I have an Adri, your argument is invalid.

Category: Ethics

The Right Wing

The Right Wing: Children of all ages asking as crassly as possible, why is anything other than their needs their problem.

Society already recognizes that entire school of thought as inhuman and parasitic. It’s an obvious appeasement reaction in the face of the 1%. It’s stockholm syndrome. You know you can’t beat them, so you internalize their lies in a futile effort to join them.

“Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary”

The neocon/4chan/Ayn Rand attitude is simply the natural consequence of the altruistic groups rising to power, in turn being attacked and torn down from within by the selfish groups.

But whatever, I have no illusions. You’re all beyond the reach of reason. It’s all about dogma for you. That’s why you’re all here white knights for a redpill asshole fat shaming as an argument against sharing.

An argument in favor of the idea that we are all ants and that the ideal human future is one of eternal drudgery and service to the 1%.

I’m speaking to the historical record, I’m not speaking to any of you.


Is being too late really so bad?


What are your thoughts given that we’re probably already hit runaway climate change? I mean there are dozens of posts out there full of stark data on this subject.

I gotta tell you… Honestly I feel better. There’s a dark cynicism to that feeling, but it’s like this:

We’ve had nuclear power as an option for decades. We instead chose to embrace fear and greed. For no good reasons.

If the climate has reached the tipping point, then the damage is in a sense already done. And there’s a freedom in that.

We no longer have to tell the third world they have to wait to embrace a better western style of life.

Nuclear advocates have tried in our ways, as hard as we could, to wake up the species. We failed. We failed vs liars, fools, and the 1% but we were on the right side of history, are on the right side. There’s comfort in that.

With China and India embracing nuclear it seems like we’ll eventually get there, but avoiding climate change is no longer the priority since that ship has sailed.

I feel like that gives us time. I can’t help but feel like it’s better to do it right than it is to do it fast, if it’s a choice. And it kind of is now. We don’t have to deploy nuclear at top speed now. It would be nice if we did but it’s no longer as urgent. At this point it’s a hail mary pass.

Now it’s just about all the other advantages. The space probes, cancer cures, desalination, and lifestyle upgrades for the billions of lives directly impacted by Chinese and Indian energy policy.

I think I like the idea of selling hope for a high tech future instead of fear of climate change. They are better at selling fear than us anyway. One whack job with a book accomplished more socially than we ever did.

But now it’s about what nuclear can do to make climate change survivable.

I hate to be topical and trivial but winter is coming, and the new fire will get us through. Climate change means centuries of new weather and new ecology. New york city will flood. Drink that in. No pun intended.

See, I think part of why I feel ok about it is because this will force us to change things, and fixing climate change was essentially all about keeping things from changing, which given how screwed up things are, never sat well with me. My whole world view’s hope production centers on change.

I despise how things are. Change is badly needed, and there seems a definite upside to it being more or less imminent.

I feel like it’s more opportunity than threat here. It’s like a coming slow motion war. A true world war with an enemy we can truly feel good about fighting.

Perhaps we need this reminder as a species that nature not our ally. It’s a blind machine that frankly would compost us literally without thought. And now we get to find out if we’re really capable of freeing ourselves from it.

We need to close the loop. And we can. And soonish on global weather time scale, we’re going to have to. I think I like the idea of having to invent new forms of life to survive. I like the idea of converting nuclear silos into nuclear vertical farm robots. I like the idea of growing cloned meat instead of cows. I like the idea of humanity finally embracing the new fire.

There’s a huge political I told you so coming down the line here and we might well be able to parlay that into a substantive compassionate shift in human policy. And I can’t help but feel hopeful.

I could see this ushering in the end of neocon libertarian thought. Profit above all else has driven us literally over the edge. It’ll finally be time to take the wheel from the selfish and let the compassionate ones drive.

I can’t help but feel like we’re already seeing it. Something changed long ago and politically humanity is catching up. I feel like ISIS and Brexit and Sanders and Trump and Corbyn etc etc all came from the same source. The same titanic shifting under our feet.

As I see it there are two real drivers for change in human history: Environment and technology. Everything else stems from them imo.

I feel like the massive political changes of the last decade were likely sourced by climate change. And while some of those changes have been bad, I think there’s a pretty clear trend towards the good. The future of humanity seems united in the direct of change we’d like to see.

It is only the old and the foolish and the pathological screaming for austerity and death and torment and exile and all the right wing blames for victims.

All the political craziness to me smacks of desperation on the part of the more cruel and dismissive elements of humanity. Their way of life is approaching the end of its literal viability.

They are rats cornered on a sinking ship.

The future no longer belongs to them.

Pardon the grandiose tone, but… The time of the Apex is upon us.

We’re going to have really start doing what we were born to do in order to live.

Insects survive because they adapt to the environment. We survive because we change it. It’s time to start changing it on purpose and with commitment.

I say we start by wiping out the mosquito via genetic engineering.

BLM and a Defense of Riots


In response to a conversation a friend and I had about BLM’s relationship to rioting I am writing this post as a kind of general statement of opinion.

There’s plenty to criticize people for. But blaming BLM for riots isn’t reasonable because It’s not like BLM are the Illuminati. The entire existence of BLM is a response to a lack of power. And without power there can be no responsibility.

So first we must think about what BLM is and isn’t actually capable of.

They don’t have the power to start or stop riots.

So knowing that, questions spring to mind. Should BLM denounce them, encourage them, or stay silent on them? Knowing they can’t prevent or cause them. Are riots justified?

In my view BLM is automatically an ally of any one who feels the police have become an oppressive, regressive, violent mafia. I’m not saying they think that, I’m saying anyone else who thinks that should see BLM as allies.

In terms of political strategy, if BLM were a monolithic organization, which it isn’t, I don’t think they should denounce rioting because if they did, and riots happened anyway, it would expose that weakness and set them against any elements of the community that have (perhaps rightfully) concluded that the time for peaceful response is at an end.

If you start to think of the police as an invading army, rioting becomes a rather merciful option.  I can’t help but think that if the police here acted like the police in those areas towards my community’s children a riot would be the least of their worries.

Essentially I view riots as warning shots preceding open revolt. And open revolt has to be on the table if we expect to effectively negotiate with the state. Which is what all activism is.

This is a huge part of why I think anti-gun progressives are outright foolish. It’s like starting a game of chess by asserting that violence is wrong and banning the use of pawns.

Some describe a riot as a kind of political or economic cannibalism, as burning “their own” city. But how do you define your city as opposed to your prison? It isn’t their city when their lives are ruled by people that don’t even live there. And that’s true of all of us so long as 62 people own half the planet.

If anything a riot is the burning of a company shanty town. And let’s be honest, they aren’t that destructive anyway. A few fires, a smashed car, and some rubble in the street. They aren’t a hurricane.

Mostly they are symbolic, and a great way to force the police and the press to show their true colors, which as Gandhi has shown us can be quite effective political currency.

I could see it being described as burning collaborator businesses that demonstrably don’t care about them. Business in my view rarely helps a community. First of all the vast majority of it is corporate, which means it’s parasitic and corrupting. Corporations clearly own the press and the government, that’s the root of the problem. Rioting to destroy corporate business interests in my community seems on paper like an extremely valid response.

And don’t talk to me like jobs are inherently a good thing. They aren’t.

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that what BLM fights for is 100% justified. Cops keep getting cleared and acquitted for killings that are often on video. If there is no legal recourse, and the economy is completely unresponsive to both activism and political engagement, then a riot is a reasonable next step in my view.

Tell me things aren’t bad enough to justify revolt in the streets and I’ll tell you you’re not paying attention.

Even if BLM denounces rioting, I would not. Rioting is a valid compromise when trying to avoid a revolutionary civil war.

If that war happens, it will be the police who history shows declared it.

See also:


If not now, when?

9/11: Rhetorical Poison

I make it a point not to discuss my position on 9/11 because the entire debate is rhetorical poison.

It’s like a land mine for your credibility. I step over it.

The result is the same either way. Assume for a second it was as they say an inside job. Or assume it’s the other extreme, exactly like the official story. Same result. Same tragic deaths. Same insane policy. Same wasted opportunities.

It’s the modern JFK. The results will be much the same. No matter what really happened, no amount of likely evidence will convince either side to switch sides.

If it was an inside job all proof of it is gone by now. If it wasn’t, no amount of what’s left will convince the opposition. The smoking gun is paperclips by now.

Honestly even the death toll isn’t relevant when you step back. How many civilians did the American military kill last year? The drug war? Treatable illness? Hunger? Etc.

What would proving it and having a massive public trial that turns out exactly as they want actually accomplish? How likely is the best possible outcome? Will it ever be worth 3000 lives? Is that even possible?

I just think the whole thing is worse than pointless. I think we can go back once we can afford to. The time to do something meaningful in any but the historical context is over.

Clearly it’s a massively significant historical event and thus is worthy of study, but the fact is there’s a reason why we basically leave that study to people bent on self-marginalizing.

Even if they are right and the goal is noble, there are more pressing issues.

Every one ethical and sane already all basically agrees the war on terror is a human rights catastrophe, the war in Iraq a gargantuan mistake, a decade and a half of hard experience has taught us the folly of this path and the informed are already committed to changing it, for the most part.

We manufactured Osama and we manufactured ISIS, and either they engineered 9/11 or they ruthlessly exploited it, and either way they are responsible for an unfathomable number of deaths, plus or minus 3000.

The best thing to do now is avoid all such things in the future as best we can and oppose any logic which dismisses the suffering and death of others.

Why don’t republicans love China?

Because Bernie Sanders I see a lot of bullshit about China coming out of the right wing types these days.

It’s a republican wet dream as far as I know. There’s like no real social safety nets, there’s no real environmental regulation, nothing like an actual minimum wage, nothing like real privacy protection, a de facto slave trade, obsessive cultural worship of the past, no unions, no real justice system just a lot of arbitrary executions and censorship and militarized police, huge and belligerent actual military, institutionalized sexism, it’s financial systems are a deregulated bubble factories thick with corruption and insider trading, the list is endless. Not to mention they are the direct or indirect obvious beneficiaries of every trade pact on the planet. Trade pacts which the right wing ADORE.

It’s like if Fox news ran a country. China seems the end product of libertarianism. Socialism for the corporations and oligarchs, and heartless individualism for everyone else. Which is exactly what all right wing policy demands. That’s the entire point of starve the beast, since Reagan.

Literally the only difference between China and a theoretical right wing utopia is no government enforced Christianity, and maybe a few differences of label. Functionally they seem nearly identical to me.

The very term libertarian BEGAN as a corporatist lie. A philosophy tailor made to justify pro business regulation and deregulation. And isn’t that what China is now? Just a massive corporation with a bunch of wholly owned subsidiaries with the entire populace in the role of employees?




600 Words on Why You Should #FeelTheBern

2016-02-11_141359600 Words on Why You Should #FeelTheBern




Free Stuff Doesn’t Grow on Trees!

Every dollar in Bernie Sanders’s proposals is matched by a corresponding dollar raised in revenue — it’s all accounted for.

For example, the $75 billion/year College For All plan will be paid for by a tax on Wall Street speculation, while the $100 billion/year Rebuild America Act will be paid for by taxing corporate offshore income.

Socialists will ban private property!

Bernie Sanders is a DEMOCRATIC socialist. He believes that our current economic system isn’t doing enough for poor and middle-class Americans and that democratic change is needed to create a more fair and just America.

But this isn’t radical or scary! Many of the programs instituted by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson that we take for granted today — such as Medicare, the 40-hour work week, the minimum wage, and Social Security — can be considered socialist programs.

He’ll tax us all into homelessness!

If you’re one of the 1.5% of Americans making more than $231,450 a year, your marginal tax rate will go up slightly — money you earn above $231,450 will be taxed at 37% instead of 33%.

If you’re one of the 0.6% of Americans making more than $500,000 a year, your marginal rate will go up from 39.6% to 43%. Above $2,000,000 the rate will be 48%, and above $10,000,000 the rate will be 52%. These are tax increases that will only affect the very, very wealthy.

On the other hand, the vast majority of Americans will see significant savings when factoring in tax and healthcare changes under Bernie’s plans.

He’d never win vs the republicans!

Bernie has a better chance in the general election than Hillary would have:

Bernie performs better than Hillary does in all hypothetical match-ups against Republicans in poll after poll (2.4% better against Trump, 4.6% better against Cruz, and 1.5% better against Rubio, on average).

Bernie significantly outperforms Hillary in surveys of independent voters, and with 30-40% of Americans identifying as independents, they will play the deciding role in the general election.

And Bernie has a big lead in favorability, with a +10% net favorability rating among all Americans, compared to Hillary’s -10% net favorability rating. No presidential candidate has ever won with a negative favorability rating.

Republican controlled congress won’t let him do anything!

Bernie is actually well-known for his ability to compromise to get things done without sacrificing his values. In the House, he was known as the Amendment King, and passed more amendments, addressing exclusively progressive goals, than any other legislator, by forging cross-party coalitions.

He has earned respect from Republicans ranging from John McCain to the ultra-conservative Jim Inhofe. If any Democratic president can reach across the aisle to work with a stubborn Republican Congress, it’s Bernie Sanders.

See Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6hbwp0RUAI
(Bernie Sanders’ Realistic Plan to Confront and Defeat Obstructionism in Congress)

He wants to cancel Obamacare!

Bernie wants to expand health care coverage, not get rid of it!

Obamacare has made things a lot better, but it’s only a step in the right direction: Americans are still paying more for healthcare than any other country, and more than 10% of us still don’t have health insurance.

Bernie’s Medicare-for-all proposal will do just what it says — provide coverage for every American citizen, while saving the average American family $2000—$4000 per year.

But Hillary is Better!

Not really:

==== ==== ==== ====
For original source of text and links with citation check out:

For more information on where he stands on other issues check out:

Other links:

Underlore © 2013