They don’t care that he’s a Republican. They care that he’s a tyrant. And tyrants need to be checked.
We have been under lockdown restrictions in most of the country for over 5 months now. And there’s no end in sight to it, either. So people are naturally feeling powerless and frustrated. Because things generally suck with the Covid restrictions in place.
People want to go back to normal now. They just do. And they’re being demonized and slandered for having the audacity to want things to go back to normal after 5+ months of putting up with the restrictions.
The biggest problem, though, is that there’s nothing we can do about all the restrictions other than move, but even in that extreme scenario, your new state will still have some oppressive restrictions on daily life that you’ll still have to put up with.
Sure, we can have parties at our houses where nobody wears a mask or socially distances, but other than that, there’s not much we can do to protest the shutdowns and restrictions. If you want to go out in public, you have to play by the rules. You have to wear a mask when you go to the store, bars and restaurants are subject to major restrictions, and even in some places you have to wear a mask while you’re working out at the gym, which might be the height of insanity.
In California they’re not even allowing you to have parties in your own private residence: the mayor of LA is now shutting off power and water to houses that have big parties.
If you want to protest the restrictions, you’re going to be demonized as a Nazi and the police will quickly shut you down. The only things you’re allowed to protest these days is police and white people.
It’s a good thing that these lawmakers are trying to impeach the Governor of Ohio. It shows that there’s still some semblance of accountability left in America, that there is still some form of checks and balances.
These governors and mayors cannot continue to act like dictators with absolute power. It feels like all of the Covid restrictions over the past five months have been implemented on a “Because I said so.” basis by these governors and mayors, and there’s not a damn thing any of us can do about it.
There needs to be accountability. There needs to be checks and balances. These governors and mayors cannot be allowed to do what ever they want with no pushback.
This is supposed to be a free country of self-governing people, but it doesn’t feel like that anymore. Thank God there’s at least a few elected officials out there who are willing to push back.
Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota and Washington D.C. are requiring face masks when outside “if they will not be able to stay six feet from people who are not members of their own household.”
We are now around six months since the virus first arrived on our shores. The masks have not prevented jack shit. This is unbelievably stupid.
At this point, stupidity is the only charitable interpretation of why politicians are forcing people to wear masks. Maybe the politicians think the general public is utterly terrified of 😱🦠 THE VIRUS 🦠 😱and will only feel safe in public if everyone has a mask on. Masks are little more than woobie bwankies for us to cwing to when we feel scawwed of the cowonaviwus.
There’s nothing scientific about it–they don’t specify which types of masks we have to wear. If they did specify we all wear medical KN95 masks, then maybe this would appear more legit. But no, an old bandana around your face is A-OK. It’s purely psychological and meant to reassure people that it’s safe to go outside.
The less charitable interpretation of the mask order is that the ruling class is just trying to see how much they can get away with in terms of forcing us to do stuff. Maybe they think that if they can force us to wear masks, they’ll be able to force us to get vaccines in the coming month.
“No entry without a facemask” could become “no entry without proof of vaccination.”
It’s scary shit, but you can see the logical progression. It’s certainly a big jump from masks to vaccines, but not out of the question. I hope they don’t go that far, but I trust our asshole rulers as far as I can throw them.
Missouri Senator Josh Hawley (R) just wrote a letter to US Attorney General William Barr demanding a constitutional rights investigation into St. Louis’s political persecution of the McCloskeys, the now-iconic rich couple that brandished guns to shoo away an unruly mob that had invaded their gated neighborhood:
“As you are well aware, the country is facing a moment of significant public unrest and discord. As many Americans are peacefully exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and protest throughout the country, still others are exploiting this moment as an opportunity to sow violence and destruction. Too often, peaceful demonstrations have devolved into tense standoffs or violent riots, with threats and attacks on businesses, innocent bystanders, and law enforcement officers.
One such incident occurred in St. Louis, Missouri, where a family reportedly faced a mass of demonstrators trespassing on their property and threatening them. When help from the police or from nearby security failed to arrive, this family, the McCloskeys, did what any reasonable person would do: they retrieved their lawfully owned firearms and defended their property and their lives. The confrontation was resolved with no one being hurt.
Unfortunately, this family is facing new threats, not from demonstrators but from the local government. St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner is now threatening to prosecute not the trespassers, but the McCloskeys, and she is using the powers of her office to target them. Her office has seized their firearms, and police have applied for warrants in the case, with an indictment believed to be imminent.
This is an unacceptable abuse of power and threat to the Second Amendment, and I urge you to consider a federal civil rights investigation into the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office to determine whether this investigation and impending prosecution violates this family’s constitutional rights. There is no question under Missouri law that the McCloskeys had the right to own and use their firearms to protect themselves from threatened violence, and that any criminal prosecution for these actions is legally unsound. The only possible motivation for the investigation, then, is a politically motivated attempt to punish this family for exercising their Second Amendment rights. Indeed, this is part of a troubling pattern of politically motivated prosecutorial decisions by the St. Louis Circuit Attorney, who has not seen fit to prosecute many violent offenders, and who has expressed hostility to gun rights in the past. Recently, reports indicate that she declined to pursue charges against dozens of individuals arrested during a weekend of riots in the city.
The Second Amendment is not a second-class right. No family should face the threat of harassment or malicious prosecution for exercising that right. The Department of Justice must ensure that all Americans’ rights are protected from this kind of abuse of power.”
God Bless Senator Hawley. Most Republican politicians are fake allies who talk tough but ultimately are not on our side. Josh Hawley is one of the few that seems to be a genuine patriot, and who actually realizes that as a US Senator, his primary job is to secure and defend liberty for the American people.
Thank God Sen. Hawley is not letting this injustice go unchallenged. If this tyrannical St. Louis prosecutor was allowed to confiscate this couple’s guns without charging them with a crime, it would have set a horrible precedent going forward.
But just to be clear: an unruly mob broke into a private, gated neighborhood and a family that lived in that neighborhood came outside with guns in hand in an attempt to discourage the mob from attacking them or their house. And instead of bringing charges against the people in the mob, the City of St. Louis confiscated the guns of the McCloskeys, the people trying to protect themselves and their home from the mob.
We now live in an upside country where criminals roam free and unprosecuted, while the law-abiding citizens are relentlessly
Why is it like this?
Because our decaying ruling class is now at the point where, in its desperation to cling to power, it enforces the laws only to suppress those it perceives to be threats.
It’s called “anarcho-tyranny” and we’re living in it:
Anarcho-tyranny is a term coined in 2003 by Sam Francis, a conservative political writer:
“Unwilling to control immigration and the cultural disintegration it causes, the authorities instead control the law-abiding.
We are now at the point where our culture has sufficiently disintegrated, and the present social unrest is a byproduct of that. This is why our ruling class has adopted a system of anarcho-tyranny, where rioters and looters ago unprosecuted and law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights are met with the full wrath of the law.
Contrary to what a lot of hardcore gun owners say, the state can come and take your guns. You are not going to resist. Are you really going to refuse the cops when they show up at your door and demand you to hand over your guns? Are you going to open fire on them? No, you’re going to hand them right over.
You’re not going to die to keep your guns. You’re not going to open fire on police when they come to confiscate your guns.
It’s not going to go down the way you think it will. A mass gun confiscation will not be announced far and wide. They’re not going to give people the option to prepare and organize a coordinated resistance plan. Anyone who does resist violently will be killed or arrested and portrayed as a lunatic and have their reputation slandered in the media. None of their friends will want to associate with them and come to their defense. It’ll be like Waco or Ruby Ridge: you’ll be branded as a nutcase so no one will have any sympathy for you.
Cops are not going to refuse to follow unconstitutional orders, either. You’re delusional if you’re banking on that happening. Most cops want to keep their jobs, they want to keep their pensions, they don’t want to rock the boat. They’ll follow orders. The biggest lesson of the communist & Nazi atrocities of the 20th century is that most people will just follow orders while unthinkable acts of evil are carried out by the state.
People think they’ll shoot the people that come to take their guns. They think they’ll shoot and then The Revolution will begin all over the country and they’ll be fine. Not gonna happen: You will be isolated, they will come to your house to take your guns, no one will come to your aid, and you will hand those guns over just like the McCloskeys did. If you start shooting, you will be met with superior firepower and neutralized.
The civil war will not start the moment they come for your guns. If you fire on the cops, people will not rally to your cause and join you in resistance to the government.
This is why we need genuine Patriots like Josh Hawley in government, so that it never comes to the point where the police are going door-to-door and confiscating guns.
“NEVADA, Iowa — A man has been sentenced to more than 15 years in prison for burning an LGBTQ flag that was flying at a church in central Iowa.
Adolfo Martinez, 30, of Ames, was sentenced Wednesday to 15 years for the hate crime of arson, as well as a year for the reckless use of explosives or fire, and 30 days for harassment. The sentences are to be served consecutively, Story County court records show.
A jury convicted Martinez in November. He was arrested in June.
Martinez said he tore down the flag that had been hanging from the United Church of Christ in Ames and burned it because he opposes homosexuality.”
I’m sorry Mr. Martinez, but Free Speech only covers certain views.
These are America’s priorities now. Four years after gay marriage was legalized, we now have people being imprisoned for disapproving of homosexuality.
David Harsanyi of the Federalist juxtaposed this headline with several others to show you exactly where America’s priorities are:
Pedophilia gets you 10 years.
Murder gets you 10 years:
But burn the gay flag and you get 16.
We now live under perhaps the lamest tyranny imaginable.
Who would’ve thought that this would be how America goes out–with people going to jail for 16 years for the crime of disrespecting the LGBT community?
These are America’s priorities now.
“To know who rules over you, first identify who you are not permitted to criticize.”
The reason we have a Second Amendment is to guarantee private citizens the right to defend themselves from both criminals and tyrannical government.
Without the right to bear arms, we are little more than subjects at the mercy of both our rulers and the barbarians among us.
It really is amazing that millions of Americans have simply accepted the idea that the government can tell you which guns you can and cannot own, or, worse whether or not you can own a gun in the first place.
The whole point of this “freedom” thing is that the government shouldn’t get to tell you what you can and cannot do, for the most part.
And this includes owning a firearm.
Without the right to own a firearm, you are not fully free and independent.
It’s not that complicated.
The whole point of the Second Amendment was to establish the fact that the government cannot take away your right to arm–and thereby defend–yourself.
But the idea of a natural right to self defense against tyranny and criminality goes way beyond even our Founding Fathers. In 350 B.C., in his book “Politics,” Aristotle wrote:
“As of oligarchy so of tyranny … Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms.”
The link above contains many more historical references to the right to self-defense, from Jesus in the Bible to Cicero in Ancient Rome, to Baron Montesquieu during the Enlightenment. The common theme is a simple one: people must retain the right to defend themselves.
An armed citizen is a more secure citizen. He knows that he has the ability to defend himself and his family from whatever trouble may come his way.
I really don’t understand how people can think, “Only the government should be allowed to have guns.” To think that you’d have to either be a tyrant or doing a tyrant’s bidding–wittingly or unwittingly.
What exceptions would I accept on the right to bear arms? None, just like with the right to free speech. Both are unbending and absolute.
Just as the government does not have the authority to tell you what you can and cannot say, it does not have the authority to tell you which guns you can and cannot own. Well, let me rephrase that: itshouldn’thave that authority, but over the years it has slowly but surely acquired it.
The Bill of Rights made it clear that gun control was simply not something that was to be under the government’s purview. It’s off-limits, not up for discussion, non-negotiable.
But essentially since the New Deal, the role of government in our society has expanded dramatically, and along with it, the American Public’s idea of what the government can and cannot do.
Today, the answer to the question “What can the government do?” is, “Basically everything.”
But it was not intended to be that way at the start. The Founding Fathers were very clear that they wanted limitations on the power and scope of government. For example, it took until 1913 for the federal government to gain the power to tax your income. Prior to that the government did not have the authority to tax you.
It sounds hard to believe now because we’re taxed so damn much, but it’s true. And now we live in a country where people just assume the government has unlimited authority.
My point is that the whole idea of gun control should be off-limits. We shouldn’t even be having this debate over gun control and AR-15s.
But unfortunately the exponential growth of government over the past hundred years or so has made people believe the government’s purview is everything.
Again, it wasn’t always this way. From the founding of the country until 1930, total federal spending averaged about 3% of GDP:
Outside of the Civil War, government spending between 1791-1930 never really went above 2-3% of GDP.
But the New Deal changed all of that. Under the guise of “getting us out of the Depression,” FDR’s countless programs and “efforts” enabled the government to amass an incredible amount of power. Government spending–which represents its authority and power–took off and never looked back.
Today, government spending is around 25% of GDP. We’ve been living in the era of Big Government for nearly 100 years–Bill Clinton was lying when he famously said “the era of Big Government is over.”
The whole point of this history lesson is to underscore the point that there was a time when Americans understood that there were limits on government power.
The prospect of the government banning certain types of firearms would be just as absurd to the founding generation as the prospect of the government imposing an income tax: to them, those simply weren’t things the government had the authority to do. To them, gun control would not even be up for discussion.
And that’s the way it should be: the Second Amendment guarantees that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
The reason is that Americans are supposed to be free–they shouldn’t need permission from the government to own a firearm.
The right to self-defense against both criminals and tyrannical governments is one of the most basic and essential of all natural rights.
I understand people want to Do Something about these mass shootings–believe me, I wish they weren’t a regular occurrence in our society today. Just because I oppose gun control doesn’t mean I am not concerned about these mass shootings.
In fact I largely see calls for gun control as a non-sequitur in response to mass shootings. The problem isn’t the guns, it’s the people carrying them out and the society that produces sick, twisted young men that are capable of that type of evil.
Gun control is a dodge to avoid getting to the real problem: the fact that we now inhabit a very sick country that produces murderous psychopaths that go on shooting rampages every few months.
There is nothing that could convince me the Second Amendment is not of immense value to us Americans and our freedom. Mass shootings are terrible but they still do not mean law-abiding Americans should have to relinquish their right to self-defense.
Mass shootings don’t mean Americans have to give up their right to self-defense.
This is why so many of us on the right refuse to even discuss the idea of gun control: because any form of it is incompatible with a free society.
Hopefully this explanation makes it a bit easier for people on the left to understand, because it’s become apparent they have no idea why the Second Amendment exists.
People need to get out of this “ruler-subject mindset” that has taken hold of our country over the past 100 years. Just because the government now has virtually unlimited power doesn’t mean it should; there are areas where the government should have no power.
Americans: we are not subjects. The Founders intended the government to answer to us, not the other way around.
The moment you accept the premise of gun control, you give up any remaining pretense that America is a free country.
The difference between Orwellian totalitarianism and Huxleyan totalitarianism is the permission for “fun.”
In Orwell’s world, there was no fun at all. It was pure drudgery. Sex was outlawed. No pleasure at all. No sports, no entertainment, no leisure time. And so in our minds we believe that if we are allowed to have fun—watch sports, watch porn, go to music festivals, have casual sex with many partners, enjoy movies and TV shows, lose ourselves in online content and video games—then we are not oppressed. Hedonism equals freedom!
But on the contrary: the Brave New World view of tyranny is not that pleasure is outlawed, but that it is leveraged against you and used to oppress and control you. It is a distraction. Entertainment and fun are the opiates of the masses, because without them, the masses will have nothing to do but sit and think about how awful things truly are.
Modern-day tyrants don’t want to deprive you of fun. They don’t want you to live a life of constant drudgery and seriousness.
They want you overwhelmed with superficial pleasures. Do drugs, get drunk all the time, obsess over sports and TV dramas, pour countless hours into video games, watch tons of online porn, buy Nice Things from Desirable Brands—anything but think about how corrupt the government is.
They want you distracted. They want you focused on trivial pursuits. They want your life to revolve around the next big music festival.
When you’re not wasting away in a cubicle pushing paper for some Megacorporation, they want you mentally sedated by entertainment.
People whose lives revolve around entertainment of course, in the back of their minds, ultimately feel unfulfilled. They wonder if there’s more to life than obsessing over sports, entertainment and nightlife. Materialism is unfulfilling. Most people are aware of this on some level.
They may not know what, exactly, is missing in their life, but they are at least partially aware that something isn’t right. Maybe it’s visceral, but once you get a bit older you begin to realize that you will never find fulfillment and meaning in life through entertainment and materialism. For me, this first started to dawn on me around my senior year of high school.
Yet even though most people are partially aware that there is more to life than entertainment and materialism, most people still nonetheless believe that they are free because they can enjoy superficial pleasures like entertainment, drinking, partying and materialism.
They don’t really care about the fact that they don’t have a say in government, and that voting does not have any material impact in the outcomes of the political process. They don’t care that they have no way of stopping the mass immigration that is destroying their country, or dissenting political voices are silenced online, or that they can do nothing about the fact that male pedophile drag queens are reading stories to their young children.
They have Entertainment, so that must mean they’re free!
This is the fatal flaw of Orwell’s 1984: people who read it feel like as long as their lives don’t resemble Winston Smith’s, then tyranny has not yet arrived in the real world.
This is my great concern about why “The Revolution” may never materialize: people are content to allow the Uniparty oligarchy to do as it pleases so long as they have abundant options for entertainment and pleasure. They figure things can’t be that bad if they can still drink and party and binge TV shows.
But this view is mistaken.
The government allowing you to pursue a hedonistic lifestyle does not mean the government isn’t tyrannical and corrupt.
And so this is why, while of course it sucks that the left is ruining entertainment, it might actually backfire on them, because Entertainment is the only thing most people actually care about. Invade their country with foreigners? Meh.
Ruin Star Wars and Marvel with feminist propaganda? Now that’s going to get the people riled up.
The Uniparty had better tread carefully in its quest to spread its propaganda and values: people are starting to take notice that leftwing politics are becoming pervasive in entertainment, and they don’t like it.
Perhaps the masses will finally rise up once the Uniparty ruins entertainment by making every last movie, TV show and video game blatant Uniparty Propaganda.
Conservatives must reckon with the fact that multinational megacorporations, which are now found oppressing and marginalizing anyone to the right of Jonah Goldberg, were only allowed to get as large and powerful as they currently are because of Reaganomics.
This is a difficult pill to swallow because Reagan is the Messiah to the conservative right. In their telling, he saved and revitalized the economy which fell apart in the 1970s and particularly under Jimmy Carter. Reagan’s neoliberal, or “supply side,” economic policies began a 25-year economic boom that was largely uninterrupted until the collapse of 2008, bringing American prosperity and business to new, unparalleled heights.
Regan’s influence on the right’s economic philosophy is so absolute that even in the 2012 election–24 years after Reagan had left office and 8 years after his death–Republican Presidential candidates competed with each other to show they were the most like Reagan. They would take turns showering him with praise and promising to be just like Reagan. The whole primary campaign was like watching Tibetan Buddhists try to find the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama: who was the TRUE reincarnation of Ronald Reagan?!
A whole generation of Young Conservatives™ born in the years following Reagan’s presidency have grown up revering and worshipping Ronald Reagan, believing him to be completely beyond critique, and his policies having had no downsides.
But while it’s undeniable that Reagan’s policies were great for corporate profits and the stock market, and that a ton of wealth was created following the early 1980s, what’s rarely discussed (even by many of Reagan’s leftwing critics) is the fact that the neoliberal economic paradigm Reagan’s policies ushered in gave us the era of multinational megacorporations and all the troubles they have wrought today.
Reagan’s tax cuts, deregulation and general pro-business, pro-international free trade policies were the opening corporate America needed to take off to heights not seen since the age of the Robber Barrons at the turn of the century.
The difference today is that corporations are hugely influential over our personal lives. We live largely at their mercy, tech giants in particular.
Today, you need to have a social media presence, and yet if you’re a conservative banned from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, you essentially cannot.
We have reached a scary point in the history of our country, where major corporations are not only virtue signaling for the approval of the left via cynical “Faux Woke” ad campaigns and rainbow-flag social media avatars, but are actively working to oppress and victimize political dissidents.
It’s not just about pandering to a leftwing audience in search of higher profits; it’s about actively enforcing a political agenda, even if it means alienating and even directly oppressing millions, perhaps tens of millions, of Americans.
The largest American corporations now fully realize just how much leverage they can exert over our behavior, and have begun using that leverage to silence political dissent and punish the enemies of Politically Correct Uniparty Globalism.
They have become the primary enforcers for totalitarian leftism. It’s not about profits anymore; it’s about power.
If you’re banned from Twitter, Facebook/Instagram, YouTube, Chase Bank, Uber, PayPal, and Airbnb it is going to be difficult to live a normal life and have a successful career.
That’s seven companies that collectively have an enormous amount of control over your ability to live a normal life and have a successful career in 2019.
Do you really want to get on their bad side? Is supporting Donald Trump really worth all the suffering you’re going to endure? Think of how easy it would be to just give up and support the Uniparty. You’d get to keep your social media accounts, you’d get to keep your bank account, you don’t have to worry about being socially ostracized, you don’t have to worry about being fired for Thought Crime. Things would be much easier if you simply gave in and supported the Uniparty, American Consumer #221,543,906.
And that’s just how it is now: it’ll get worse in the future. Soon, hotels will start denying rooms to dissidents. Airlines will blacklist them. Dissidents won’t be able to travel. They won’t be able to bank and get loans.
It doesn’t make as much sense for Amazon to close the accounts of dissidents, given that Amazon would be stupid to ban people who directly give it money on a regular basis, but is it that far out of the realm of possibility? Absolutely not. In fact I’d bet on it happening in the next few years. As of now I’ve not heard of Amazon denying political dissidents the ability to shop on their site, but they have for a while now been banning books written by dissidents, notably those by Roosh Valizadeh—and at the behest of Huffington Post, of course.
Even scarier is the prospect of Facebook and Google, who know everything about everyone, starting to use their vast trove of data to blackmail people into conformity.
Corporations have always been powerful, but never have they exerted as much control over our personal lives as they do today. And it was Ronald Reagan’s economic policies and philosophy that allowed these companies to grow so big and powerful.
We can better understand the rise of multinational megacorporations since Reagan in the following five trends that have emerged:
First, there are now fewer publicly traded companies than there were in 1980, a time when America had a population of 225 million (100 million fewer people than today) and when the US GDP was only about $2.8 trillion.
Today, a shrinking number of megacorporations control more and more of a $20 trillion economy. At the peak in 1996, there were over 8000 public companies in the US. Today there are around 4,000, a decline of nearly 50%.
This is mainly due to mergers and acquisitions, closures due to foreign competition, and closures of domestic competition caused by unfair, anti-competition government regulations written in large part by the megacorporations.
Here’s the market cap of that shrinking number of companies:
The entire economy has essentially become a cartel. Larger pie, fewer slices.
Second, since the early 1980s, the number of banks in the country has fallen by nearly 75%. Increasingly, our only options are the major banks like Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citi, US Bank and PNC.
More and more Americans use megabanks, and with fewer options for Americans, the banks are able to exert more control over our lives.
The name of the game is consolidation, both in banking and the economy overall. When did that begin? The 1980s.
Third, income inequality has taken off to the point where the top 1% of the country now holds more wealth than the bottom 90%:
Look where the divergence really begins: the early 1980s.
Median family income, which doubled from the end of WWII to 1970, has basically been flat for the past five decades:
Importantly, this is not a trend that began under Reagan, but the trend of income inequality largely did begin under Reagan:
Because while it’s technically accurate to say that real incomes for Americans haven’t really grown at all since the early 1970s, they have grown for the richest Americans.
The rich have left everyone in the dust; the actual gains that have been made since the early 1980s have gone to a small number of rich individuals and families at the top.
Fourth, global free trade has outsourced millions of jobs to cheap labor abroad. NAFTA may have been implemented in 1994 under Bill Clinton, but the negotiations began in 1988 under Reagan, continued under Reagan’s hand-picked successor George H.W. Bush and were completed under Clinton. NAFTA was Reagan’s idea originally, and in fact he made free trade a part of his campaign way back in 1979. NAFTA’s roots can undoubtedly be traced to Reagan.
This chart shows job outsourcing in the previous decade, the 2000s:
Multinational megacorporations added over 2 million jobs outside the US in the decade from 2000-2009 while cutting over 3 million jobs inside the US.
GE, for example, slightly increased its foreign workforce in the 2000s while reducing the size of its US workforce by 16%.
“In 2007, IBM reported having 121,000 workers in the United States. By 2009, this number had shrunk to 105,000, due to layoffs and outsourcing. But IBM is rapidly expanding its global workforce. Through a similar period in 2007, the company had 386,558 employees globally, a number which has since grown to 426,751.
But we don’t know how many U.S. employees it now has; IBM stopped publishing domestic statistics in late 2009, saying that it was no longer necessary because none of its competitors did.”
That’s because they’re all outsourcing like mad and don’t want anyone to know the true extent!
It is estimated that since China was allowed into the World Trade Organization in 2001 (one of the worst things to ever happen to American workers) over 3 million American jobs have been displaced:
Obviously Reagan was long gone by 2001, but China’s addition to the WTO was a lengthy process that began way back in 1986 and only culminated in 2001. Our trade imbalance with China and all the ills that accompany it began in the early 1990s:
You can see the divergence truly began in 1991 and is now completely out of control.
This has its origins in the neoliberal global capitalism/”free trade” philosophy that began under Reagan.
Fifth and finally, the rise of multinational megacorporations has coincided with the explosion of foreign immigration–both legal and illegal–into the US.
While the demographic transformation of America currently underway can be traced back to Ted Kennedy’s disastrous 1965 immigration overhaul, it was the big corporations that quickly realized they could exploit the left’s push for “diversity” and “multiculturalism” to obtain cheap foreign labor.
There is a massive amount of corporate support behind mass foreign immigration because big companies have realized that if they can’t ship your job overseas, they can bring someone from overseas here to do your job for cheaper.
The reason it has proven so difficult for Trump to stem the tide of foreign immigration is because there are a lot of powerful, wealthy businesses pushing back against him. They largely have Congress in their pockets.
Not only do mega corporations increasingly control our lives, they have also played a major role in destroying the fabric of this country via open borders immigration. Whether it’s cheap low-skilled labor from illegals or cheap high-skilled labor from the H1B visas, wage-killed immigration is in the best interest of the many big businesses that dominate this country.
So it’s no wonder our country is being flooded with third worlders: it is what’s best for the Big Corporations’ bottom lines.
All this goes back to Reagan and his ideology of neoliberal capitalism. It is virtually impossible to say otherwise.
If we are ever going to have any hope of salvaging our country, we must be honest about where the problems began.
Most importantly, the right must move on from the ideology of “free market capitalism.”
There may have been a time when “free market capitalism” truly meant “free market capitalism,” but it has now come to represent an oligarchy of multinational megacorporations.
This does not mean we have to embrace socialism. Not at all. It’s a false choice to suggest that we either have an oligarchy of multinational megacorporations or we have Full Blown Soviet-Style Communism, complete with gulags and Five Year Plans.
We must return to real capitalism. What we have now is basically an unholy alliance of big business and big government. This is not capitalism at all.
It’s not right to say that business is a good thing in and of itself. Small businesses are good, and even larger businesses can be good, but megacorporations are bad—especially when they work hand in hand with the government. Megacorporations spend millions of dollars each year lobbying Washington to write favorable regulations, which usually have the effect of warding off competition and entrenching the megacorporations even further.
“Pro-business” today usually ends up meaning “pro Big Business,” and that’s a bad thing. What we really need is pro-competitionpolicies.
And yes, we do need to reject the ideology of “free” trade because it’s killing us. Cheap Chinese shit has not been a worthwhile tradeoff given how many millions of jobs we’ve lost to outsourcing, and how much capital has been invested overseas instead of here in America.
“Free market economics” generally has a very positive connotation on the right, and conservatives will point to luminaries like Milton Friedman and Adam Smith to justify their views. I know because I used to be a devout, Reagan-worshipping “free market conservative,” believing that the free market was always and everywhere right and any form of government intervention was wrong.
Free market conservatives believe businesses almost always do the right thing, and that if simply left to their own devices, they will create a sort of perfectly efficient utopia in which all demands are met with supply, every problem is solved by an innovative entrepreneur or business, and no one is ever oppressed because only the government can oppress you. This last part about the government being the only institution with the power to oppress you is probably the single greatest blind spot of Reagan-worshipping free market capitalists.
And it’s pretty easy to see that when left to their own devices, businesses operating in a free market will not do what’s best for everyone. For instance, a long-held critique of Reaganomics from the left is that unregulated businesses don’t give a shit about the environment and will pollute and dump to their hearts’ content if the government doesn’t forbid them from doing so.
Free market conservatives, however, instead of simply admitting they don’t give a shit about the environment, often make the ridiculous argument that ackshually, businesses will naturally take better care of the environment because The Free Market is Jesus.
No. They will only care about the environment if it is profitable for them to do so.
Another example is labor costs: free marketers think businesses will care about wages if you simply removed government regulations.
No, they don’t care about wages: they care about profits. And everyone knows the single largest expenditure for businesses is labor. They are always and everywhere looking to cut costs and maximize profits, and when they can cut labor costs, they will.
This is why we have layoffs and outsourcing: if you can’t eliminate the job, find someone who will do it for cheaper.
If these big companies could, they would automate almost every job. Robots and AI are the ultimate cheap labor. But for now big companies have to settle for foreigners.
Before global free trade came around, companies were generally restricted to finding Americans who would do the jobs for cheaper. But now they’re not limited to just Americans: they can find Taiwanese kids in sweatshops who will do the job for way cheaper. Or they can move their plants to Mexico.
The ultimate example of post-Reagan neoliberal capitalism is Apple: Apple is the largest publicly traded company on earth with a market cap of $821 billion. Last year, before its more recent fall in share price, Apple became the first company to sport a trillion-dollar market cap. Yet Apple only directly employs about 50,000 workers here in the US. Foxconn, however–the Taiwanese company that makes Apple’s iPhones and iPads–employs over 800,000 people. And the reason Apple uses Foxconn is because they manufacture for dirt cheap.
(Walmart, in contrast to Apple, employs over 2 million people in the US. McDonald’s employs about 2 million Americans.)
So we’ve got a multinational megacorporation that is worth over $800 billion yet only employs about 50,000 people in the US. Apple is turning just stupid profits and the actual economic benefit to Americans in terms of jobs created is relatively tiny.
This is all because of the ideology of free market economics: just let businesses do whatever they want and trust that they act in America’s best interests.
It’s a faith-based ideology at heart. The Almighty Free Market will be our salvation.
But the past several years should show us all–especially conservatives–that big business is not our friend. The free market does not always get the best result for everyone.
Left to their own devices, companies will consolidate market share and power by gobbling up smaller competitors. They will cut labor costs by moving operations overseas, and they will use their might to lobby and influence Washington for favorable regulations and policies, which suppress, rather than encourage, competition.
We seem to have forgotten this sometime after the end of the first Roosevelt administration, but the primary tendency of unconstrained businesses is towards domination and monopoly. They don’t want competition, they want supremacy.
If the great Trust Buster himself Theodore Roosevelt came back to life and saw that the prevailing economic mindset among America’s modern day political class–especially among his Republican successors–was to simply sit back and allow companies to do whatever they want, under the presumption that businesses only ever act in our best interests and will never harm us, he would be furious. He would wonder if his time in the White House had been forgotten by history.
This all goes back to Reagan. His economic policies were anchored in the desire to fully unleash and unchain American businesses.
We did, and his philosophy took root among our political establishment. Neoliberal capitalism has been the dominant consensus of economic thinking in Washington for the past three decades. All of Reagans successors until Trump were disciples–yes, that includes Bill Clinton, and yes, that even includes Barack Obama, who made a lot of talk about the middle class and taxing the wealthy but ultimately presided over an economic recovery in which virtually all the gains went to the wealthy. From 2009-2017, big corporations saw their values and profits explode while regular Americans were largely forgotten.
It all goes back to Reagan.
I’m not saying we haven’t benefitted from neoliberal capitalism. We clearly have. Our economy is incredibly efficient, and costs on virtually all essential consumer goods have come down significantly over the past 35 years. Today the poorest Americans are much better off than the poorest Americans of prior generations. Today poor people have appliances, cellphones and even luxuries poor people of previous generations could have never dreamed of. Poor Americans today aren’t starving, instead they are actually more likely to be obese. We live in a land of plenty, and that is largely due to neoliberal capitalism that began under Reagan.
But it has all come at a great cost.
The bottom line is that increasingly, regular Americans—conservatives in particular—are out of options and at the mercy of the megacorporations, which they increasingly need to live normal lives. Nobody is self-sufficient anymore. We need big corporations for virtually everything.
The multinational megacorporations, after decades of plundering our economy, hoarding all the gains, importing millions of immigrants for cheap labor, and shipping millions more jobs overseas, are now actively oppressing those who dare speak out against them.
The megacorporations are out of control. This much we can agree on.
But when the question turns to, “How did we get here?” the uncomfortable truth for free market conservatives is that this all started under Ronald Reagan.
The rise of multinational corporations is a large part of the reason things have gotten so bad today—whether it be immigration, corporate censorship, the hollowing out of the economy, the greater concentration of wealth in the hands of the 1%, the rise of the banking cartel—and the modern multinational corporation is a product of free market (or supply side) economics, i.e. Reaganomics, neoliberalism.
We need small businesses. We need thriving families that are not buried in debt. We need strong communities characterized by high-trust, assimilation and shared values and institutions.
Multinational megacorporations have eroded much of that.
We must disabuse Mainstream Conservatives of their belief that the free market is always and everywhere wonderful, and that big business always has our best interests in mind.
This begins by deconstructing the Reagan Mythology.
We will never make any progress on breaking up the modern day trusts until we convince the Free Market Conservatives that businesses can be bad and that the Free Market does not always deliver what’s best for everyone.
Reagan himself would be horrified by what the Big Corporations are doing to conservatives today. Reagan may have been a neoliberal capitalist, but first and foremost he was for individual liberty and the constitution. That’s why he hated communism and the Soviet Union so much.
Reagan would recognize that today’s multinational megacorporations are the very tyrants we feared the government would become.
It’s time to leave Reaganomics in the past and get to Trust Busting before it’s too late.
Last night, Oklahoma QB Kyler Murray won the Heisman Trophy, awarded annually to college football’s best player. It’s perhaps the most prestigious award in all of American sports and a tremendous honor to even be named a finalist for it.
So of course liberals had to ruin it, like they do everything:
Almost immediately, some little punk-ass bitch nobody reporter named Scott Gleason from USA Today began scrolling through Murray’s old tweets from when he was 15 and, to his horror, found four that were HOMOPHOBIC!!!
I’m not even going to discuss the tweets themselves because they’re so unimportant. I don’t care what they said, but from what I gather Murray must have called one of his friends a fag, or gay or something.
Like every teenager in America.
The liberal media truly is the enemy of the American people. They waited until Murray won the Heisman, and only then combed through his old tweets to find some they could get him in trouble over.
Why were they so determined to try to ruin his moment? Why didn’t they do this earlier in the year? After all, he’s been a star quarterback all season long.
They just have to ruin everything. Their obsession with power means they have to involve themselves with everything. It’s about asserting dominance. It’s about showing you they can take you down if they want.
No normal, well-adjusted American gives a shit that Kyler Murray used the word “fag” when he was 15.
Also, no normal, well-adjusted American considers the word “fag” a “gay slur.” It only became one in the last few years.
When a straight guy call one of his straight friends a “fag,” he’s not attacking the gay community. That’s not even possible. You can’t call a white person a n***er. That doesn’t even make sense. You can’t utter an anti-black slur against a whites person and you can’t utter an anti-gay slur against a straight person.
Fag is just an insult. It’s like calling someone a pussy or a bitch.
But in the past few years the PC Left has decided that the word fag is the n-word for gay people. And then they also said that anyone who used the word fag before they redefined it was guilty of HOMOPHOBIA.
You are guilty of Thoughtcrime if you failed to follow their 2018 rules back in 2012. It’s supposed to be confusing and capricious. It’s by design.
This is why the dishonest media is the enemy of the people.
On a related note, just a couple days before the liberal media came after Kyler Murray, they went after Kevin Hart for some stuff he said about gay people in the past. Hart was slated to host the Oscars in a few months but the left put a stop to that.
Why does the Woke Left hate to see black men succeed?
So in response, Nick Cannon went back through the tweets of some of today’s Wokest white liberal females and, wouldn’t you know it, they too used the word fag as a general insult way back in the pre-Woke days of 2010.
Wow. So the instigators and leaders of today’s liberal lynch mob are total hypocrites? Who would have guessed. I’m shocked–shocked–to learn that their politically correct outrage is disingenuous.
These Woke Hollywood Bitches who are frequently observed trying to ruin other people’s lives for being politically incorrect are in reality just as guilty of Thoughtcrime as the rest of us.
Finally, when did it matter what a celebrity’s personal views were? When did it matter what the Oscars host thought about gay marriage? When did politics become so central to our lives?
When the left decided that dissent was completely intolerable.
At some point in the last few years, politics became so critically important and so central to American life that it began to come before everything else.
“Kyler Murray wins the Heisman! But wait, we have to first make sure he’s sufficiently Woke and Loves Big Brother.”
“Kevin Hart is going to host the Oscars. Wait, not anymore–we’ve just learned he’s a Thought Criminal.”
Being an American no longer matters. It’s all about your politics now. That’s the most important allegiance of all. If you don’t have the right politics, you can’t be successful. The leftist media will try to destroy your career if you don’t have the right politics.
Maybe I was just young and naive but I feel like it wasn’t like this 10-15 years ago. Politics didn’t dominate sports and entertainment like it does now. A guy could win the Heisman and nobody tried to dig into his past to see whether he had ever committed Thought Crime as a teenager.
A guy could host the Oscars and his personal views on politics were unimportant. We used to be able to separate people from their politics. But now politics comes before everything.
This is not how healthy, unified societies do things. This is how countries fracture and die. This is how fascist dictatorships are run: fealty to The Party is the most important thing in national life. There is no escaping politics.
Earlier this year, Rep. Eric Swalwell (Tyrant-CA) proposed a “gun buyback program” but with a twist: if gun owners didn’t “voluntarily” “sell” their guns back to the government, they would be prosecuted.
I’m not sure why this was brought up today, but it was. And the gun debate ended with a Democratic Member of Congress entertaining the idea of nuking gun owners.
Shorter Eric Swalwell: don’t even try to resist. We’ll nuke your redneck asses if you don’t give up the guns.
Boy, I wonder why those nutty conspiracy theorist conservatives are concerned about the government going tyrannical, and thus want to arm themselves.
This country is really headed for a bad place.
Ten years ago, would you believe it if someone told you that Democrats in 2018 would be fantasizing about nuking gun-owners?
The fact that a Member of Congress is entertaining this idea is terrifying, and also deeply depressing. Functionally, we are not a single country anymore.