Picking a Fight with Almost Everyone

People talk about “the Left” and “the Right”. Then they shove Libertarians into “the Right” but I think this is a great error, and something that Libertarians should not put up with, as neither side has any interest in freedom or independence, regardless of what they might say.

Here is the fact of the matter, there is Left, Right and Libertarian. They all push and pull in different directions. What throws people in regards to Libertarianism being on the Right is purely the rhetoric of the Right, but almost never their actions.

Let me attack these particular groups in more detail.

Why I Hate the Left

The Left stands primarily for collectivism, but are actually very exclusive about who gets to be in the collective. They want a specific type of person, with a very specific set of beliefs, and become outraged at the slightest variation of opinion. They claim its for the benefit of everyone, but it invariably is for the benefit of a certain few, and at great cost for everyone else.

Speaking of the USA here, the Left has been historically the prime movers for racism. Behind most laws, most restrictions, the most cases of great injustice — we find the Left. These weren’t the right kind of people for their collective. At the end of the day, all the high talk of morals was a sham to push their political agenda, and people are meant to be used, not empowered, as the very core of collectivism is removal of individual empowerment.

Lets use another example, LGBT people. The Left has been wooing the LGBT community for decades now, but it could not be more clear that they are in fact, merely using them as they do. When the hot items of the day such topics as acceptance, an end to violence against LGBT people and gay marriage, the left was eager to accept the idea that being LGBT was something that someone was simply born like. A person was born LGBT, and that was just the way they were, so prejudice against someones immutable characteristics was morally bankrupt. A statement I find nothing to argue against.

However, when Post Modernism took hold and that became the new path to political power, the previous opinions on the nature of LGBT people was immediately dropped: Now the statement is that everything is merely subjective opinion, even something as basic as gender, and that even ones sex was merely a social construct. This immediately puts being LGBT back into being a choice — exactly where the Right said they always were, and vulnerable to the same persecution they were in the past. They claimed to follow the science when it was convenient, but when it wasn’t, they dismissed it entirely as nothing more than empty subjective truth.

The mainstream Left movements have no problem throwing LGBT people under the bus for political gain. Again, the theme is clear: The Left views people as objects to be used to gain power, and that’s it. They are perfectly happy to say or do anything in that goal, and nothing they say can be trusted.

Why I Hate the Right

The Right primarily seeks stability, which is in itself not a terribly offensive goal. The problem is much the same as the Left, however, in that they are perfectly happy to see people sacrificed for that imagined stability. More then that, they are naturally resistant to any kind of change of the status quo, even when that change is clearly modernization and improvement. In fact, “modernization” as a concept is something they are frequently hostile too — they have no interest in expanding who gets to be part of their vision.

Lets use the LGBT community as an example again. The Right resisted acceptance, marriage and continue to look the other way on violence against LGBT persons because this was an alteration to the status quo, and looks differently from their idea vision of society, which seems to boil down to 1950’s America.

To this day, they uphold 1950’s America as the pinnacle of American society and just look the other way on that fact that LGBT people are treated horribly based upon nothing at all but prejudice. When it became fairly clear that LGBT people were indeed, simply born the way they are, they still reject it out of hand. A common theme with both types of people is that science is great when it supports their opinions, but can simply be disregarded when it doesn’t suit their purpose. Both sides claim to be on the side of science, but neither has any actual interest in the truth.

The justification for suppression of LGBT is simply that in their minds, things were fine the way they were, and since they were not LGBT, what did it matter that some people had to be sacrificed for the greater good? The Right does not care about the individual any more than the Left does. They have their own vision of the perfect utopia, and people who don’t fit in that ideal world can simply be discarded.

Not all that different from the Left, when it comes down to it, the difference is mainly in the details, and who gets sacrificed. In either case, there is a certain type of person who is acceptable, and certain types of people who are undesirables.

Why I Hate My Fellow Libertarians

I bet a lot of people didn’t guess this particular heading was going to happen. But I most certainly do have reason to be frustrated with other Libertarians.

Firstly, Libertarians joke they have plans to take over the world, and then leave you alone. Humorous, but contains not much truth. Libertarians have no plans at all. They simply imagine that they might just magically get their way, some day, and then we’ll see just how great everything will be when the oppressive crush of the government is out of the way. How this is to be achieved, they haven’t the faintest idea, and simply dismiss the question when it comes up. More than this, they simply turn a blind eye to a core belief in their own system: People really aren’t made equal, and some people really can’t manage on their own.

They are prone to being intensely smug about their own abilities, and — I’m sure this will sound familiar by now — are quite willing to sacrifice people who need help for their vision of utopia. In this case, the undesirables are the people who are not naturally capable, the people who need help to make their way in this world. Those people can fall by the wayside, they are irrelevant to the Market, after all.

When criticism of this particularly callous view is brought up, they act as if the only alternative is some kind of Socialism and the great evil of government. The smallest amount of organization of any kind, regardless of scope, its viewed as the creation of a slippery slope which will inevitably lead back to government and then back to square one.

Put bluntly, Libertarians as a whole are self obsessed and have no interest in anyone else, and cannot seem to figure out why this is view is unpopular, and why their beliefs generally remain in the fringes. To them, who cares if someone can’t make it on their own, they would have contributed little to the Market after all, and if you don’t contribute, you don’t have value.

Everyone Sucks

All three major ideologies fail on moral grounds: all three are willing to sacrifice people for what are ultimately nothing more than banal selfish reasons. The Left and Right are happy to sacrifice people who don’t fit their mold, and the Libertarians are simply content with the Law of the Jungle.

All three attack one another with valid criticisms, and all three fail to address any of them. They simply hand-wave them away as unimportant minutia. The Left’s drive for power, the Rights obsession with tradition, and the Libertarians callous behaviour.

To put a finer point on it, until we have a system that doesn’t embrace the sacrifice of people, none of these systems are particularly appealing, and most of them simply regress back into the same Authoritarian regimes we’ve always had.

Things I agree Socialists about

Well, as strange as it sounds there is actually a lot of things I agree with Socialists on. First, “Big Corporations are often bad” and second, “Inequality is a problem”. I’ll talk about each in turn.

So I agree that big corporations are often bad. I very aggressively dislike Google, Twitter, Facebook, I’m distrustful of Amazon, I’m more than a little suspicious of the big oil companies and anyone associated with the Military Industrial Complex. Slightly off topic, but Libertarians in general tend to be strongly anti-war as well, although this might be more well known. I mean there is always a lot of hard ethical questions when it comes to genuinely bad governments abusing or murdering citizens and when intervention might be the correct ethical choice but as a default stance is fair to say that Libertarians in general do not like frivolous war mongering. If you define the Left as leaning towards collectivism, and the Right as leaning towards heirarchy, then I am equally hostile to both, but you wouldn’t call me a centrist either since I don’t occupy any space that many would call moderate.

But to go back to the topic of big corporations, you have to understand what the prime interest of Libertarians in general is that is that I don’t want to be coerced or pressured into doing something that I object to. Now, this would also apply to corporations. The root of all of it is precisely that I aim to do what I please so long as I’m not inflicting harm on anyone, provided of course, a reasonable definition of harm. It doesn’t matter who would attempt to coerce me, I’m just not interested in it happening. The same criticism I have of government I would pose identically to big corporations as well. Essentially, “stay out of my way”.

The primary focus is usually directed at the government because it is generally the government that is the gatekeeper of harm, and violence in particular. Robert Heinlein said very accurately “Violence, the supreme authority from which all others are derived”. Therefore who has the ability to commit violence has the authority. The saying “knowledge is power” is true only sofar as that knowledge can be transmuted into violence.

Corporations on the other hand, rarely have much in the way of violence. Which is why they get less “air time” than government. Also, they simply have less power to influence me. I can, at least some of the time, opt out of business with a corporation but I never, ever have the ability to opt out of government. But to go on, I think a huge part of the corruption of Capitalism is that there is a government that can be influenced, or people within that government that can be outright purchased. My proposal at least in this regard is that the more limited the government the less ability it has to sell out.

A brief note, I did just say “the corruption of Capitalism”, and I think that may have got the attention of many Socialists as well — yes I do agree that Capitalism has a weakness when it comes to possiblity of corruption. So when you talk about how things should work you need to invent a way to limit that weakness — some would suggest removing Capitalism entirely but I think that’s beyond the scope of this discussion and certainly we have historical examples of that happening. So let me leave that for another time and focus on making Capitalism more robust in its implementations. Socialists have their theories on how best to do that, my theory is limiting their influence on government. Because Corporations rarely if ever have any ability to project significant physical violence their actual authority will always be limited. I would ask Socialists, “Where do you draw the line on when a business is too powerful?” because I don’t know either. The definition would have to be legal in nature, and extremely precise. Should this be defined, we might agree on it, where we go from there likely would likely vary. But common ground shouldn’t be overlooked when it is found.

I want you to be honest here, when the silicon valley Big companies came for someone, it wasn’t Socialists or Communists. It was anyone who could be even vaguely defined as right-wing. If you are really being truthful, you don’t actually think that everyone on the right is a Nazi do you? Do I seem like a Nazi? My dislike of hierarchy, my belief in the individual as the broadest possible metic, and my distaste for government violence should all disquality me almost by definition. So if anyone should have a problem with big corporations its the very people who’ve mostly been attacked by then, and it isn’t you, at least so far as the silicon valley corporations go.

So lets go on to inequality. Wikipedia states that in 2007, the top 20% of the wealthiest had 80% of the total wealth. You can cut these statistics down a bit and note that the top 1% has 35% of the wealth. Let me be clear, this is very bad, and this has severe consequences. I think that we agree on this outright. That level of wealth inequality is a source of massive societal problems, whether the method that allowed this distribution to happen was ethically legitimate (ie, not theft) or not.

I think my problem here is that finding a palataple solution. I think, that is to say in my opinion we’ve experimented sufficiently with forced wealth redistribution enough to know that its a suboptimal. I know that’s likely a point of contention, but I believe that we have enough historical data on the subject to know its consequences — although it should be noted that there are degrees of wealth redistribution even within places such as the USA. I don’t know at the moment whether the effects, economic and societal, are linear with the level of wealth redistribution.

Here is a concrete, absolute fact of Capitalism, it has reduced worldwide poverty more than anything else ever has. So through the effects of Capitalism there are less and less people living in extreme poverty at rates that are higher than ever before in human history, and the rate is increasing. However, at the exact same time the gap between the poorest and richest groups is also increasing. Now, the higher the gap the greater the tension in society. The magic trick would to somehow keep the ability to pull people out of poverty but reduce the gap between the levels without damaging Capitalisms positive effect on overall poverty. I think a lot of the time when people attack Capitalism they are thinking primarily of the wealth gap, which is a fair critism that does need to be addressed somehow.

This a practical problem, however, because actually pulling wealth away from the wealthy is difficult because the wealthy are best at retaining wealth, that is, they have the actual means to move around or hide money, they can choose where on the planet to live, etc. Then there is the fact that high taxation has a strong negative effect on success on a business. Now I know this from experience that taxation makes running a small business very difficult, it limits your income, it limits your customers ability to purchase your goods or services, it is an extreme challenge to operate under high taxation. Let me briefly talk some numbers here, about half of Canadians work for small businesses, where a small business is defined as 5 to 100 employees, with 41 percent of small business having less than 20 employees.

So here is the problem, only about 1 in 10 small business actually become successful, yet they are a absolutely critical component of a wealth. I’m going to suggest that anything that makes this more challenging is going to have a strong negative effect on wealth generation. Keep in mind here these are small businesses, they can’t hide their money overseas, they can’t move their operations to more tax friendly locations. Just like the middle class bears the burden of overall taxation, the small business suffers the most from taxation. “Tax the rich” is a strategy that has never worked because the rich are too mobile to say nothing of their political influence.

So the challenge of inequality is to somehow enable small businesses to succeed and grow, and thus employ more people, but somehow narrow the wealth gap. Placing some kind of limit of someones wealth will just be worked around and evaded, having the state steal ownership has drastic and highly negative effects on that business and generally destroys its profitability, unions have their own sets of problems once they get to certain sizes they essentially become businesses themselves with all the faults and problems of anything else, they also drive up prices and damage ability to be competative. Remember there is a balance here between income and price, if prices go up at the same rate as your income then you’ve effectively made no progress at all. Not to put to fine a point on it, but economics is complicated.

I agree that the wealth gap cannot be ignored indefinitely. At some point it will become unmanagable and things will turn ugly, perhaps even to very literal class warfare. Definitely not something we want to see. So look, my disagreement with Socialists on this topic isn’t that the wealth gap isn’t a problem, its in implementation, I don’t think that wealth redistruction is practical solution even if I didn’t have major ethical issues with the process. So I’m going to leave that here, because I don’t have a solution either, in this case I know more about what doesn’t work than what does.

Real quickly, the last point is just about socialist effects on wealth, some quick charts for those who point to European semi-socialist economies as examples of successful wealth redistribution. Please do note that these are still capitalist economies, but with greater levels of wealth redistribution. This is 2016 data. There is a huge difference here.

So as a final comment, I think that most socialists and I are talking about the same problems, but we are just discussing different solutions. No one on the right is saying poverty is good, no one is saying the wealth gap is good. I think you’ll find very, very few people actually like or support big businesses that have more political influence than the voters. Theses are problems that are absolutely on the forefront of our philosophies. And hey, if you guys manage to figure out some kind of solution be sure to share it with us.

SJW’s and Incels, not so different?

(This article was written some time ago, shortly after the Toronto incel shooting so “recently” shows up a few times and that’s no longer the case.)

So I read an article the other day, “Sympathy for the ‘Incel’ (linked below). I found it a pretty depressing article, mainly to a certain extent I can empathize with the hopelessness of these men. I think a lot of guys go at least at some point in their lives bemoan their troubles with women but these guys have problems that go beyond that.

But the article itself covers them better than I could, so go ahead and read that, its an interesting read if nothing else. But after thinking about it for a few minutes I thought about the guys I’ve known in my life who just don’t have anything going on, and then I thought a bit more and I realized that I have seen these types before — Social Justice Warriors.

Basically, I’m putting forth the idea that the bizarre, often grostesque, brightly colored SJW’s that we see screeching hopelessly at the sky are basically the female version of incels.

Now, Incels came into the news with a furror lately because the Toronto mass murder was done by a incel. So an incel, if you don’t know is involuntary celebate. Basically, guys who truly have no idea where their towels are. But really, I think, yeah its a problem with people who are driven insane by being totally and completely lost and outcast without any hope of redemption. So they decide to end it all with a horrific bang. Those seem to be the mass murderers of today’s world. But most of the incels are just bitter and learn much more towards being self destructive.

So to go on, they collect in a few places on the internet and share their misery with one another.

That reminds me very much of SJW’s and their safe spaces. I think their primary motivation is bitterness. They need someone to blame for their mediocre at best lives, they cannot come to grips that they aren’t special, and thus come up with the grand shared delusion that they are oppressed by an all emcompassing system. While the Incels have an inward focus to their bitterness, the SJW’s project theirs.

But I think ultimately that an SJW is often just the female version of an Incel. The language is very different, but I think the emotion is generally the same. I’m not the first person to notice that the SJW crowd is generally, well, to be blunt, either ugly or so gross a person that no one would ever like them. Unlike Incels, these people ended up getting seduced by NeoMarxism — “you aren’t ugly or unplesant, society just says you are.” I’d almost wager that’s the biggest difference outside of gender, is that Incels seem to view the world in absolute terms of genetic combat (ie, survival of the best genes) while SJW’s view it as systems of oppression.

Look I’m not so emotionally stunted or so entirely disconnected from people that I can’t look through the incel forums and see real pain and dispair there. It is totally brutal in those forums. That is true dispair. But definitely, I mean, let me advise you here, do not go to those forums. I wouldn’t suggest going there anymore than I would suggest going to Somalia for a vacation. Its brutal, I can’t say that enough. These guys are in pain and many of them are verbally lashing out in ways that are not easy to read. That is a place where only true misery is to be found. Just don’t go, don’t be curious this time.

I spent some time on the forums listening to the incels talk amoung themselves and anything you think you could say to these guys to give them hope has been said a thousand times already. They are so bad they actively attack anyone who tries to find some kind of happiness in their lives. The same way when you talk to SJW’s and point out facts about world poverty decline, the truth about the so called gender wage gap, the fact that their politics are responsible for tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of deaths, they don’t listen, they don’t want to hear it.

Some of them might grow out of it, some of them might find inner strength to overcome the source of their misery, others might find ways to enjoy life with what they have. And, some of them are just so destroyed by the circumstances of their lives that they are hopeless. I think this applies more or less equally to the SJW’s and Incels alike.

Sympathy for the ‘Incel’

Leftist Gulags

You know what amuses me about the SJW’s?

They continue to talk about socialism and communism, they wear Che Guevara t-shirts and hand wave away the over one hundred million deaths caused by Leftists over the last century and chant about how they will bring about change to the world.

When you point out this “change” has already happened several times with disasterous results, they just say “but it wasn’t real communism”. The fact that this “real communism” seems to be utterly unatainable doesn’t phase them in the slightest.

You see, THIS TIME, they’ll make it stick. THIS TIME they will make damn sure the undesirables who believe in free speech — the only use for such a thing is bigotry, you see — will be outcasted and imprisoned. Sure, Stalin did all that stuff too, but THIS TIME they’ll get the right people in the gulags.

The new workers paradise will do all the exact same things as it did before, but THIS TIME it’ll go off without a hitch. You just have to silence the disenters, the free speech absolutists and other hateful trash. They are hard at working getting this all done, and they are making good progress on it too.

So why does this amuse me? Well, because I know for a fact that when the Leftists get their new gulags up and going, the very same shrieking, ranting, sign waving, vandalizing, mask wearing, nonsense blathering idiots who pushed so hard for their construction will be the first ones in.

Because guess what? One thing the new powerful elite will know for sure is that these people have been full time trouble makers and political upsetters with a track record of success. Comrade Stalin knew exactly what to do to these people, and the SJW’s new leader will know exactly what to do too.

While I would get a chuckle to see these people get exactly what they’ve been asking for, I’d rather it not get to that point.

A Brief Rant on the US Constitution

Americans sometimes miss the plot. A lot of them get it, but the vast majority — say, somewhere between 95-99% completely fuckin missed it.

Let me ask you something: From where do you get the Freedom of Speech?

I bet almost every single one of you said “The Constitution, of course.”

Wrong, dumbass! Its not from there at all, that’s just a piece of fucking paper. Paper has no power, its just mushed up bits of tree. The only good you can do with it is kindling. Paper means nothing.

“Oh, but the ideas were more powerful than blah blah”

Nope. Ideas aren’t powerful either. That’s more bullshit.

You can write whatever the fuck you want on piece of paper — doesn’t make it true, doesn’t give it power. Hopefully a few of the quicker ones have picked up where I’m going with this.

You got your Freedom of Speech from the red hot and fouled business end of a Long Land Pattern Brown Bess musket. The paper and the ideas behind it didn’t mean shit until someone put primer to pan and mentally prepared themselves to kill.

The only power paper — or ideas — have, is to convince people to pick up the real, genuine object of power: lethal force, and the willingness to use it.

If this wasn’t true, then you’d be able to open or conceal carry without a license in every state in the US. You’d be able to own a full on belt-fed machinegun — just like the Constitution promises. Well in most places you can’t, because paper doesn’t mean a damn thing without the gun behind it.

More then that, America just put up with a lock down of precisely the kind the fabled Constitution forbids.

Paper means nothing. Physical violence is, always has been, always will be everything.

The “supreme law of the land” isn’t the Constitution, its “Fuck you, I’m coming to take it and I’ll kill you if you try and stop me.”

That’s why I give no sympathy to the police or anyone in government. Fuck ’em.

There isn’t a single law that isn’t backed up by a gun to your head, and the police are the ones who will be holding that gun. They aren’t your friends, they aren’t there to protect you, they aren’t there to serve you. They are there to use violence to enforce the rules the elites have made, that’s it.

That’s why freedom isn’t in the Constitution, freedom isn’t something that can be written down or ever guaranteed.

Freedom isn’t “shall not be infringed”, it’s “No, fuck you, come and take it or die trying.” Anything else is submission to the King.

Why is my “Intergenerational Trauma” not as valid as yours?

On my father side alone, before they immigrated to Canada from England…

My great grandpa served in WW1 driving an ambulance from the front lines to the medical stations in the rear. We’ll never know the horrors that he had seen from bullets, shrapnel, chemical gases. How many people died in his ambulance. How many people were forever maimed that he loaded in.

My grandpa, who I did know when I was young, served the entire length at the front lines in WW2. He fought real, actual Nazi’s. I’ve seen pictures of him, clearly strong and very muscular holding a Bren gun. I know he was a machinegunner, but actually few of the details are known by anyone. He came back from the War “totally changed” according to Nana. He had a chest full of all sorts of medals, but rarely if ever shared stories about how he got them. I know that he lived only by the barest of chances. He was injured and in the hospital just outside of Tobruk, before the offensive and couldn’t take part. An artillery shell landed a few feet from his head and turned out to be a dud — and for that tiny chance, my father and I exist. All his friends and most the entirety of his unit died in that attack. Still, he didn’t go home until the War was over.

Lets go a little further back, just in case two generations of true horror isn’t enough — we’re actually Irish! As if the Irish have ever had a easy time of anything! From English invasions, Cromwell, the famine, indentured servitude, Barbary Pirates, oh you name it the Irish had taken their licks. We weren’t “posh” folks, but your down in the dirt and grime working class. Grandpa left England to start his family in Canada precisely to escape class restrictions that would have put his children, my father, into a low class lifestyle. This wasn’t all that long ago, was it?

So why exactly does the fact that some black people have slavery in their past matter, but the horrors that incurred in the past to almost every generation or every people from everywhere on Earth not matter?

The answer is because none of it really matters. The trajectory of black families in the early 20th century is not the trajectory they are on today, and that change didn’t start to happen until around the 60’s, and that’s why black communities are the way they are today — socialist policies hostile to families, and zero to do with a history full of unpleasantness, because almost everyone has that.