the only other man individually honored with a federal holiday other than Jesus Christ.  Actually, it’s not hard to guess which of the two the average liberal holds in higher esteem.

Therefore, MLK must be pretty important, right?  Learn more about the Saint Who Ain’t at:

Some exciting unseen perspectives about St. Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Is royal gold digger Meghan Markle maneuvering for the divorce of a century?

The Daily Mail has the latest on the Prince Harry – Meghan Markle business.  Along with generic paparazzi shots, there’s a picture of the Queen with possibly the sourest expression that’s crossed her face ever recorded on film.  For those who haven’t heard thus far, the pair decided to step down from their royal duties and leave the country.  As of now, they’re in Canada, and the article states darkly:

The revelation will fuel speculation among palace officials that the Duchess of Sussex, in particular, will never return to Britain to live in a ‘meaningful’ way.

Ouch!  They’re supposed to be national figureheads, but they decided to bug out of the country, and maybe semi-permanently?  Gosh, I wonder whose idea that was?  More to the point, I have to wonder if Meghan watched too many Disney princess movies and decided everything was all about her.

The past

Anyway, I’ve written about these bozos before.  In Deplorable Diatribes, the expanded lead-in states:

I was reluctant to cover this because it just seems mean to piss in the punchbowl at a wedding. On second thought, it certainly looks like a very public statement by a very prominent figure. In that case, commentary is fair game. This sort of thing technically doesn’t violate the House of Windsor’s “no expressing opinions” rule, but it’s a huge slap in the face to tradition nonetheless. Unfortunately, it couldn’t have come at a worse time for Britain.

I predicted the following:

By tradition, the royal family avoids political statements. That’s odd, since they once ruled with absolute power. Their influence might be very helpful, if they have something sensible to say. However, that’s quite uncertain, given today’s epidemic of rich people becoming limousine leftists. Be all that as it may, an SJW princess could generate much controversy and make the whole family look silly.

Perhaps the tradition of refraining from politics will go out the window too. When do leftists ever shut up for propriety’s sake? She’s none too classy, according to her own brother, so anything’s possible. What happens if she starts ranting about “mansplaining“? Will they take away her limo and make her ride in a Yugo?

The present

What happened after all that?  She got pregnant, which was what I was afraid would happen.  Then there was some discussion – or rumors to that effect – about raising the kid genderfluid.  Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Then – oh yeah, they decide that being British royals isn’t for them.  Either that, or one of them did the deciding and the other one went along with it, and I bet I know who is who in that scenarioCome on, who the hell quits that job?  That’s an even cushier gig than being a rock star, since there are no rehearsals or concerts required.

Oh, but it gets even worse than that.  Counter-Currents has kept up to date on this with their aptly-titled article “Prince Simp“.  What about that much-discussed tradition that the royals are supposed to stay out of politics?

As a royal, Markle dedicated herself to advocating for left-wing causes, such as MeToo and the gender pay gap. One of her chief causes was “decolonizing” the curriculum in British higher education and demanding the nation’s universities hire more non-whites and women. She even shouted “Oh my god!” when presented with the number of white male professors in the UK.

What country does this dimwit believe she was in?

There’s much more than that.  The whole article is a lambasting of the cringe-worthy match, good for a read in its entirety.  As it begins to wrap up:

Harry’s behavior calls into question the superiority of monarchy. Many within the Dissident Right long for royal rule. They admire the accomplishments of the Habsburgs and Stuarts. They say they’re better than the mob rule we suffer today. They will dismiss the personal flaws of modern monarchs as the fruits of heresy, usurpation or some other sin.

My only quibble – and a very small one – is that I have yet to meet any of these monarchists.  Where are they?  The Spanish Carlists haven’t been too active lately.  I figure a few Neoreactionaries actually believe in monarchy, but that’s all who come to mind.  Really, what’s the point of having some flabby king who did nothing to earn the job?  Granted, it’s better than being ruled by crooked billionaires and Deep State swamp creatures whose hobbies are social engineering and spirit cooking parties.  Still, that doesn’t set the bar too high, now does it?

Then the Counter-Currents article explains that quite a few royals weren’t all that and a bag of chips.  I’ll have to concur.  Deplorable Diatribes contains some more of my particularly Fascist take on monarchy, a section beginning with this paragraph:

Is monarchy even relevant today? Royalty does have a certain air of awe and mystique about it. Still, kings and princes didn’t do anything to attain their roles. They were just born into the job through luck. That’s no guarantee of ability, talent, or reliability. Sometimes they’re weak, inbred, dissipated, or out of touch. There have been some good monarchs in the past, but as political figures, too often they’re fair-weather friends at the very best. The events propelling their families into power usually happened centuries in the past. Therefore, those guys aren’t really all that special today.

The future

So now these British royals have left Britain, perhaps for the duration.  Will Meghan declare “I’m not haaaappy”, file for divorce, and take him to the cleaners?  According to some observers, it might be more a matter of “when” than “if”.

It’s no secret that Canada is one of the most liberal and feminist places in the world, and it’s not hard to guess what that means in terms of “family law”.  Karen Straughan’s divorce experience there speaks volumes.  She wanted to split up with her husband but not screw him over.  However, the judge wouldn’t allow a fair divorce even though Karen wanted one, and the experience was enough to turn her into an anti-feminist.

Given that kind of environment, and Harry’s wealth and prominence, it could be the messiest divorce since the Tudor dynasty.  That hasn’t happened yet.  However, if she does take him to the cleaners, and in a place practically guaranteed to yield the greatest rewards, then this will prove that her critics were right that she was just a gold-digging social climber.

Is royal gold digger Meghan Markle maneuvering for the divorce of a century?

A contrarian perspective on the “optics” debate in the dissident right

Counter-Currents recently came out with an article called “Nick Fuentes & Our Xenus“.  The main subject is the Groyper War.

The good

The groypers are known for confronting RINOs, neocons, and other flavors of mainstream conservatives and asking pointed questions.  The targeted politicians who reply with the truth about their beliefs will reveal that they’re basically liberals in disguise, or at least don’t give a damn about the public, and this makes them look bad among their voter base.  (After all, people who vote Republican do so because they want to elect a genuine conservative.)  Sometimes politicians choose to dodge these questions, which also makes them look silly.

The article says that Nick Fuentes does have some less than diplomatic moments, but he also builds bridges to the wider public.  I’ll concur that this is very important.  Moreover:

He had his shit together a hell of a lot more than I did at 19. He took optics cucking to levels that even I, a man who proudly served under General Vaughn in the Optics War, considered a tad excessive. He dressed like a boomer, and not only did he not use racial slurs, he didn’t even use swear words. He wasn’t the greatest thing I’d ever seen, but for a 19-year-old, I was really impressed.

This usage of “optics” basically means how good you look before an audience.  Indeed, there’s something to be said for that, and I’ll be delving a little further into it.

You had all these hard-partying faux tough guys walking around, and then this clean-cut Fuentes kid shows up looking like Alex P. Keaton wearing a suit and tie and with this extremely suburban Midwestern accent.

At least he wasn’t wearing a Hugo Boss outfit, because that like would be really deplorable and stuff.  I might add that asking questions isn’t so controversial, and one needn’t even reveal one’s own personal opinion.  This is what Socrates was doing back in the sandal-and-toga days.

The bad

Here’s where it starts going off the skids.  The author does have the best intentions, but it’s coming across the wrong way.  With a heavy heart, I’ll have to call it like I see it.  This – and what follows – almost ruins the article:

But certain things happened in the Dissident Right that caused the styles and fashions change. The wignats have been purged, larping is now considered cringe, and whole tough-guy shtick has really gone out of fashion. Probably because most people figured out how fake and gay the whole tough-guy shtick is most of the time.

First of all, nobody got “purged”.  It’s impossible to do so in a decentralized movement like the Alt Right.  The most that happened was a bunch of denunciations and internal dissention.  Let’s remember that “punching right” only helps our opponents.  In Deplorable Diatribes, I wrote the following about the reaction to the Charlottesville setup, a major part of what the author meant by “certain things happened”:

I’m casting about for an analogy to the armchair quarterbacking. The following is not a precise equivalent, but it’s the best I can do. After the Kent State shootings, did the antiwar movement put on a big samokritika session? Did they blame their leaders for creating a climate of tension leading up to it with militant rhetoric and disorderly activities? Did the peaceniks decide that holding demonstrations was a failed tactic? Did they resolve that they’d better not appear any further left than George McGovern? No, they raised holy hell about the National Guard’s itchy trigger fingers. It was indeed a godawful mess, and they did their utmost to make the administration look terrible over that. I’ll have to give credit where it’s due – leftists have the sense to point fingers at their enemies rather than their friends.

Long ago, William F. Buckley made great efforts to position himself as the non plus ultra of “respectable” conservatism.  He did quite a lot of purging among the National Review, and otherwise denouncing anyone so much as a millimeter to the right of himself.  Where exactly did that get us, pray tell?  This is why “Conservatism Inc.” is the way it is, and the dissident right doesn’t need to make the same mistakes.  Rightists are always suckers for “salami slicing” tactics.  Meanwhile, leftists won’t even blink if you call them extremists.

Secondly, regarding this talk of “LARPing”, I’ll start to take the author seriously as soon as he’s done as much for the dissident right as George Lincoln Rockwell.  (He was more radical than I am, but I certainly won’t slag him off.)  I’ll add that Commander Rockwell has been praised in several Counter-Currents articles, despite his uniforms and flashy optics-unfriendly stuff.  He did have his reasons for all that, which he explained in his books.  One may agree or disagree with him on that point, of course, but putting down people on our side is a little much.  I try not to be too exotic, but I won’t criticize those who are.

Finally, I fail to see how “tough guys” are fake and gay.  I don’t care for posturing, and in person I’m about as civilized as it gets, but I also strongly emphasize working out.  If that makes me fake and gay, I guess I’ll have to start listening to more Village People albums.  (Now that I’ve been declared queer, I hope I don’t have to start going to bed with men – yuck!)  However, anyone who can outdo my powerlifting score is certainly welcome, if he pleases, to call me a big fairy.

After that, the article tries to drive home the point by going into a lot of Movement gossip.  This is where I really wanted to pull out my hair.  I’m not sure how true (or otherwise) the particulars are, but I don’t care.  Gossip is destructive.  I’ve observed this fact ever since I was a teenage shitlord, back in ancient times.  (I’ll have you know that my old pal Marcus Aurelius agreed with me on this matter.)  This sort of thing tends to demoralize us and spread internal dissention.  Can we kindly knock that off, please?

Xenu

21965 (xenu)

Then the article digresses about the evil galactic overlord Xenu from Scientology’s mythology.  (Xenu is also a major plot point in my book Space Vixen Trek Episode 13:  The Final Falafel.  That’s why I use our little grey buddy as my logo here.)  The Xenu myth – which is where they get their volcano symbol – is just as important to Scientology as the Garden of Eden is important to Christianity.  That is to say, if Xenu didn’t actually scatter billions of disembodied souls on earth back in the dinosaur days, then there’s no point in becoming a Scientologist.

Christianity does explain in a straightforward fashion about the Fall of Man and how salvation through Jesus is necessary because of that.  On the other hand, Scientology doesn’t explain about Xenu to newcomers, even if it’s the entire point of playing with their e-meters.  You have to reach the OT3 level, which generally takes at least $150K, to learn about that.  There are revelatory mystery religions out there, but the real reasons are that Scientology is a money-grubbing cult, and the Xenu story is absolutely ridiculous.

The reason for the digression is the following:

“Xenu shit” are ideas that the average uninitiated blue-pilled types just couldn’t handle right away. “Hitler was really the good guy” is some Xenu shit. People need a few red pills in them before they’re ready for that argument. Unless someone already has a penchant for conspiratorial thinking, Holocaust denial is Xenu shit. And, of course, “We’ve got to send all the Jews to Israel” is some Xenu shit.

I’ll add that the above positions are not mandatory for membership in the dissident right.  Moreover, there’s room for some nuance.  Still, it doesn’t matter so much whether one believes that (for example) Hitler was good, bad, or a far more complex figure than what you see on TV but nonetheless made dick moves occasionally.  Present-day debates do not stand or fall on whether or not Hollywood historiography was absolutely false, absolutely true, or grotesquely distorted and only occasionally true.  Anyone trotting out a “reductio ad hitlerum” argument against us is using sloppy debate tactics and should be called out for it.

Finally, we can start setting the bar a hell of a lot lower than this.  Remember, it’s the Current Year!  If you even believe in the existence of two distinct sexes, then this makes you “deplorable” even if you’re liberal.  That said:

Someone once told me “Red-pilling people is like defusing a bomb. You have to cut the wires in the right order or the whole thing blows up.” There’s not much sense doing the whole “Hitler was really the good guy” unless people understand the JQ. And there’s no point getting into the JQ with someone if they don’t understand race realism, because without race realism, the JQ is just an issue of assimilation.

Again, not all of the above items are essential views that all rightists have, but I’ll concur that there’s something to be said for introducing people to difficult concepts the right way.  In my own religion, which is almost as silly as Scientology, we call the slow approach “milk before meat”.  (Now hold that thought.)  Even so, there’s a bit of irony that the article doesn’t capture.  If the point of the groypers is to expose mainstream conservatives for hiding their weaksauce views, then why is it a virtue for dissident rightists to hide our radical views?

Delivering the right message

To digress from the article, this whole optics debate in essence is really just part of a larger consideration:  tailoring the message to the audience.  The important thing to remember is that the audience isn’t monolithic.  Because of this, you need to have more than one spokesman in your movement, more than one approach of reaching the public, and more than one message.

Highbrow audiences will not respond favorably to lowbrow messages.  For the most part, this is where the “bad optics” problem comes in.  However, lowbrow audiences are unresponsive to highbrow messages; it leaves them cold.  There’s also a middlebrow audience which needs suitable messages too.  In fact, none other than George Lincoln Rockwell discussed this in his essay “From Ivory Tower To Privy Wall: On The Art Of Propaganda”.

If you own a grocery store, and a man comes in from a painter’s truck in overalls to buy groceries, you don’t try to sell him a one-ounce jar of Russian caviar at two bucks a throw. You offer him beef, potatoes, and bread. If a French diplomat comes in, you don’t offer him hawg jowl; you might try the caviar. It is the same with propaganda. If you wish to win the “trade” of all potential “customers,” as we must do if we are to survive, you must have in stock a complete line of goods, especially the kind of goods most desired by the majority of your potential customers — and that means bread, potatoes, and beef, not caviar and truffles. If you can open a special store to peddle only caviar and truffles, do it in the silk-stocking district. Conversely, if you want to open another branch to sell only chitterlings, hawg jowls, and the like, then do it in the [African-American] section of town. And if you want a mass grocery business, in the name of sanity, stock up on something besides caviar and truffles.

So the takeaway is that all three approaches have their proper place, and all can be pursued where possible.  That said, the middlebrow approach should receive the greatest emphasis since this is where most of the public is.  Elsewhere:

The worst waste of money I have ever seen in the whole field of propaganda was the special Sunday supplement the Birch Society put out not so long ago in newspapers all over America. It cost as much as a quarter of a million dollars in some cities. Had it been designed to appeal to the mass, the “average man,” the man who votes with his heart instead of his head, it could have been worth the millions it took to publish. But it was foolishly aimed at a relatively tiny minority. On the front cover, in full color, it showed a typical Birch Society meeting, in the home of a man obviously wealthy – in the kind of living room which would make the average, working-class, overalled American uncomfortable. The Birchers were sitting around sipping tea with their pinkies daintily extended, and the whole atmosphere was foreign, ridiculous, and even painful to the man in overalls — to America’s millions of “ordinary Joes.”

Catering to only to “people who matter” isn’t a great strategy either.  (The corollary is “to hell with everyone in this other social class – we don’t need their support” or “the grassroots will always back us anyway, so we can sell them out”.)  We see lots of examples of that in conventional politics, where the candidates cater to swing voters and even try to poach voters from the other party.  When they do that, they count on the unquestioned approval of their main voter base, even if the politicians all but drop their pants and moon their constituents on national TV.  That’s one reason why there is so much cucking out in politics, which the groypers themselves are calling out.

The synthesis

Bringing this discussion back in, the Counter-Currents article is correct that the groypers are doing something right.  It’s good that someone is embarrassing all those phony conservatives by asking tough questions.  It’s also good that the groypers are a moderate and well-dressed faction that helps open up the eyes of a new audience.

Still, that’s only the beginning.  Once you’ve convinced the Republican voters that neocons are pussies and usually liberals in drag – what then?  Remember the above quote – “Red-pilling people is like defusing a bomb. You have to cut the wires in the right order or the whole thing blows up.”  So who’s there to cut the other wires after the first one?  You’ve scratched the surface, and there’s something to be said for that, but there are many other messages that need to be conveyed too.  (By the way, most of them have nothing to do with former German chancellors.)  Our counterpropaganda must counteract the effects of a lifetime of TV watching.  Obviously that includes lots of subjects – some easy, others not so much so.  Time is not on our side, and setting up a Red Pill correspondence course would be a bit unwieldy.

Therefore, we need to have people putting out the stronger stuff too, for those who are ready for it.  Obviously not everyone will be ready for certain points yet, but messages become accepted after frequent repetition.  (In fact, Commander Rockwell himself made that point.)  Also, the more people who are challenging the leftist Narratives, the less effective they are.  Likewise, all the taboos attached to them start to lose their power.  That’s why it’s about damn time to stop “punching right” and slagging off the people who really are putting out the hard-hitting messages.  This means quit going after the “wignats”, the “LARPers”, and the “fake gays” like me who spend too much time at the gym.  Put your real enemies on target instead.

Finally, we’ll never get “optics” just right.  The MSM is a leftist institution, and they can spin things however they like, so we’d better get used to playing on enemy territory.  They’ll call us all sorts of names no matter what we do or how many of our own friends we denounce.  The only way to win their approval is to believe the same way as them.  I’d rather just be a heretic in their opinion.

A contrarian perspective on the “optics” debate in the dissident right

2019 is gone, and not a moment too soon

 

Personally, 2019 zoomed by quite quickly.  I’m not a kid any more.  Life is on autopilot, set for cruising speed and headed straight for my grave.  On August 31, one of my all time favorite cats arrived there before me.  That alone was enough to make 2019 suck raw Rocky Mountain oysters.

What else went on for me in 2019

On the work front, I got passed up for a team lead position, which technically wouldn’t even have been a promotion.  The replacement lasted two or three weeks before chickening out and quitting the company.  Then someone else got chosen, who has a third of the seniority I do.  (Was it because I’m a man and wouldn’t look good on the quota, or is it something else?)  This year we also had two managers go.  Nobody on the team was offered the position.  The first replacement is a douche-nozzle who needs to get his attitude adjusted.  (Being one rung on the totem pole above someone else doesn’t mean you’re the Pharaoh of Egypt.)  Now he’s being replaced by some other dude, one who was brought in from outside the company.  As far as I can tell so far, he’s OK to work with, so things could be a lot worse.

I did everything society told me to, and now I’m spinning my wheels.  If I’d known back when I was fourteen that one day I’d be at the bottom of the corporate ladder well into middle age, then I would’ve saved my money for an electric guitar and an amp.  To hell with college, to hell with using my mind, to hell with being a productive citizen.  Even if I didn’t make it as a rock star, I could’ve been a beachcomber instead – all freedom and no responsibility, right?  More seriously, it’s tempting to go back into construction, just to avoid the corporate bullshit.  If things get worse, I’ll make some moves.

The year went out with a bang, and not the good kind.  Two of my roommates were neurotic Cluster B cases, middle aged women who act like teenagers.  I tried to help them when they desperately needed it, I even overlooked their failure to abide by their agreements with me, and of course I got my fingers burnt.  The more you do for these types, the less they appreciate it.  Anyway, there’s more detail, but I’ll leave it at that.

To make a long story short, the situation went DEFCON1 very recently between the two of them.  One has left after leaving a hole in a door, convinced that I’m a bad guy.  The truth is that I did my best to keep the peace among two bunny boilers who kept provoking each other and refused to listen to me when I told them to cut it out.  The other one is still here – for the moment, anyway – in denial about how serious her own role in this was.  Atlas is getting ready to shrug pretty soon.

With all this behind me, I’m kind of looking forward to 2020!  On the plus side for last year, I did get to go on a cool road trip with my number one girlfriend.  (Everyone else is so distant and/or hard to reach that it might as well be one on one.)  Also, I quit vaping after several years.  As of now, I’m coughing up accumulated gunk; according to what I’ve read, that’s normal.  I get little temptations every now and then, also called extinction burstsI just tell myself “I am not a bitch.”  The phrase works like magic!

2019 in the news

From my perspective, 2019 was sort of a slow news year.  I’ll go over a few highlights.

In interplanetary news, on April 11, an Israeli landing probe went haywire and became a new crater on the moon.  In its cargo was a time capsule containing a few items, including a copy of Wikipedia (no great loss in that instance).  Now it’s in a 100 meter splatter pattern on the moon.  So far, lunar authorities haven’t issued any littering tickets.  It also was carrying a small cargo of tardigrades, also called “water bears”.  These are tiny bugs that supposedly can survive anything, including being in space.  (What did the Israelis have against those little critters?)  So whenever the next moon landing happens – likely as not by the Chinese – are they going to get swarmed by hungry Space Bugs now?

Later that year, Jeffrey Epstein stole the spotlight.  If an ordinary shmuck gets caught molesting kids, he goes to prison.  Epstein, on the other hand, was special.  He had money.  He also had LOTS of associations with several influential figures.  Apparently Bill Clinton was a frequent flier to his “Lolita Island”.  OK, no big surprise there.  So was Prince Andrew.  Alan Dershowitz also went there, prompting him to provide a detailed description about getting a therapeutic massage from an old Russian lady.  (Hey Alan, was her name Olga?)  Dozens – or possibly hundreds – of top politicians and other important figures breathed a sigh of relief when Epstein “committed suicide” on August 10.  One little-known fact is that Ian Stuart of Skrewdriver wrote a song called “Vampire” about Epstein’s father-in-law, alias Robert Maxwell, another crook who came up out of nowhere and reached very high places.

In September, Nancy Pelosi started getting impeachment proceedings under way for President Trump.  Since the charges are groundless, this is just political theatrics calculated to play out in an election year and hinder his campaign.  Dirty tactics like that should backfire badly, but this isn’t going to stop all those low-information voters from supporting the Democrats.  They don’t like Trump, so anything to try to take him down is OK, facts and ethics be damned.

What would happen if Pelosi, Cupcake, Pocahontas, Feinstein, Boxer, or some other Democratic prima donna pulled off a palace coup, crowned herself Empress of America, sent Trump into a dungeon without trial, and put her critics into “reeducation camps”?  Hordes of leftists would cheer ecstatically.  Orange Man Bad!

In December, the UK elections happened.  The Labour Party got spanked, suffering the worst defeat in nearly a century.  It turns out that British working people no longer care for the party that claims to support them.  If Labour had worked on bringing jobs back, instead of virtue signaling and cultural Marxism, then they wouldn’t have had this problem.  Unfortunately, I fully expect the Tories to waste their mandate and not do anything to stop population replacement immigration.  I really hope I’ll be proven wrong here.

Fun prognostications for the future

As we’ve entered a new decade, it’s a good time to imagine how things might go in the future.  It looks like hovercars and the other cool shit we were promised as kids ain’t in the cards any time soon.  In fact, there are some people out there who want things to become considerably worse than they are now.

A few months ago, a cute article came out with the evocative title “Bokhari: Elites Want You to Eat Bugs, Live in Sewer Pipes, and Submit to Population Control“.  That one is pretty much what it says on the tin.  The New World Order types, and the ass-kissers helping to further their agendas, have some new ideas about how the world is going to go.

The “eating bugs” theme seems to be coming up frequently in recent times.  (Maybe some transmission belt carried a directive to popularize it?)  I figure the actual object of this is as a form of degrading punishment.  People like me are too “privileged” according to them, so to put us in our place, they expect us to eat bugs.  Oh, like the NWO types, our so-called “elites”, aren’t the most privileged humans on the planet, flying around on their private jets while lecturing us about carbon consumption?  All those who suck up to those globalist billionaires should take note of that fact whenever they’re not too busy chowing down on grubs, playing video games, and spanking off to pr0nOther suggestions include cannibalism.  Who knew that the day would come when Soylent Green would become a serious “modest proposal”?

The other major item is about architecture.  When ordinary dwellings are priced too high for common people, what then?  San Francisco and LA already have their tent cities, but there are some new plans.  The Third World is overpopulated, and Western countries which actually do have stable populations are run by treasonous politicians who want open borders.  Land becomes increasingly expensive as hordes pour in from abroad.  The globalists imagine that they’re going to be running the show permanently, so they have some ideas on how to make cities more overcrowded than they already are.  Creative measures will have to be taken to build better roach motels.

One proposed solution is housing pods made from recycled sewer pipes.  Those could be stacked in a honeycomb fashion into a big pile.  These would likely be pretty similar to the “capsule hotels” found in parts of Asia, except that you stay in little tubes for the duration.  Then there’s this:

If that isn’t enough of a dystopian cyberpunk nightmare for you, consider “parasite pods” — small homes designed to be attached to larger structures like skyscrapers and bridges. They’re “parasitic” — and we must credit the architectural students who came up with the concept for their refreshingly honest choice of name — because they cling to larger structures. Are you ready to be a parasite, for the environment?

That makes a Soviet-era panelak seem right cozy, doesn’t it?  These measures are not much better than living in prison, so they should be considered another form of degrading punishment.  Of course, it goes without saying that you’re supposed to die all alone and childless.  All this is what the globalists want for us.  To hell with them!

2019 is gone, and not a moment too soon