Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts

Thursday, December 19, 2024

List of People Who Might Run for President as a Democrat or a Republican in 2028

      The following is a list of people who appear to be the most likely prominent political figures who may declare an intent to form a campaign to run for President of the United States in 2028.

     Before reading this list, several things should be noted:
     1) This list intentionally includes people who have run multiple times in the past, but may not run again in the future. The purpose of including such people is to make the list as exhaustive and complete as possible, in case long-shot candidates do decide to run;
     2) This list also includes some prominent Greens, Libertarians, and other political figures who may run in 2028;
     and
     3) Democrat Cenk Uygur was born outside the United States, and therefore will most likely be considered ineligible to assume office if he runs again.


Democrats
Bennet, Michael
Beshear, Andy
Bloomberg, Michael
Buttigieg, Pete
Booker, Cory
Cooper, Roy
Harris, Kamala
Khanna, Ro
Klobuchar, Amy
Lujan Grisham, Michelle
Moore, Wes
Newsom, Gavin
Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria
Phillips, Dean
Pritzker, J.B.
Sanders, Bernie
Shapiro, Josh
Torres, Richie
Uygur, Cenk
Walz, Tim
Warnock, Raphael
Warren, Elizabeth
Whitmer, Gretchen
Williamson, Marianne


Republicans
Burgum, Doug
Christie, Chris
deSantis, Ron
Gabbard, Tulsi
Haley, Nikki
Hegseth, Pete
Huckabee, Mike
Huckabee Sanders, Sarah
Kemp, Brian
Massie, Thomas
Noem, Kristi
Paul, Rand
Pence, Mike
Trump, Jr., Donald
Trump, Ivanka
Vance, J.D.
Youngkin, Glenn

Other Parties

Kennedy, Robert F., Jr. (may run as either a Republican or an independent)
Mapstead, Lars (may run as a Libertarian)
Oliver, Chase (may run as a Libertarian)
Sherman, Jasmine (may run as a Green)
Stein, Jill (may run as a Green)
ter Maat, Mike (may run as a Libertarian)
Ware, Rudolph "Butch", Jr. (may run as a Green)
Yang, Andrew (may run as a Democrat or in association with another party)



List created in mid-December 2024.

List expanded, and article written and completed,
on December 19th, 2024.

Published on December 19th, 2024.

Friday, June 28, 2024

Supreme Court Overrides Chevron Decision, Federal Bureaucracies to Be Weakened As a Result

     This morning - the morning of Friday, June 28th, 2024 - the Supreme Court (part of the Judicial Branch) has decided to take back its power to interpret the law, from the federal bureaucracies (which are parts of the executive branch) that unduly wielded that power.

     This morning, it was reported that the Court has overridden the precedent of "Chevron deference". Chevron deference refers to deference to the 1984 decision, in the case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. National Resource Defense Council (N.R.D.C.); specifically, deference to federal agencies, in regard to interpreting how to enforce laws (or how to "construct" regulations), when the statutes are ambiguous or insufficiently clear. That initial Chevron ruling dealt with the enforcement of the Clean Air Act and the regulation of fisheries.

     Liberals and progressives will not be pleased by this new "decision" (which is actually the sum of two decisions, in the cases of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce), as the move stands to potentially increase corporate power.

     But in my opinion, this is a win for the separation of powers, and for the system of checks and balances.




     The separation of powers provides that the Judicial Branch interprets the law, the Executive Branch enforces the law, and the Legislative Branch writes the laws.

     Letting the executive branch bureaucracies both enforce and interpret the regulations, is contrary to the separation of powers which was outlined by Montesquieu and the Founders; especially when many of these agencies exist, and were formed, without formal constitutional authority in the first place.

     This decision could be the first step towards the dismantling and abolition of the E.P.A. (Environmental Protection Agency) [and perhaps more agencies, such as the Departments of Labor, Agriculture, and/or Health and Human Services].

     And if the E.P.A. is dismantled, then it will not be primarily the fault of the so-called "conservatives" on the Supreme Court.

     The job of the Supreme Court justices is not to enact policy, nor to be "activist judges"; their job is to call balls and strikes; that is, to rule on whether a law is constitutional. This job often entails "remanding" cases back to the states or to lower courts - essentially, accepting the previous decisions of states and lower courts - if and when the Court decides that it is not the highest court's job to make such a decision.




     Pro-life justice Antonin Scalia admitted that, if a pro-abortion / pro-choice policy were to be properly codified into law, then he would have to rule it constitutional and valid, and allow it to stand, even if he didn't like the outcome. On a fundamental level, the Roe v. Wade decision was never constitutional in the first place, because abortion is not mentioned in either the Bill of Rights, nor in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (wherein the powers of Congress are listed), and because abortion was never made into exclusively federal or national subject-matter jurisdiction, through a constitutional amendment that would have given Congress the authority to make abortion policy. Therefore, any and all national-level policies regarding abortion should rightfully have been drafted by Congress, rather than temporarily held up, for fifty-one years, as Supreme Court precedent, waiting around to collapse, after a future Court would eventually and inevitably rule it invalid.

     If the E.P.A. is abolished, then it will be because the Democrats declined to make environmental policy into the exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal government, as opposed to the jurisdiction of the people and the states, which it is (until there's a constitutional amendment saying otherwise), due to the implications of the Tenth Amendment, and due to the fact that environment and ecology appear nowhere in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

     If federal agencies are dismantled as a result of this ruling - in much the same manner in which the Roe v. Wade decision collapsed - then Democrats will only have themselves to blame; for failing to understand how the law works, and the separation of powers.




Monday, February 8, 2021

Is This Ashley Biden's Diary?: Document Leaked in October 2020 Details Sex and Drug Abuse

     Ashley Blazer Biden's supposed diary leaked in October 2020. It was supposedly written during Joe Biden's 2020 presidential campaign. The diary came to my attention in early February 2021.
     It is worth noting that the leaks of Hunter Biden's private photographs - which appear to show him having sex with an underage girl - went public in October 2020, and then again in January 2021, when I became aware of them.


     Summaries of the diary state that the author of the diary - which is signed "Ashley Blazer Biden" - details the compulsive sexual behavior, and drug abuse, which she had endured in the past, as the result of Joe Biden's inappropriate behavior. These behaviors apparently included having Ashley shower with him, and possibly other sorts of inappropriate touching, which the author does not describe in detail.
     The diary also claims that someone named "Caroline" - presumably Ashley's cousin Caroline Biden (whose father is James Biden) - was also abused in some way.



     According to NationalFile.com, which released the diary, Ashley Biden's drug addiction was well-publicized in 2009. The people at NationalFile claim that they are in contact with a whistleblower who knows the location of the diary, and they claim that there exists audio tape of Ashley Biden admitting that this is her diary.
     However, none of that has, thus far, been verified.


     The three links below lead to a document which appears to be the diary of Ashley Blazer Biden, the daughter of President Joe Biden.






A sample of the diary





Note: Caption added by theNationalFile.com




     The next four links lead articles and blogs speculating about the veracity of the diary.

     Lenora Thompson's article is thoughtful. While reading it, keep in mind that compulsive sexual behavior and drug use and abuse are common symptoms of child sexual abuse.




     If you wish to study Ashley Biden's demeanor, and/or the dynamics of the family, this is a great clip with which to start. Joe Biden is very involved in his granddaughters' lives, and apparently calls all five of them every day.
     
Ashley Biden does not look uncomfortable in this clip, but Joe Biden does come off as unusually affectionate. This, after he was seen forcing his grandson to give him a kiss at Beau Biden's funeral, and kissed a granddaughter on top of her head while that grandson sneered at him in confusion.
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MHpeCMIHkz





     Joe Biden may not have raped or molested Ashley, but it's not hard to understand why someone would think this diary is real.




     For more information about Joe and Hunter Biden's pedophilia and other related scandals, please see the following link, which leads to all the articles and videos that I have produced on those subjects:
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/09/links-to-all-of-my-articles-and-videos.html






Written and published on February 8th, 2021

Thursday, January 14, 2021

Joe Biden's Son Hunter Does Drugs Next to a Little Girl and a Stripper Pole

      The photograph you see below was obtained through a Twitter user whom the author of this blog wishes to keep anonymous, for the sake of that person's safety.
     The photo - which I found out about in the late evening of January 14th, 2021 - depicts Hunter Biden, the son of president-elect Joe Biden.
     Hunter Biden appears to have a stripper pole, a table which likely has drugs on it, and what appears to be a little girl, in front of him.




     The text on the top of this image is probably a bar that someone's iPhone attached to the image while they were taking a screenshot of the photo of Biden.
     It is probably fair to assume, from that text, that the original photo of Biden and the girl, were taken no later than July 13th, 2018 (unless the person's iPhone calendar and/or clock were set incorrectly).

     Some Twitter users have commented on this photo, and insisted that it is fake, or that it is a Photoshop. However, they have supplied no evidence that that is the case; only conjecture. Furthermore, the shadows and light sources all seem to be facing in the same direction, which would indicate it's probably not edited.
     Some have even claimed that this is not a picture of Hunter Biden. They have probably forgotten that if Hunter Biden ever goes a day or two without shaving, he will not look like the heavily made-up puppet that he looked in late 2020 like when he was stumping for his father.
     For reference, here are pictures of Hunter Biden in full makeup, and with a day or two's growth of beard.






     Hunter Biden can look very different from himself on a different day. Furthermore, this is not the first time that scandalous photos of Hunter Biden have leaked, which make him look like the drug addict he is.







     Don't forget who we are talking about here! Hunter Biden was discharged from the Navy for his cocaine addiction.
     Democrats defend him by saying "Everyone has problems, he's admitted to it." Well it would seem that he's done cocaine while letting a little girl press her head to his shirtless chest! Doing cocaine around children and a stripper pole is not just "a private citizen having some fun". A child is involved and she needs to be protected, because she couldn't have consented to be in that situation.

     We are also talking about a man who had an affair with his dead brother's wife, and then left her and her children. 

     And he had a secret illegitimate daughter, and initially refused to get a paternity test and had to be sued.
     And a mysterious job on the board of the "Ukrainian" energy company Burisma. And a mysterious connection with China.
     Are we really supposed to believe that this adulterous cocaine addict who got discharged from the military - who told his nieces and nephews "Hey kids, I'm not your uncle anymore, I'm your father now" and then left his sister-in-law - is incapable of coercing a minor into sexual activity?


     Additionally, there were rumblings in the press in the fall of 2020, about six weeks before the election, that Hunter Biden had been tied to human trafficking rings in Ukraine. According to the following article, a Senate report stated that Hunter Biden paid non-resident Russian and/or Eastern European women for sex; women who appeared connected to prostitution rings.
     Well, maybe now, we know what that was about! Could the girl in the photo at the top of this article, be an "underage Ukrainian prostitute" (a/k/a child sex trafficking victim)? Has Hunter Biden used his six-figure salary from Burisma to buy the children of poor couples in Ukraine?

     But let's not jump the gun. How do we even know that any of this is happened Ukraine, anyway? Burisma's headquarters are in Cyprus. This could have happened in any country. The girl looks either white or Hispanic, or perhaps Asian, so it's hard to determine the girl's country of origin solely by looking at this photo.


     Other Biden defenders have pointed to the girl's hand, and her "gray hair", to claim that the girl is actually an old woman. That reminds me of Alan Dershowitz's story; that he didn't have sex with any underage girls, he just "got massages from an old Russian woman".

     First off, the girl's hair is not "gray". There are certain portions of her black hair, which are reflecting the white light that is coming from the left side of the photo. White light on black hair will often produce gray tones in certain areas, some more than others. What you are seeing is the light reflecting off of her black hair.


     Biden's defenders have pointed to the girl's long fingers, saying that it looks like an old woman's hand. Well, if that's true, then where is the rest of the old woman's body? Are we to believe that this girl, with the soft features on her face and her small body, is actually an old woman?
     Maybe she has long fingers because she's emaciated. Maybe her family is so poor and hungry that they chose to sell her to Hunter Biden for sex. Maybe the fake fingernails she's wearing, make her fingers look longer than they normally would.
     It is not my job to explain to you why a little girl's hands don't look like a little girl's hands should! Some girls are thinner than others. Some live in war-torn regions that experience hunger and poverty.
     Furthermore, it is not a little girl's job to prove that she is not of age, for you to stop defending her rapist. If you say that a little girl must be an old woman, because part of her looks old, or because she is wearing the kind of press-on fingernails or acrylics that an adult might wear, then you are blaming a child for getting raped based on what she was wearing when it happened.



     Anyone who has ever seen a child before, should be able to recognize that there is no way this girl is older than 15. She might even be as young as nine or ten. If she is an adult, then she is severely emaciated, and her condition should be a concern, as well as how Hunter Biden got a hold of her. Either way, a crime has been committed.
     Hunter Biden is handling girls who are not his daughters, holding them close to his shirtless chest, and doing drugs in their presence. What the stripper pole is doing there, and whether it's really a stripper pole, we can't be sure. But something is obviously up.


     This latest photograph may also explain what Hunter Biden was talking about, in the audio that was leaked last fall. In that audio, Biden said something about his estranged ex-wife's complaints about him. His comments included complaints that his ex-wife was concerned that he appeared shirtless in a photograph with his daughter.
     Hunter Biden's daughters are named Naomi and Maisy. Naomi was born in 1993, and is 28 years old now. Maisy was born in 2001, and is 20 years old now. If we assume that the photo of Hunter Biden and the girl was taken no later than July 2018, then Maisy was no older than 17, and Naomi was no older than 25.
     This means it's extremely unlikely that the girl in the photo is Hunter Biden's daughter Naomi, because she would have been older and larger than the girl in the photo at the time. It's possible, because of the girl's size, that it's Maisy, somewhere between the age of 12 and 17. But does this girl really look like Maisy Biden?



     The girl in the photo is not one of Hunter Biden's daughters. At least it's not one of the ones he knows about!
     But in all seriousness, it's probably not his secret daughter in Arkansas either. How he would have been allowed near her in 2018 or earlier, cannot be easily explained. Additionally, that daughter was born in 2018, the same year (probably) that the photo of Biden and the black-haired girl was taken.

     The black-haired girl is definitely not one of Hunter Biden's daughters. The soft features of her face, and her small size - including her thin fingers - shows that she is not an old woman, but a child, who (in my opinion) appears to be somewhere between 8 and 13 years old.


     Now what about those drugs on the table? There is clear evidence that Biden had been smoking cigarettes, which is not illegal. But there may also be a marijuana joint, and a syringe, on the table in front of Biden and the girl. And the stripper pole.



     The appearance of a stripper pole, and drugs on the table - and the fact that Biden is shirtless, pressing the face of a girl who is not his daughter, to his naked chest - should make it clear what is going on here.

     Hunter Biden is either a kidnapper who does drugs near children and doesn't have sex with them, or else he is a full-on child rapist.

     In all likelihood, he is probably using his power and money to pay poor people in Eastern Europe to let him rape their daughters.



     We should also bear in mind that this is not the first time that one of the Biden men has been caught red-handed touching children inappropriately.

     I have documented - through numerous articles, images, and videos - that Hunter Biden's father Joe, the president-elect of the United States, pinched a little girl's nipple live on C-SPAN during a congressional swearing-in ceremony on January 3rd, 2015.
     Please see the following link to learn more about Joe Biden's pedophilia and sexual advances towards adult women.





Written and Published on January 15h, 2021




     

Wednesday, October 7, 2020

E-Mails to Illinois State Legislators About Tax Revenue Sourcing and Land Value Taxation

     The State of Illinois currently suffers from a budget deficit, public debt, a pension crisis, and widespread disagreement about what to tax and how to solve the state's budget woes. I believe that Henry George, and his idea of Land Value Taxation, could do a lot to solve these problems.

     I wrote the two following e-mails on October 6th, 2020, on the advice of the Lake County tax assessor, in order to communicate to my elected representatives what I think the solution should be. The first is addressed to a Democratic member of the Illinois State Assembly, and the second is addressed to a Republican member of the same body.

     The introductions, and names of the particular lawmakers, have been removed.



First E-Mail (to Democrats):


     My name is Joe Kopsick, I'm a 33-year-old voter from Waukegan. I'm also running for office.

     I was wondering if you've ever heard of Henry George or his idea of Land Value Taxation. George had a big influence on the Democratic Party in the 1880s, and almost became the mayor of New York City. I think George's ideas could do a lot to help Illinois's tax problems.

     Illinoisans are currently debating how to prevent property taxes from rising when property values rise, and how much to tax income. Instead of talking about how much to tax income, I believe we should be talking about whether to tax it at all.

     I also believe that we should pay less attention to the issue of whether "Is the tax funding something worthwhile", and more attention to "is it helpful, efficient, and ethical to tax this source of revenue in the first place?" If we keep taxing production, we will deplete our revenue base. But if we tax things we want to discourage, like destruction, then the need for government solutions to that destruction, will decrease, while the size of the budget decreases too. Government will enter the picture, solve the problem, and then go away; instead of sticking around forever to permanently administer programs that were originally intended only as temporary fixes.

     It's not that I think it's wrong to tax billionaires. It's that we should be taxing people for acquiring wealth through illicit or fraudulent purposes that take advantage of taxpayers; we shouldn't be taxing them solely for earning money, as if doing so were a crime. The people who pay the highest taxes, should be the people who acquired their wealth through destroying and wasting, or polluting, or selling things they didn't produce. People who produce and earn through their own hard work and effort, should either be taxed less than they are now, or else not at all. Or else they should be taxed solely in proportion to how much they owe the taxpayers for providing forms of assistance that helped them acquire their wealth.

     Capital gains taxes, and corporate income taxes, should of course be regarded as different from earned income that results from laboring in exchange for wages. But we must understand that imposing higher and higher taxes on income and property, will eventually have the effect of punishing or discouraging people from being more productive or increasing the value of their homes.

     This idea is called the Laffer Curve. Henry George's idea is basically just the Laffer Curve, but applied to land taxes and property taxes, instead of income taxes.

     Lawmakers must understand that most people don't like paying taxes; and for that reason, we should avoid taxing forms of voluntary exchange which we have no logical reason to discourage if we want people to prosper. I believe that earning income, and buying and selling, are harmless forms of productive economic activity, which should not be punished.



Second E-Mail (to Republicans):


     My name is Joe Kopsick, I'm a 33-year-old voter living in Waukegan. I'm also running for office.

     Are you familiar with the Laffer Curve (named for Reagan adviser Art Laffer)? It's the idea that if a person is taxed at too high a rate, they will eventually stop producing, in order to avoid taxes.

     I think the tax code should change, to reflect the fact that most people don't like taxes, and will try to avoid them. I think we should be taxing wasteful and destructive activities, in order to penalize them on purpose; instead of accidentally penalizing productivity, by confiscating people's money through income taxes, and by taxing sales.

     Earning money and buying and selling are are productive activities that harm nobody, and so in my opinion they should be completely untaxed, or at least taxed at a lower rate than they are now. [Raising expected revenues from other sources of revenue could easily replace the gaps in funding which would be caused by the elimination of income and sales taxes.]

     I believe that we should shift from a system based on taxing income and sales and the improvements we make to our homes, to a system based on taxing the non-improvement of land.

     Taxing unimproved land value at a higher rate than the rate at which we tax buildings, could even help solve the property tax problem. Property taxes would stop going up just because property values go up. This would also solve most of the gentrification problem.

     Several Pittsburgh suburbs tried this system for a while and had a lot of success with it (in decreasing unemployment, and decreasing the number of unoccupied properties that are just taking up space and have no economic activity happening on them).

     I think this idea could potentially get Democrats to understand how destructive the income tax is, and understand that they really are discouraging productivity and earnings. And once the Democrats understand that, bipartisan compromise with Republicans will be a more realistic prospect.



Conclusion of Both E-Mails:


     Does this make sense to you? Are you interested in learning more about Henry George and Land Value Taxation? If so, please e-mail me at jwkopsick@gmail.com, or call me at 608-417-9395.

     This is a personalized e-mail and not an automatically generated message; I am contacting you on behalf of myself, not on the behalf of any organization.

     Thanks for reading, I look forward to your response.


     Joseph W. Kopsick

     608-417-9395

     jwkopsick@gmail.com

     Waukegan, IL 60085









E-Mails Written on October 6th, 2020

Introduction Written on October 8th, 2020

Originally Published on October 8th, 2020



Tuesday, July 2, 2019

2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates Ranked by Preference

1. Mike Gravel
2. Andrew Yang
3. Marianne Williamson
4. Michael E. Arth
5. Harry Braun
6. Ken Nwadike
7. Bernie Sanders
8. Elizabeth Warren
9. Tulsi Gabbard
10. Julian Castro
11. Jay Inslee
12. Michael Bennet
13. John Delaney
14. John Hickenlooper
15. Bill deBlasio
16. Deval Patrick
17. Joe Sestak
18. Beto o'Rourke
19. Amy Klobuchar
20. Kamala Harris
21. Eric Swalwell
22. Pete Buttigieg
23. Cory Booker
24. Seth Moulton
25. Tim Ryan
26. Steve Bullock
27. Robby Wells
28. Kirsten Gillibrand
29. Tom Steyer
30. Michael Bloomberg
31. Joe Biden


Written on July 2nd and 3rd, 2019

Published on July 3rd, 2019

Expanded on July 22nd, November 14th, and December 3rd, 2019

Saturday, December 1, 2018

Progressivism is Not Leftism, It's Statism


     Say what you will about the supposed devolution of progressivism into neo-liberalism, it has always been that way. Progressives trusted government from Day 1.

     In 1924, the radical faction of the U.S. labor movement stopped pursuing political reform. The faction of that movement that wanted to continue political progress, became the Progressive Party, and supported people like Robert M. LaFollette.
     Progressives, and the neo-liberals who brainwash them into doing Republicans' bidding, are not leftists. You can't assume they're leftists just because they're left of the American center. The American center is pretty far right. You can be left of American political center and still be right-of-center in the big scheme of things.
     Most American progressives (at least the ones with a modicum of political power) do not claim to be socialists; instead, they say that they support capitalism (or else a market system) but with reform. Given that neo-liberals Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton do exactly that, what is to differentiate them from progressives? None; it is the difference between a dog and its tail.

     Most people who conservatives call communists, socialists, and leftists are not really leftists; they're just liberals. Liberals who are complacent with big government, the military-industrial complex, domestic surveillance, illegal and unconstitutional government programs, unfounded limitations on majority voting, and fiscal austerity.
     Additionally, whom are OK with "limited" government regulation (that really just limits our ability to compete against the multinational companies that are screwing us over). Also, with what I call Nazi-Sympathizing Rape-Enablers (N.S.R.E.s; that is, the Republicans) being in control of our government 50% of the time.

     After the American Revolution, there were liberals and conservatives. Conservatives wanted to conserve the gains of the Revolution, while the (classical) liberals wanted to push that revolution even further, in order to achieve further liberation, and to impose more limitations on the government's ability to control our lives.
     Democratic republicanism and liberal-conservatism are what govern the U.S.. Democrats and Republicans are much closer than politicians and the media would have us believe. Obamacare was based on Romneycare and Pawlentycare (two proposals pioneered and implemented by Republican governors).

     Obama supporters: stop. You are trying to impose Republican legislation on all your Democrat friends, you have effectively become a Republican mouthpiece (nevermind that the bill imposes an infinite tax on a zero-dollar item, its unconstitutionality, or that the only thing arguably redeeming about it from a freedom-loving standpoint is that it restrains the activities of insurance companies that were created with public approval but which should never should have been tied to the public in the first place).
     Progressives: stop. Your cynicism of government is healthy, but it doesn't go far enough. All states draw their legitimacy from the normalization of political violence (a/k/a terrorism). Read the anarchists.
     Progressivism has thus far only succeeded in "solving" market failures by replacing them with government failures. Most progressives are good and conscientious people, but in my opinion many of them are prone to be too trusting of a system that they want to believe is good and can change.
     One needs only look at the 40 [or more] unconstitutional wars we've waged over the years, and the history of moral hazard and regulatory capture (short version: government failure and mismanagement, caused by blind trust in the government that it is doing its job) which have accompanied nearly every attempt at progressive reform, to see that appealing to our oppressors and begging them for more scraps has not been working.



     For my explanation of what Democrats and Republicans both misunderstand about leftist ideas, please click this link to read my September 2018 article "What Liberals and Conservatives Both Get Wrong About Socialism and Communism":
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/09/what-liberals-and-conservatives-both.html



Originally Written on October 26th, 2018
Edited on December 1st, 2018
Published on December 1st, 2018

Tuesday, August 14, 2018

The Alt-Right, and Nietzsche's "Slave and Master Morality"


     Nietzsche described Christianity as having a "slave morality"; essentially because it lionizes a murder victim as a god, reveres martyrs, and rewards those who submit. Christianity asserts "Christ conquered death"; that our god did not die, and transcended death. The Alt-Right and neo-Nazis fall victim to the same "slave morality" for which Nietzsche criticized Christians for falling, however.
     The Alt-Right see Nazi sympathizers and white nationalists as victims, and characterize anyone and everyone in conflict with them as "the real fascists". Including by pointing to their tactics, which they baselessly use as evidence to connote ideological agreement between the two groups. The use of violence alone does not make one a Nazi.
     The Alt-Right gives in to the "slave morality" concept, by endorsing its swapping of the positions of master and slave. They are every bit as willing to look like the victim, as are the "leftists" and "social justice warriors" whom they criticize. And they do this while claiming that the real victimizers are the people who admit that some people have been victimized, and those who try to draw attention to it. Additionally, those who admit that even when institutional, governmental discrimination ended in one sector, the effects last until this day.
     Most perplexingly of all, it seems that the Alt-Right are so committed to reinforcing this master / slave relationship, that they are not even willing to dismantle it, nor create a state of classlessness, even if solely to prevent themselves from becoming the underclass. That's because the “slave morality” rewards both submission and dominance.


     When the white nationalists marched on Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2018 - shouting "the Jews will not replace us" - they weren't saying "we refuse to let the Jews replace white people as the race that controls America". "The Jews will not replace us" means that they don't want the Jewish people, whom they believe to be controlling the U.S., to replace white people with non-white people, as the Jews' favored race of non-Jews. The idea is that whites would earn a place high in the racial hierarchy, and that then, as the Jews' favored non-Jewish race, they would be inferior to Jewish people, but otherwise in charge of the country, and allowed to keep the other races down. That's what they think.
     Of course, some of them do want to defeat and destroy and replace Jewish people, and it would be naive to suggest that many of them don't want to do that. But the Alt-Right are so cucked by their own ideology, that they seem more willing to assent to a place in the middle of the racial hierarchy which they perceive, than to destroy it altogether.
     As confusing as it seems, I think the rationale for this is fairly simple: it would be too difficult for them to admit that there is a racial hierarchy without using Jewish people in positions of power and influence as the evidence, without exposing white dominance of avenues of control at the same time. Additionally, if, by the phrase, they had meant “Jews will not replace white people as the dominant race”, then that would have been to admit that they are afraid of a Jewish take-over. That shows fear, and showing fear is not acceptable to people whose ideology is based on control.
     On the other hand, the Alt-Right is also unable to claim that whites are in control. They would like to do this, because that would be a way to express dominance. However, to say that whites are in control would be to admit that Jewish people have not taken over white society. It would dismantle the whole crux of their argument; which is that whites need to be in control, and therefore need to do something. They also believe that "cultural Marxism" is a Jewish conspiracy to destroy nations, by introducing multiculturalism and immigration, as a way to make them homogenous. This, the Alt-Right believes, leads to the erosion of social cohesiveness - which they believe to be based on common nation, heritage, and/or language – and also leads to the breakdown of welfare states. Which, for some reason, many of them support; just not for everybody, of course, only for white people.


     In a society which respects and protects individual rights, the whims of fleeting majorities can change constantly, without threatening the most important of anyone's natural rights.
     In the sense that they refuse to challenge the racial hierarchy which they oppose, even when it could benefit them, the Alt-Right are just like the Republicans. The Alt-Right and Republicans both refuse to recognize individual rights, and the illegitimacy of hierarchy, even if only as a way to prevent the disaster they fear, which is that America will get overtaken by a non-white majority.
     Likewise, the Republicans are just like the Democrats, because they too refuse to recognize individual rights, but also oppose stronger supermajoritarian measures to prevent the oppression of minorities by majorities. And Democrats refuse to do so, even if only as a way to prevent the disaster they fear, which is that America will get taken over by Republicans (which happens every several years, and which, for all intents and purposes, is unavoidable).
     In a way, the Democrats, Republicans, and the Alt-Right, are all enabling each other; by subscribing to the same master / slave system; the same hierarchical system, whether racialized or not, and the same reckless disregard for individuals' natural rights to be free from control by majority and minority alike. They even support the same economic system; a right-wing system uniting aspects of capitalism, mercantilism, Keynesianism, liberal-conservatism and a neoliberal market economy, and “state socialism” (which is really just capitalism, but with a welfare system which benefits the select few).

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Annual Net Contribution to U.S. Federal Revenue, per Capita and by State, 2007 and 2012



If the Democrat / Republican divide were based on the above data set,
(in terms of voting in the electoral college)

Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Florida would become Republican,

and North Dakota, Nebraska, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Indiana would become Democratic.



For more entries on social services, public planning, and welfare, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/taxpayer-funded-benefits-for.html

For more entries on taxation, please visit:

Links to Documentaries About Covid-19, Vaccine Hesitancy, A.Z.T., and Terrain Theory vs. Germ Theory

      Below is a list of links to documentaries regarding various topics related to Covid-19.      Topics addressed in these documentaries i...