Rather than a populist, Trump is the voice of aggrieved privilege—of those who already are doing well but feel threatened by social change from below, whether in the form of Hispanic immigrants or uppity women (hence the loud applause he got at the first GOP debate when he derided “political correctness”). Far from being a defender of the little people against the elites, Trump plays to the anxiety of those who fear that their status is being challenged by people they regard as their social inferiors. That’s why the word “loser” is such a big part of his vocabulary.

For the leftists out there that think this is some kind of “enlightened” quote and makes you look smart, it doesn’t.

Your ideology is far more comparable to fascism and national socialism than the free market capitalism of the Republican Party. Let’s have a look, shall we?:

National Socialism: Hjalmar Schacht used large public works programs supported by deficit spending to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment, while price controls were implemented to combat inflation.

Economic liberalism was replaced with economic intervention according to the wishes of corporations (fascist corporations aren’t business entities you political illiterates, they’re social federations that include workers unions- they represent society in collectives).

Surprise, surprise, the Spanish farmers’ corporation set the price of bread too low, which devastated bread production as people flocked to more profitable activities. The goal was to make bread accessible to the poor but as a result a black market emerged and the opposite took place as bread became scarce.

Wages were set by the state through negotiations with workers’ syndicates and employers’ organizations.

In the face of declining value for the lira during a laissez faire period, Mussolini strengthened the state’s control over the economy. He created “syndicates” for each industry, in which one employers’ organization represented the interests of business and one trade union represented the workers. Labor syndicates possessed the right to negotiate uniform wages and benefits.

In 1925, the government intervened to subsidize domestic growers and to limit foreign imports by increasing taxes (NOT CAPITALISM). Widespread inefficiencies still remained as a result of reduced competition in the Italian grain market.

Furthermore, during the corporative phase, the state’s right to intervene in the economy was upheld, especially in the completely controlled hiring process.

The government was able to mandate the formation of cartels that followed the interests of the state and pushed down smaller firms that followed their own interests (NOT CAPITALISM). Cartel representatives had control over the distribution of resources, prices, and salaries in individual firms (AGAIN, NOT CAPITALISM).

Major government intervention took place in the early years of the Great Depression. Domestic banks bought out falling industries, whose assets turned out to be insufficient in value leading to a crisis in 1932. Italian banks declared bankruptcy and the government stepped in by creating financial institutions funded by the treasury, which bought the industrial shares owned by failing banks (basically how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac handled mortgage securities- they purchased them from private banks to encourage private banks to give out more home loans). New capital from these state institutions were lent to the private sector to stimulate economic activity.

The government went on to create anther institution to manage the bank-owned companies and converted them into state-owned enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are two in America) known as government-linked companies.

National Socialism/Francoism:

Mussolini:“Economy of Italy under fascism” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy_under_fascism?wprov=sfti1

So while you spread your message via stupid memes and “intellectual quotes,” you merely provide capitalists, conservatives, libertarians, and objectivists with more intellectual ammunition to use against you.

Your pastiche is not subversive: Kingsman’s conservatism

I had high hopes for Kingsman: The Secret Service. There are gifsets of it all over Tumblr. Everybody said it was great and fun and refreshing. Even my beloved Foz Meadows praised it as ‘a biting debunk of the James Bond franchise… it takes all of Bond’s hallowed trappings – the spy gadgets, the sharp suits, the suave badassery – and explicitly removes both the misogyny and the classism that traditionally underpins them.’ So, having grown up on the Bond movies, I was eager to witness it for myself. And indeed I spent most of the film half-convinced that I liked it, or at least that I was going to, any minute now.

But despite the excellent direction, choreography, and clever humor, I was left wondering what the hell everyone else had been watching when they said it was progressive.

Keep reading

Musical chairs is a subtle game that teaches kids two things:

1) That there’s not enough of a certain thing for everyone to have it; and

2) If you’re the one who gets left out, it’s all your fault.

It’s a great way to indoctrinate kids into blaming the victim who couldn’t find a seat, rather than questioning the logic of the person who removed the chairs.

This seemingly harmless game is actually a lesson that shapes kids’ minds as they grow up.


Since 9/11, more Americans have died at the hands of homegrown “white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims,” the New York Times reported this week. Citing a count provided by Washington research center New America, the Times confirmed that with the race-base mass murder in Charleston, S.C. last week, 48 Americans have now been killed by “people espousing racial hatred, hostility to government and theories such as those of the ‘sovereign citizen’ movement,” as compared to 26 Americans who have been killed by “self-proclaimed jihadists.”

The numbers don’t lie

I live in the south and…

I see a lot of conservatives shout this word “freedom” though I’m not sure they know what it means.

If you don’t support or respect a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body then you do not support freedom.

If you don’t respect same/trans gender marriages, you don’t support freedom.

If you believe your religious views should control the lives of others you don’t support freedom.

If you believe your lifestyle is the only lifestyle you don’t support freedom.

You aren’t a patriot for simply yelling the word out of a megaphone, especially if it’s pointed at the people you’re fighting to oppress. If all you are fighting for is power for your group, then it’s not patriotism, and nationalism. 

Power can look a lot like freedom to those who have it, but like tyranny to those who don’t, and if you don’t support freedom for all, then you don’t value freedom at all

So take the bumper sticker off your truck, and say what you really mean, 

“I want to control the lives of people I don’t have the empathy to understand.”

I’ve been seeing a lot about how conservatism, when separated from Republicanism, isn’t necessarily sexist/racist/homophobic/etc

Actually, it is. There are other ways to oppress people besides through the federal government, and a federal government that ignores oppression of certain groups of its citizens and leaves them powerless is an oppressive government. You can oppress queer people without denying us marriage rights. You can oppress women and others with uteri without denying us abortions. You can oppress people of color without throwing them in prison disproportionately (although not doing that would certainly make a huge difference).

I could easily see this type of Conservative Small Government allowing me to marry a woman but giving me no protection when I get fired for being queer. I could see it denying people not only welfare, food stamps, and affordable healthcare, but even a minimum wage. I could get raped in a country with a government like that, and there will be no way for me to find help and justice because everybody *still* thinks I deserved it and the police think it’s not their problem. We can theoretically get as many abortions as we want, but we won’t be able to afford them unless we’re lucky enough to work in an industry that offers reasonable insurance. People of color will still be half as likely to get called for an interview as a white person with an identical resume, and they will still be socially and economically disadvantaged in almost every way they are now.

Some will claim that this is not oppression because it’s not intentional like it is with Republicans. Sorry, but incidental oppression is still oppression. Pretending that race doesn’t exist is still oppression. I’d almost rather deal with Republican conservatives because at least they’re upfront about who they are and aren’t fighting for, and I know where I stand with them.

It didn’t start with Limbaugh and Trump: The deep roots of the GOP’s war on women
Though Rush & The Donald draw attention for their vulgar misogyny, conservative assault on equality dates to Nixon
By Heather Cox Richardson

Donald Trump reduces the dog whistles of Movement Conservatism into cartoons that expose them for what they really are. Movement leaders profess to be shocked by his crude attacks on Megyn Kelly, but he has simply ripped the gentility off sentiments that the eminently “respectable” Weekly Standard made in its cover story three months ago. “If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2016,” Joseph Epstein wrote, “she will not only be the nation’s first woman president but our second affirmative-action president,” elected, he said, thanks to her status as a member of a “victim group.” Days later, Fox News went after First Lady Michelle Obama with a similar argument. Fox contributor Angela McGlowantold viewers that “the reason she got into Princeton was probably because of affirmative action,” and that “the reason she became an associate at a law firm was probably because … they needed a woman, and a woman of color.” She added: “That’s a twofer.”

Though Rush & The Donald draw attention for their vulgar misogyny, conservative assault on equality dates to Nixon

It's so funny watching the left-wing media lose its collective shit over that Bruce Jenner is a Conservative.

Bruce: I’m a woman now.

Left wing media: YAAASSS BITCH!! SO PROUD OF YOU!!!!

Bruce: I’m also a Conservative Republican


Donald Trump is practically a mirror image of the Fox News psyche. Most of his speeches consist of repackaged stupidities plucked right out of the conservative mediascape. It’s kind of brilliant, really. Trump knows his audience, and he beams back at them every idiotic thing they want to hear. Which, of course, is exactly what Fox News does. The wonderful irony of all this is that the conservative media have ruined conservative politics, far more than liberals ever did. And the results speak for themselves. It’s true that Fox News has promoted the conservative brand and very likely energized grass-roots conservatism in some sense, but at what cost? The GOP, increasingly, is no longer a national party – it’s confined more and more to the South and to pockets of rural America.

Look how “Fair & Balanced” Fox “News” is. After leading out with “An anti-police activist group calling itself “Disarm NYPD” is aiming to strip officers of their firearms and boot them from certain neighborhoods entirely,” as if it were a human right to wield a state-sponsored pistol, check out the “You might also like” section. How much more cop-worship do you need? No, don’t report on the fact that already 290 people have been killed by police THIS YEAR, just offer a bunch of stories about cops playing football with kids so your viewers don’t have to care about the ones getting shot.  

For a more encompassing read of Disarm NYPD, check here

How I Realized I'm A Conservative
I grew up surrounded by progressives, but kept noticing liberal policies sound good but reinforce poor choices. It dawned on me: I’m a conservative.

“In the late 1970s, I went to an experimental high school. Most of the students were some form of nature-loving hippie. Not the raw, shocking, and rude kind of the true hippie era, more of the granola-eating, yogurt-making, calico-and-work-boot-wearing kind, but still dabbling in some risky sex and drugs.

These hippies were mostly the children of wealthy progressive parents who had purchased immense Roland Park mansions with their trust funds and who raised their children by the most progressive paradigms. Most of the rest were rock-n-roll drug addicts. A few of us, children of working-class parents attending the school on scholarship, were a little closer to normal. I came from an educated working-class family, and am daughter of a public-school teacher.”


Although not all libertarians hate, a sizable number make the movement look both angry and unstable.  They rage against the smallest loss of unearned privilege in society, while screaming about a “meritocracy.” Those who get ahead in our country do so more often from connections, family money and privilege than from any innate goodness or intelligence, and libertarians gloss over all questions of class, race and privilege in the hope of a return to a pure market ideal that has never existed.  The history of America is an unending fight between untamed market forces and human beings, and when the free market gets out of hand, real people suffer, as so many did in the Great Recession of 2008.

“I used to be a Libertarian. Then I had the gall to criticize them in an article – and here’s what happened next”