ELECTION RED ALERT: Trump's plan to steal the 2026 midterms

 So, this one comes from Kyle Kulinski, who had a pretty thorough video on Trump's plan to steal the 2026 midterm elections. Basically, Trump wants to coerce Maduro (ya know, THAT one, the one he kidnapped from Venezuela) to claim he helped Biden steal the 2020 election so he can seize voting machines and have ICE do the counting. It sounds kinda crazy, but to be fair, it's Trump, and he's done crazy stuff already, so...

He also wants to disenfranchise mail in voters from voting by claiming voter fraud, and kyle is encouraging people to vote in person. I get the logic, but I also just mailed by mail in voting request for the year the other day, so that's already set. And I doubt my family would want to vote in person either given their age/physical conditions. Still, if you can manage to do it, it, it would help.

But yeah. As far as I'm concerned, this represents another possible attempt/scenario that Trump might weaponize to steal the elections. You are now aware of it, plan your vote accordingly. Just passing the info along since I plan on covering anything that could disrupt the 2026 midterm elections if I can. As I've been saying it's kind of essential for the future of the country for elections to remain free, and Trump is gonna try to break them. 

Responding to the post: "The problem isn't DICE, it's the community"

 So, I came across this post on reddit, but didn't get to it fast enough in time to respond to it and it got locked. And given this is very much...blog material given my blog at this point extends to gaming discussion if it has some deeper intellectual merit, and given I've posted on several adjacent topics, I wanted to give my thoughts here. 

 You can read the full post on the above link, but I'll copy the TLDR, as while I agree with the premise of the discussion, I very much don't think he made a positive argument for modern gaming, and I would actually hit the red button here to some degree.

 TL;DR: BF6 maps take longer because they’re way more complex. Paid DLC doesn’t fix that; it only adds paywalls. You won’t get BF4-style map quantity unless you accept BF4-level simplicity. You can’t have 2026 fidelity and 2013 output speed. The end.

 So...first. Let's discuss the obvious. DLC. This post was made in response to the myriad of whiners in the community going on about how paid DLC was SOOOO much better than live service. Hard disagree. Even if we got more content, it was more expensive. people are complaining we'd be on our way to getting our 3rd DLC if we were on BF4's release schedule, and how we got so much more content back then. The argument is live service is worse because the content is free, which disincentivizes businesses from making it. I would actually somewhat agree with the premise, but you know what? FINE. 

I HATED DLC. I HATED season passes. I'd rather get 1-2 maps free every few months, than have to pay almost double for a game to get the full experience. And from what I understand the business model wasnt that successful anyway, since only a small minority actually bought and played the premium maps. IIRC, origin actually gave a lot of them away later for free just to get people playing them again. 

But yeah, DLC sucked. I hated it, I'm glad it failed as a business model and largely disappeared. I'd rather get half the content for free, than to get 2x as much but then have to also pay 2x as much. I paid $90 for BF4 back in the day with the premium. It was one of the few games I ever bought with it since i despised the model, but I just loved BF so much I shelled out for it. I paid $40 for BF2042 and $50 for BF6. I paid as much for BF4 as I paid for 2 BF games, and that's with inflation. F premium. Even if BF4 was a very good game in part because of the strong level of support. 

Now, with that out of the way, let's address the post. Basically, this guy is saying even if we changed the model, we couldn't get more content now because gaming takes more time to make maps. Okay. Well...I am VERY opinionated on 2020 gaming and think that games being too ambitious is part of the problem. I've previously discussed my idea of peak gaming, and how the ever increasing complexity of games is making development cycles more expensive, last longer, and also require increasingly ridiculous hardware demands while the price of computing is also going up due to moore's law. Basically, this guy is saying we can't have 2013 level content output any more because of this complexity. 

And...you know what? Go back to 2013. or, more specifically, 2016-2018. Still gen 8, still beautiful looking, better than 4, but not as good as modern games in theory. Because let's face it, I barely notice the difference these days. As I've said lately, I hate how modern games look anyway. Developers in modern game play cycles make games have such good fidelity on paper that gamers can largely no longer play them at native resolution, and the games tend to try to scale down using TAA, or FSR/DLSS by default. This makes the games extremely blurry. And you know what? I dont care how good your lighting and other effects look if the game is running at fricking 720p just to hit 60 FPS on low on a $250 GPU. I really don't. It looks like TRASH. And I keep feeling like, playing my new 2025 era games that I'm like, whats wrong with me? Why is everything so blurry, is my eyesight going back? And then I see some old game from like 2007 and it looks so much clearer even with lower graphical fidelity and I'm like "oh, it's not me, it's the game." I HATE THIS, DEVELOPERS! STOP DOING IT! I don't give AF about your art style, if games look blurry AF on reasonable hardware. I swear, we are seeing the downfall of gaming with this stuff. And I almost kinda wish for a video game crash like the 1980s, where these big budget blockbuster games fail because they bite off more than they can chew and their business model becomes unsustainable, so that the market resets to something that works.

I don't want to wait until 2029 for TES6. I don't want to wait until the 2030s for fallout 5. It used to be in gen 7 that you could pump out a new game every 2 years or so. Don't believe me? Oblivion, 2006, Fallout 3, 2008, Fallout New Vegas, 2010, Skyrim, 2011. Now it takes 5-10 years just to make one. I'd rather have more content at lower fidelity....than to keep doing this 2020s era BS.

Btw, since that post from last month about modern games being blurry, I looked into modern AA methods and why we dont use the old ones like MSAA. And it's the same arguments this guy is making above. The technology of modern games is different. It's supposed to be better, but in terms of anti aliasing, I think it's markedly inferior. Because it DOES basically impose blur on the player. TAA is horrible. It's such a joke this is the default. It's SOOO BLURRY. AMD's suite of ideas like FidelityFX CAS and FSR are better, but not perfect. Apparently DLSS and its AA version, DLAA are great, but you need to buy nvidia which is overpriced for that. And yeah I know some are gonna say I should've bought nvidia, but I shouldnt have had to pay 50% more just to get games to be less blurry. I just want good old native resolution. I HATE this new tech. Again, if we could go back to like 2016 or so, that would be great. I always hated this modern tech, it's always been forced on me, and when you're like "oh but you see, you gotta go back to like 2013 to not have these issues with modern gaming" like it's an own I'll say DO IT, DO IT NOW! SLAM THE RED BUTTON, SLAM IT! Because to me, those games still look good. Again, ideally I'd go like 2016-2018, but the point is, I would go back to before this modern crap existed. I dont think games in the 2020s look appreciably better than that stuff, if anything, they look WORSE because of this stuff. While being more demanding. Again, peak gaming. Learn about it.

So yeah. The 2010s can keep their crappy DLC business practices, but if the problem really is the 2020s era tech being so hard to use, yeah, go back to the previous gen and stay there. I'd rather have my games look reasonably good and get content in a reasonable time frame than for it to take months and years to make content only for the games to look like crap at the end of the day anyway. That's my take at least.  

As for the community...is OP right about the community? Yes. And I've stated my own thoughts already on this. This community is in a state of collective delusion and bashing the best game we've had in a decade. Now they're screeching over content release cycles (which are pretty standard and reasonable tbqh) and going on about how DLC is better. I think it's wild we literally got a group of people defending DLC as a model. It sucked then, I'm glad its gone. And again, if the devs listen to these people, they're gonna ruin the game. Their views arent based on reality but on some weird sense of nostalgia about how great the game used to be while not living in the same reality as the rest of us. I like the classics too but I aint completely and utterly delusional about them either. 

So let's talk about Trump's concentration camps

 Yeah. I'm calling it as it is, this is what they are. So....Trump is building a massive network of "Alligator Alcatraz" like facilities across the country, including two in my state. As the first article I pointed out mentions, this doesn't seem like a temporary thing based on the funding and logistics, but camps that could be in operation for years. There's also references to crematoriums in them....so....fun....

Look. I'm not trying to be alarmist, but this is Nazi level crap. This is EXACTLY what they did. And they might say well it's to process and deport illegal immigrants. But keep in mind, the number of illegal immigrants is already massively overstated by this administration. It's possible at some point that they'll go beyond just immigrants, locking up political dissidents and people who disagree with them. There's already been a lot of talk of a lot of the people in these camps not being illegal immigrants. And honestly? it's very well possible even if the current citizens rounded up were so in error, what's to stop Trump from expanding detentions in the future? We know under NSPM7 that anyone who basically dares disagree with fear leader is considered a suspected domestic terrorist, with them actively taking pictures of protesters and putting them in databases. 

This is really scary crap. And I don't wanna hear "oh you shouldnt call the administration fascist, you need to turn the temperature down." NO, THESE ARE FREAKING CONCENTRATION CAMPS. THIS IS WHAT THEY DID IN GERMANY, AND I'M CALLING THIS CRAP OUT WHILE WE STILL GOT FREE SPEECH RIGHTS LEFT. Ya know, the whole, "they came for X, but because X wasn't me, I said nothing, then they eventually came for me" thing. Because one of these days, they might come for me. They might come for you. They might come for all of us. We all know I have views that are critical of Christianity, of capitalism, of conservatism. And if you stay silent while you still have your rights, you're gonna lose them. This is insane. This is what this administration wants to do. Their own sick and twisted "final solution" to the problem of those they disagree with them. They know they can't win through legitimate means so they're doing this to suppress and potentially kill off the opposition down the line. 

Some may think I'm hyperbolic. I hope the frick I am. I don't want to end up in one of these camps some day. I dont want my friends, my family, people who I know to end up in these camps some day. Vote democrat in 2026 and 2028 and hope to god they have the balls to put a stop to this before its too late.  

I'm very disappointed in the media coverage of the epstein files

 So, in my social circles, everyone is focusing on the epstein files and the horrors within them. You turn on the media and they're obsessed with Trump posting a racist depiction of the obamas and savannah guthrie's mom. It's kind of sad, really. This is literally one of the biggest presidential scandals of my life, and it's getting virtually no coverage. I get it, they can't really discuss a lot of it because of how horrible it is and how they need to make it more PG rated, but still, they should be discussing it somewhat. And honestly, everyone above a certain age/maturity level should at least be keeping up with the story. It's serious. I mean, it's horrifying how evil these people have been, and yet, it gets virtually no coverage? That disgusts me, if anything. We basically got a cabal of elite pedophiles who run the world and created the entire alt right movement from the shadows and some new anchor's mom being kidnapped gets more coverage? Really?

I would discuss it more, but I dont wanna be nailed for posting disgusting crap on my blog, so I won't, but I'll just say this, just about every crazy conspiracy theories about the world run by some shadowy group of billionaire pedophiles is true in some form, and it's so much worse than pedophilia, we're talking sex trafficking, murder, cover ups, fricking CANNIBALISM, rich people going to the middle east to just casually hunt people in war zones for their birthdays. It's sick. It's just...sick. But hey, they're not being held accountable, trump is telling the world to move on and stop talking about it, and the media isn't doing it's job. It disgusts me.

Do better, media. Do better.  

Multiple RED ALERTS: The Save Act and Steve Bannon's poll watcher scheme

 So...there are multiple threats to democracy that were discussed tonight on the majority report that I want to report on. The first, Steve Bannon wants there to be ICE watching polling places on election day. There have historically been right wing "poll watchers" at polls and generally speaking which not all poll watching is necessarily bad, a lot of it can have racist implications, like say, the KKK watching a polling place where black people vote. or ICE watching a polling place in 2026. Yeah. They wanna do that. And obviously, the goal is clear: voter intimidation. Sure, they'll say there's fraud and they gotta watch the polls to stop it, but like every attempt at voter suppression that conservatives try to do, they always claim fraud that doesn't exist as an excuse to pass ridiculous measures intended to intimidate and disenfranchise people.

Another red alert discussed in the video is the Save Act, which hasnt passed congress to my knowledge, but the purpose is to make it require a real ID to vote. Again, "we gotta make sure citizens vote", so what's the problem? Well, a lot of underprivileged groups tend to struggle to access the right paperwork. And Real ID's requirements are so hard at times that it's hard for american citizens to get them, especially married women. I mean, Sam mentioned it on his show, and I know people in my life who had had this problem too. So...you wanna prove you're a citizen for a real ID. Okay, show your birth certificate. Oh, but what if you're married and dont have the same name as on the birth certificate any more? Well now you need a marriage certificate. Oh, but it has to be from such and such, and I know with my family we've had to track down a marriage certificate out of a church that no longer exists to prove that a person is in fact a citizen. It's a ridiculous process. It is painful, time consuming, and can take years. Of course, women tend to vote democrat so screw them right? And of course if you're poor and overworked, you likely wont have the right documents, and it's hard for you to acquire them, and if you're working 40+ hours a week just to survive, you're not gonna wanna go through the headaches of getting the ID. So...you wont vote. And then the republicans win. See the problem? Yeah, voter suppression. These guys are doing it.

As i said, they're gonna try to rig 2026 in every way possible. "Watching" the polls, having ridiculous ID requirements to vote. Hell, and this is unconfirmed, but I heard that they're photographing the ICE protesters and putting them in a database so they can wipe them from voter rolls later, claiming they're "domestic terrorists". Yeah. Protesters who are using their rights to protest a tyrannical government and jack booted thugs terrorizing the streets are being considered "domestic terrorists" and they're gonna try to wipe them off the rolls. This one is unconfirmed, but Kyle Kulinski mentioned it several times on his show, although I couldnt verify the claim. I wouldn't doubt it though. Again, they'll do it in every way possible. Trump's long term success comes from the republicans breaking democracy and ensuring that democrats do not retake congress. If Trump can't consolidate power by november, the worst of it is over. And then we take our country back, one institution at a time. And every institution we take, the weaker he becomes until we run the republicans out of office for good.

At which point, it'll be up to the democrats what happens next. it's possible they're so weak they screw it up themselves, but hopefully they'll learn SOMETHING from recent losses and actually get it together and have a long term strategy to hold this administration accountable and ensure, through legal and ethical means of course, that a future fascist administration doesnt happen again.

But again, that's why I feel a need to urgently report on stuff that comes out that seems to be a threat to elections.  

Hate to break it to you, but all of modern politics is a psy op

 So...some on the right, the more intellectually honest ones I mean, are currently coming to the realization that their entire political worldview is based on a right wing psy op. I mean, with the Epstein files basically confirming that Epstein was partially responsible for bringing /pol back on 4chan, and Bannon being largely responsible for pushing gamer gate and the like, people are realizing that their views are largely influenced by a cabal of elite billionaires who ran a massive psy op campaign to build the right wing movement. 

And before that, in the previous generation, Evangelical Christianity was also a psy op created not just to dumb down and brainwash the conservative population in the US into modern conservatism, but also much of the developing world. While some forms of left wing Christianity did exist previously, they became supplanted by an authoritarian fundamentalist version that emphasized obedience and justified the existing economic system.

And...if we really think about it, conservative protestant Christianity ALWAYS existed to justify the current economic system, as my own research into the protestant work ethic, the history of property rights, etc., shows that the entire thing was a psy op created to justify the wealth of the wealthy and the poverty of the poor at home, while also simultaneously justifying colonialism abroad.

And before that, complex webs of relations between the monarchies and catholic church supported the medieval system. And before that Constantine the Great adopted Christianity as a way to further his rule too. So Christianity has always had its roots in justifying conservatism and authoritarianism too, and the history of the past 2000 years has been shaped by powerful people utilizing religion for their own ends and to justify existing power structures and economic relationships. 

But the left...isn't much different. Especially the modern left. Honest question, guys. Do you honestly think there aren't wealthy and powerful people coordinating with each other and deciding what talking points are used, and how to justify the existing power structures within the democrats as well? Do you honestly not think the complete and utter worthlessness of the modern democrats isn't coordinated? That they didn't just flood message boards with propaganda, bullying people into voting blue no matter who, and pushing out and minimizing organic grassroots movements? Do you think it's a coincidence, the democratic party has, instead of pursuing a working class strategy, explicitly abandoned working class politics to push for a brand of fiscally conservative moderate instead? I mean, we had the podesta emails and clinton campaign emails 10 years ago, we saw a glimpse of what was going on behind the scenes. And while people will point out "yeah but russians released them for their own purposes", maybe they did, but don't they still tell a story about the rot inside our own organizations?

Do you think it's a coincidence that the corporate media pushes corporate talking points? Do you think the rise of wokeism was just a coincidence? I've heard that wokeism's elevation itself was a CIA psy op intended to create a new version of left wing politics that explicitly didn't have a working class bend to it. And I kinda believe it, because it's been corrosive to our movement since.

I honestly believe that the Bernie Sanders political revolution was the natural end goal of the direction left wing politics were going until the 2016 campaign, when these entities came down hard and enforced "voter discipline" on people to push people to Hillary. And I never bought it. Why?

Well...when you have the education I do, and you have the ideological basis for politics that I do, it kind of makes you more hardened against propaganda. You have critical thinking. You gain some immunity to this nonsense. The entire direction we've gone in since 2016 has been a massive distraction by the wealthy to move us away from the direction politics was naturally evolving toward....with disastrous consequences. Now politics is reminiscient of 1930s germany, with a useless and fractured left and a strong, growing, fascist right. It was a psy op. We're here, because this was a psy op. 

And...I can't say I'm fully immune to propaganda, no one is. It's impossible to have an opinion without it being influenced by something, and some propaganda force probably helped influence it. But, I would say I'm a bit more hardened to it. And outside of my college education, I really would credit my deconversion from Christianity as helping me here. You see, Christianity is a mind virus used by the rich and powerful to pull one over on us. It always has been, as I stated above. But, the key to overcoming that is a strong worldview based on reason and evidence. And quite frankly, leaving Christianity immunized me enough and hardened me enough where I wasn't biting the modern culture war, and I've remained pretty consistent in my views since I developed them around 2012-2014 or so. That isnt to say there aren't evolutions and iterations, but my core convictions are the same, and I've been trying to keep my eyes on the prize. And for all saying I've kinda turned into a blue no matter whoer, as I can see that coming, I only did so because of the growing fascism in the GOP that represents an existential threat even I have to respond to. The wealthy try to control democracy, and that's bad enough, but some are trying to kill that, and just implement authoritarianism. And that's dangerous because if they succeed, the level of control they'll have over the discourse and society will get worse. SO we must fight to maintain democracy before we can move back on to other things. It's not a surrender, it's a tactical retreat. But I digress.

And honestly, the fact that new atheism declined in favor of this new "woke" paradigm, and the whole fiscally conservative/socially liberal thing is probably because it can't be used by the wealthy. because a worldview based on reason and evidence, teaches people to see truth. And the wealthy dont want you to see truth, they want you to live in their matrix, or their cave arguing within the paradigm they set up for you. And that's how they control politics, even with a democratic system on paper. They dont control all of democracy, but if they can control the key players, and discourage pursuit of say, third parties, they can keep most people in their paradigm. And sadly, most of society has fallen for it and this transition to a 7th party system is shaped into the image THEY wanted it to be, and not what was good for the people. 

But yeah, if you wonder why I dont abandon new atheism in this new paradigm, even if I am somewhat spiritual now, this is why. Because new atheism and humanism ARE the answer. Some on the left will say marxism is the answer, but when has that ever ended well. Powerful people corrupted that too, and quite frankly, I've come to a realization lately when I think about it is that the reason Marxism failed is because it basically is a regression to feudalism. And even if everyone is equal on paper blah blah blah, we all know the reality in those states is much different, and a ruling class ruled over them with an iron fist. 

So no, I dont see marxism as the answer, even if some level of class consiousness and conflict theory is useful. Basically, the rich and powerful will either use systems to push people toward their ends, or try to destroy them. Which is why our society has an aversion to marxism, which teaches people about class relations, and atheism, which teaches people reason and causes people to abandon the christian mind control virus that the elites use to control people. Atheism, btw, is relatively benign compared to marxism, and my own ideology is more "liberal" in nature than "leftist", but still, it's liberalism done right. Not a corporate captured and controlled version of it, but an organic version based on intellectualism and doing what's best for the masses. 

But yeah. Again, the ruling class couldnt control that so it was displaced for wokeism, and that's when the left started losing. Because it no longer represented the people, channeled their anger, or stood for something in opposition to what currently exists, but it was this corporate captured thing that served to distract people with useless social issues and keep people fighting amongst themselves over nothing.

And until we abandon these ideologies, nothing will change with politics. With that said, I encourage people to abandon these failed and controlled ideologies for something actually substantive, as that's how we really change society. This blog has tools that will help. I've been writing and maintaining it for the past 10 years now.  

Why I'm not impressed by James Talerico

 So....a lot of progressives get really opinionated over this James Talerico guy. And I feel like it's almost become a progressive litmus test to like him over Jasmine Crockett. While I'm open to discussions on whether he's better than Crockett (tbf I haven't fully explored this topic but I'm on team crockett on vibes alone), honestly, you're just not gonna convince me that James Talerico is the bees knees. You're just not.

It's the in your face Christian worldview. I know I got a rather derisive comment saying "just say you're a 2012 reddit atheist and move on" and to be fair...*points to the blog name*, but yeah, I don't take very kindly to religion being front and center in one's political life. As I see it, religion influences morality, and influences politics. How can you have a solid, respectable exegesis of the political situation we are in if your worldview begins with a religion full of dubious names and an authoritarian morality that holds us back? Even if I acknowledge progressive Christians exist, I still believe that Christianity is gonna kneecap that progressivism, and lead to strange ideas around, say, the concept of work ethic, and property, and the origins of the universe, humanity, and civilization. It's gonna lead to weird hangups in morality that cause weird contradictions and brainworms in one's worldview. Even if Talerico and I come to the same conclusions, we often do so for radically different reasons, and that can lead to problematic implications in the details of how these ideas are proposed. 

 Take, for example, his debate on Jubilee where he had that debate with conservatives and was arguing using their logic against him.  I cringed at him arguing the ideas from a right wing point of view on work and work ethic, and how there really aren't people committing fraud or whatever. For me, the ideological difference between right and left goes deeper than that. I dont think we should worry a ton about people who "dont deserve" aid getting aid at all (outside of the prospect of illegal immigrants getting aid) because I disagree with the whole moral perspective that there is deserving vs undeserving, because that originates out of christian morality that I dont agree with. I believe that a UBI should be a right of all citizens. Period. That healthcare should be a right of all citizens. Education, housing, ditto. Period. End of discussion. It's nice he argues to defend flawed johnson era welfare state programs against the social darwinists who want nothing at all, but i just dont vibe with him here. I'm sorry, I dont.

It's the same issue I had with HRC who put her faith front and center too. I dont want someone who is "double minded", as they would say, and unstable in all their ways. Either you're hot or your cold, if you're lukewarm i'll spit you out of my mouth! Blah blah blah. Ya know. I dont want these mealy mouthed answers on social issues of "I find this morally wrong but..." There is no but, it makes you look wildly inconsistent and unreliable when you add "buts." Either youre pro choice or you're not. Either youre pro gay marriage or you're not. I dont wanna hear "well according to my faith its a sin but i believe people should be allowed to do it anyway because *add half hearted defense here that makes no sense*. No. Crap or get off the pot. I dont trust candidates who are half way in this Christian world and half in the real one. 

And some people are saying its good he can relate to those people and it makes him electable. Maybe so but that doesnt mean I LIKE him, and way to make the HRC 2016 argument all over again. We cant have a candidate with actual convictions, we have to have someone who defends some watered down version of left wing ideas through our opponent's moral system. I dont like to operate that way. I want someone who is unapologetically humanist and who actually argues their ideas based on reason, evidence, and a secular moral view. Sorry not sorry.

I understand that 2012 era reddit atheism has lost its popularity over the years. But that was my gateway to the left, and that's how I structure my ideological worldview. And I believe that with the decline of reddit atheism, the left lost something, which is why it struggles in this modern era of politics. It lost its intellectual high ground. It lost its punchiness, its ability to troll. It's ability to actually take on the right from a position of moral and intellectual superiority. 

 I know one of the people I argued with that caused this conversation argued he's progressive because he argues left wing points from a position of empathy, but we live in a society that highly prioritizes individualism and rational self interest. No one cares about that, and while the left might have some weird version of moral superiority based on empathy, that's ALL it has any more. It's lost its intellectualism. It lost its actual values, its philosophy. It's just a hugbox of feels over reals. And I've been highly critical of the empathy hugboxers over the years because of this. Because they're just a bunch of annoying self righteous people and no one fricking cares. 

I keep telling lefties this and they dont get it. When I was on the right, I was a values voter. I'm STILL a values voter, I just changed what those values are. I get it, it's Texas. It's "god's country." If we need some moderate good old christian boy to win that seat, well, we do what we gotta do. Not like we have a good choice. But that doesnt mean i LIKE the guy. it means i tolerate the guy. 

I get it, my politics are, at this point, from a different era. They're pre 2016 politics. I get that that's foreign in this new environment. But back then, we were winning, and the right was losing. And honestly, that's how I see politics. It just is. And I'm not gonna change. I just dont relate to some modern liberals and progressives, and I dont see eye to eye with them on worldview, morals or values. I'm off doing my own thing. But it IS my own thing, I own it, and if people dont like it, tough. I dont necessarily like others who do something different either. And that's where I'm gonna leave this. Sorry, not sorry.  

The new Epstein files are wild

 So....I won't post them. They're disgusting. You can watch videos on them, you can read then yourself on the justice department's website, but I won't be linking to them given how gross they are. 

But yeah....it's confirming my own suspicion, Trump isn't just some dude who went to Epstein's island a few times, but a major player. He's implicated in child rape, sex trafficking, even murder. I have friends who are relatively apolitical reading this stuff and being disgusted by it. Which is...the sane reaction. It is disgusting, and I'd like to say, I dont know how anyone can support Trump after this,  but let's face it, I know the answer to this: people are brainwashed and not living in the same reality as the rest of us, where they'll ignore the evidence even when it smacks him in the face. Somehow, Trump really is the guy who can shoot someone in 5th avenue and not lose any voters (or lose relatively few). 

But yeah, if you still support him, I encourage you to think deeply about your relationship to reality, because either you're not living in it or your morals are so F-ed up you'll support a literal pedophile. And not just any pedophile, but like, the king of all pedophiles. Trump is accused of doing, or being complicit to many of the worst crimes known to our justice system. You know, for a while after losing my faith, I believed that there wasn't really true evil, and that humans were just sometimes misguided about what the good or moral thing is, but that we all kinds wanted similar things, some people just seriously perverted those goals through some bad logic somewhere. but no, the older I get, the more I realize true evil exists, and these guys are pure evil.

And it's not just Trump. This just seems to be how the ultra wealthy live. There's anecdotes coming out due to these files about alleged cannibalism these guys are engaging in. There was an anonymous tip that the Epstein people were cooking and eating babies. It's unreliable, but given the culture of extreme moral depravity and also silencing people, the topic has come back up, especially in regards to a young mexican woman who made some wild accusations and then disappeared not long after. Another victim perhaps? We don't know, but it's been suspected by some that this was related to epstein's stuff. 

But yeah, again, it's not just Trump either. It's so many people. So many wealthy people and powerful people are being implicated in being involved with this stuff. It's messed up. And I ain't even touching the pedophilia.

Another disturbing thing is how many crazy ideas in the private sector seemed to come from Epstein in one way or another. Epstein apparently suggested 4chan open a political board, which happened soon after and is one of the forces behind the alt right movement that came in the years after. So people on the right are coming to the realization that their entire political perspective was shaped by a psy op. Apparently monetization in Call of Duty was epstein's idea, and the idea of getting children addicted to such purchases. And apparently 75% of bitcoin's code has been traced back to epstein, so now bitcoin investors are kinda realizing they just funded a massive pedophile ring. Peter Thiel and Palantir, ya know, the 1984 guys, also seem related to this stuff. It seems like every bad thing and idea in the world is somehow related to this guy, it's insane.

Speaking of which, I would like to talk about Qanon and pizzagate for a second. Now, I believe that Qanon is mostly BS. but hear me out, could this have been an epstein psy op too? I kind of wouldnt doubt it. Here's why. With pizzagate, there were accusations of democratic party insiders communicating with each other by going to get pizza at some restaurant in DC were actually speaking in code and were actually talking about child sex crimes.

But...in the actual epstein files, we have evidence of people doing just that. I have to wonder...did someone with inside knowledge of the epstein organization create Qanon and push this rumor as a way to rile up conservatives? I wouldnt doubt it. it turns out there is really an elite cabal of pedophiles who run the world from the shadows and who speak in code about pizza when they really mean child sex crimes. Idk, it's just a bit too on the mark. 

Now, again, that doesnt mean Qanon is a legitimate conspiracy theory, it was an idea that radicalized right wingers against the left and made people believe the democrats were doing this, when in reality, it was all them. It was this alt right movement who was being funded and supported by all these pedophile billionaires. Could someone have been telling on themselves here? It's crazy.

Now, I actually had a friend come to me last night after reading about some of this stuff and being utterly disgusted and asking me, how do I cope with this crap. Sadly, I don't have any advice. The older I get, the more I realize just how messed up the world is, and how it's...well....THESE GUYS who made it this way. And it does go deeper than just sex crimes and stuff. It's everything, it's our economic system. I had another friend ask if this is what the elites really think of us, as if they only care about us for our labor, or sex toys, or...FOOD (given the cannibalism accusations), and....I have to say, yeah, they do. They dont care about us. We're livestock to them. The world is their farm. And this economic system was set up to extract labor from us. The more I research the more my own conclusions align with the likes of the leftists insofar as how these institutions got set up.

And sadly, I dont have answers. I find it mega depressing itself. But...one advice I did give, and i'll give to you here, is to not look away, to not delude yourself, but to accept it. There's that stuff about staring into the abyss and the abyss staring back. but this time, the abyss is staring at US, and WE have to stare back. And WE have to assert dominance. 

As I said, Trump's success relies on swiftly breaking democracy. His approach is that of a robber, move fast break things, and get out before the country knows what hit them. But here's the thing, we DO know what's hitting us. And we cant turn away from it, or pretend it isnt happening. We have to acknowledge it. Admitting we have a problem is our first step to solving it. 

So...in 2026 and 2028, go to the ballot box KNOWING the reality of this stuff, AND the world. And act accordingly. Vote accordingly. Get these psychos out of power. And yes, I know the democrats are controlled opposition too, but we gotta run outsider populist candidates like Bernie Sanders and Andrew yang, and win. Because let's face it, the democrats' complicity isnt meeting the moment. We need an actual paradigm shift, a party realignment. And sometimes, before we get the good thing, we gotta experience a really bad thing first. It took a hoover to get an FDR. A buchanan to get a Lincoln. A King George to get a Washington. And...it works the other way too. We needed a Carter to get a Reagan. 

I feared last year that Biden was Jimmy Carter and Trump was Reagan. Im not convinced that Trump is Reagan. He MIGHT be a realigning figure, and a negative one, but honestly, before we can get a positive figure, we sometimes need a negative one to shake things up so badly that the good one becomes necessary to restore some sanity to society.

The next democratic administration CANNOT be another Joe Biden. It needs to do better. We need an actual transformative figure who will not only heal our democracy, and hold these people to account for their crimes (and not just the pedo stuff, I'm also talking the ICE stuff too), but also establish a new economic paradigm for a modern age. 

As for me, as I see it, my goal is to inform. I'm here to educate people, to raise awareness and raise consciousness, and I'm just gonna keep doing that. I just hope people actually fricking listen because that's how we change things long term. Collective action and political organization. And for me personally, that's how I cope with this crap. A catalyze my anger into something useful. By writing about it. Because, again, to change things long term, we need to inform, educate, change minds. That's how we build a counter to this movement long term. They operate from the top down and with tons of money flooding the system, we have to operate from the bottom up through the grassroots. We already know what we gotta do. We saw it with Bernie's 2016 and 2020 campaign, we saw it with Yang's 2020 campaign as well. We just gotta keep pushing and trying until we succeed.

That's the best advice I can give.  

RED ALERT: Trump calls for nationalizing elections

 So...Trump's still salty over losing the 2020 election, claimed that elections in 15 states are "corrupt", and that the federal government should step in to stop that. And EVERYONE disliked that, including the GOP. At least people still care SOMEWHAT about democracy and they aren't just calling to end elections. 

Still, it's worth reporting on because, well, I've been warning you guys. Trump's (and Trumpism's) long term success relies on its ability to maintain and consolidate control over our institutions, and given the GOP stands a very good chance of losing the 2026 midterms and 2028 elections, well...it's possible that we will endure.

Still, it doesn't mean Trump ain't gonna try and this is basically him trying. 

The ironic thing is, in theory, I'm not even opposed to more federal control in standardizing election procedures. I've been critical of our 50 states patchwork given the republicans have previously consolidated control in their states to make it harder for democrats to gain gains, while also rigging it against third parties via banning ranked choice voting. So my opposition was over the powers that be not allowing MORE democracy to thrive, since I would much rather us be a multi party democracy with 3+ viable parties. Still, 2 is a step up from 1, and Trump wants to make us a one party state. 

But that's the difference. When i criticize our institutions it's because I wanna make democracy better where we have, say, 4 national parties, with the libertarians and greens becoming more mainstream. These guys wanna kill it and have only 1. 2 is better than 1, but not as good as 3, 4, 6, or whatever. So....I guess now I gotta play defensive and support this flawed patchwork in opposition to trump's efforts to just rig stuff as he pleases directly. I hate that we've gotten here, but we've gotten here. I guess that's checks and balances though. Right now the states are our primary line of defense against trumpism. Although with this even the president's own party, especially long standing members from pre 2016, are just like NO to this. Which is good, they should be. I dont see how any principled "constitutionalist" can support Trump. He doesn't support the constitution, either in letter or spirit. I might criticize the constitution, but at least I support the spirit of it. I just think we could do certain things better and that the actual implementation is a bit flawed and dated. These guys just hate the idea of democracy, or rule of law, or checks and balances.

And yet we're the ones accused of "hating America" (see the other day's rant) for lightly criticizing the constitution or our institutions the way we do. No, Donald Trump hates "America." And Donald Trump is a fascist, or at the very least fascist adjacent. We just want America to grow and be the best it can be. Huge difference. He wants to turn us into 1930s Germany. Complete with our own concentration camps. Yeah, he's doing that too. 

 *sigh*, i hate this administration. Not America as a concept or the constitution in general, but specifically the people who run it currently. We are in hell. It's like we all died in the mid 2010s somehow and it's been a fever dream ever since. Sometimes I wish we would just wake up back in 2017 with Bernie Sanders being sworn in as president. 

Discussing the 1 democrat vs 20 MAGA republicans Jubilee video

 *sigh*, they did it again. This time it's 20 MAGA republicans vs 1 democrat. Im not gonna lie, this one was PAINFUL to watch. Like, the MAGA in this one were so stupid, dishonest, or both. I would not have the patience to do these debates. It's like playing chess with a pigeon. They just knock over the pieces and strut around acting like they're victorious. 

I won't go into individual claims. Nothing was said that was substantive enough to discuss, outside of maybe the last claim which I have a rant about. But yeah, these people are just in their own little world, it's all feels over reals. They make claims that are patently false. When logical contradictions are brought up, they pivot, deflect, or act like it's different somehow. It's just a crapshow.

The last claim involved the idea that democrats "hate America" and then this guy just kept talking over this guy. He handled it very coolly, and was very professional, dismantling him and making him look bad, but I probably would've lost my crap and told him to F off. he was just doing this mccarthyist thing of making radical claim, when said claim defines "America" as conservative values. Hes ranting about communists and zohran mamdani and blah blah blah and its like...so people cant disagree with you now? Thats what i hate about the "hate america" crap. These guys define "America" in these very romanticized terms, and often appeal to stuff like "freedom" (which i support), "hard work" (BLEH!), the judeo Christian worldview, etc. And it's just...ugh. And then this guy just kept talking over him and not letting him get a word in edgewise while claiming HE was the one getting cut off any time this guy tried to respond. Again, you try this crap on me, I'm not particularly gonna be civil about it. It's obvious what this was trying to do. 

Anyway, as far as my view on that, while I do hate conservative values and this romanticized idea of "America" that conservatives have (which is a "civil religion" parallel to literal religion), I approach the issue differently. I take the Al Franken approach. Conservatives love America like 4 year olds love their mommies. if you say anything bad about mommy you must HATE mommy and that makes you a bad person because mommy is good. Meanwhile, Al Franken points out liberals love America too, we just handle that love like adults do where we dont give people a pass on every crappy thing they do, and we want our loved one to, you know, grow, and do the right thing. And I'd say that's where I'm at.

I know some leftists, like DIE HARD leftists, tend to have an "anti America" mindset. Like, you cant bring up anything american without them bashing it. Like if you bring up FDR, they'll bring up internment camps. If you bring up Lincoln they'll bring up how he was actually somewhat racist. if you bring up a founder they'll go on about how they were slave owners. Nothing is ever good enough and when your perspective devolves into America/west bad, yeah you kinda do hate America. But liberals have always been a bit more nuanced, at least the smart ones. 

I admit my country has faults. And I discuss them on here. heck, being steeped in the history of this country and the world as of late, really, some might get the opinion that I DO hate this country, this system, etc. But at the same time, I also acknowledge that no state is perfect. There's no state on this planet that is morally perfect. And blind nationalism is a mental disease as far as I'm concerned. We need to be honest about the faults of our state, our social and economic systems, etc., if we want to change them for the better and improve them. But that's the problem with the "love america" crowd. They think America is perfect and beyond reproach and that anyone criticizing it must hate it. it's a really immature mindset.

Of course, unlike on this blog, in a debate, you'd never be allowed to say that as the whole point of the argument is to hurl baseless accusations at people and never let them get a word in edgewise to defend themselves, which is precisely what happened here, this guy wasnt honestly interested in discussion. He was trying to pull this mccarthyist BS of just screaming at people and not letting them defend themselves. And to be fair, the democratic debater handled it well, whereas I probably would've just told him to go F himself and ended it there. Because I dont respond to that nonsense well. 

Here's the thing, liberal ideas are complex and require explaining. Hell, there's a reason I dont do live debates and instead hide behind this blog and the book im trying to write. because I do better when I can actually argue for my ideas on my own terms, while republican/conservative ideas tend to be assumed by default, and defending them often requires a lot of rhetorical dishonesty like logical fallacies, gish galloping, and just never letting your opponent talk. If your opponent cant talk, they win. And that's the asymmetry that we on the left have to put up with. And it gets worse the further left you are, as you are often operating from an entirely different paradigm that requires tons and tons of theory just to explain. The conservative relies on disrupting peoples' abilities to argue their viewpoints properly. And this isn't just a republican vs democrat problem, but a liberal vs leftist one too. In the democratic primaries, keep in mind what my argument was about the field being rigged against the left. it relied on things like media control and dishonest hosts who wouldnt let their opponent talk properly and constantly guided the conversation on their terms. 

Again, if the left can argue its ideas, it can probably make a good case. But most people are stupid, quite frankly, and as long as the media does a good enough job in not letting someone with progressive or leftist (keep in mind you dont need to even be a full blown leftist to have this happen to you, even a progressive liberal is gonna get this treatment) views talk and explain their point of view properly, they win. So they try to disrupt how you talk. 

Conservatives do it to liberals, and liberals do it to progressives and leftists. And that's a huge reason why the right is so favored. It's the "thank you for smoking" ice cream scene in practice. It's not about convincing you, it's about convincing the masses. And keep in mind, the masses are stupid. They eat it all up, and that's why we don't win. Even if we're right. Because as the guy in the scene said, when your job is to never be wrong, you're never wrong, and you'll basically use any intellectually dishonest deflection in order to achieve the result that you want. Which is what happened here and what the "liberals hate America" crap is about. it's about knocking us off balance where we gotta defend ridiculous accusations, and then never letting us talk enough to defend ourselves. Again, that's how they win. it's dishonest, it's hacky, intellectuals know better, but most people aren't intellectuals so it sticks. Again, it's why i hate actual live in person debates and stick to text. You cant pull that crap on me if I can just type a monologue explaining my views.

Btw, this is one of the reasons I became an atheist. I remember when I was deconverting, I was watching debates between Madalyn Murray O Hair and some preacher dude and the preacher dude acted like this. Atheist proposes valid points, Christian just craps all over the place like a pigeon playing chess. Why bother playing with these people if they dont play fair?

And yeah, it's the same thing with Charlie Kirk too. Everyone is like "oh he tried to debate when he was alive, he was civil." He was a hack. Not saying he should have died, I'm very much against that sort of murder. But to actually criticize his debate skills and the concept of civil debate, he wasn't a real honest debater, he was a conservative hack who debated dumb college students who havent yet been able to fully develop their worldviews and then acts like they're so smart for "winning." It's like me bragging about getting 100 kills in casual breakthrough in Battlefield 6 when i just spent all match sitting in a corner farming bots with a meta gun of my choice. I know some people actually do take pride in doing that, but it's not an accomplishment. Same thing here. Kirk rarely debated actual intellectual equals on equal ground. He was known for being a debate bro who smacked down college students. 

And yeah. See the conservative MO yet? I didn't plan on going into conservatives being intellectually dishonest debaters but that's kind of where this ended up. You see a pattern enough you end up eventually calling it out, i guess. And yeah. it's hacky and dishonest, sorry, not sorry.  

Discussing how Christianity is a CIA psy op

 So, Genetically Modified Skeptic just put out a video arguing (with evidence) that evangelical Christianity is literally a CIA psy op, and how it was designed to counter Catholic liberation theology in poorer countries in like South America, in order to justify taking land away from people, and making people compliant to the wealthy. 

And uh...I'm just gonna say...no crap. I mean, it is no surprise that the second I left the Christian faith I became radically liberal/progressive. I wouldnt call myself a full blown leftist, but my ideas flirt with leftism, and I kind of have a leftist analysis of problems, but with more "liberal" solutions. 

I'm gonna be blunt, it did not elude me that when I left the faith, that it became clear that religion was a tool used by the rich and powerful. It's literally plato's cave or the matrix, a mental prison designed to redirect angst regarding the causes of our largest societal problems away from their root causes toward unproductive ends. 

Christianity has always had that kind of vibe for me where we wonder why bad things happen to good people, and it's like gee...idk Timmy (or whoever asked the question), but we do know that God will settle the accounts in the next life. FOOLS. That's what they want. That's what the elites want. For you to not worry about this stuff and to focus on the next life, so they can rob you in this one! 

I mean, it really is as Marx would say, religion is the opium of the masses. People don't focus on how F-ed up this life is, and what the root causes of that suffering is, because of it. And fundamentalist christianity is literally designed to redirect people away from focusing on the causes of social problems, and intend to redirect stuff inward toward focusing on one's own virtue. Youre not to focus on this world and its problems, only your own morality, and your own sin. And dont forget, if you dont work hard, you're not of good moral character!

Heck, and this is where I get more into my own research projects, I'll say this about protestant Christianity. it's ALWAYS been this way. The protestant work ethic and the idea of a natural right of property were used to justify the wealth of the rich and the poverty of the poor. It was said the wealthy "deserved" their wealth because they worked hard for it, while the poor are poor because they didnt work hard enough. Again, dont focus on the actual systemic causes of poverty, focus on personal morality. Which involves working harder and being a useful tool to the ownership class. Once you see it, it feels like Bioshock Infinite with Fink Industries and all their BS propaganda about working hard. But that's the society we live in, the work cult. 

There's...been a lot of disturbing stuff coming out of the epstein stuff recently. Rampant claims of pedophilia among the elites, especially our current president. Rumors of cannibalism even. And I'm not kidding. A mexican friend of mine was telling me about how this model attended an elite party in like 2009 and had a mental breakdown screaming about how they were literally eating people and was basically arrested for making a scene...and then never seen again. And given how the epstein files does imply the murder of those who talk about things they've seen at these parties and how they end up as fertilizer for trump's golf course (true story, according to the files, btw), uh...kinda makes you wonder.

Why am I telling you this? Because a friend of mine is so shaken up, they're literally like "is this how the elites see us? like we're subhuman and basically just useful for labor and if they feel like it, eating and raping us?" And uh...yeah. I mean, I've heard stories before the magna carta how the nobles would just kill peasants for funsies at times. That's how the elites see us. They hate us. They despise us. We're just livestock to them. And keep in mind what I've said about the dark enlightenment and my own UBI stuff, these guys would rather a wave of mass death among the working class than giving us a UBI. And a lot of the left seems to prefer a world of eternal servitude to the wealthy over that alternative. As if we shouldnt just demand that they share. Oh wait, that's "communism" according to them. Even if it actually isn't (keep in mind, I still consider myself a liberal). 

Anyway, back to the topic. So yeah, evangelical christianity. It was designed like 400 years ago to justify our existing systems. The natural right to property justifies the property right regime, and the protestant work ethic justifies a world in which we all gotta give our labor to rich people. It's ALWAYS been like this.

And yes, I know, there have been supporters of christianity who dont think like this. I'm aware of that too. Some christians wanted a post work world so we could spend more time at church or some crap. Some hated consumerism because they thought we should all live simple lives like Jesus. I mean, that's the thing, they support ideas that I support, but within religion. And for me, that's the rub. See....I left religion. And I just see no point in going back. yes, left wing christians exist. But I ask, why be christian at all? is christianity actually reasonable? Can you build a consistent, coherent worldview out of it that makes sense? I dont think so, personally. It just feels so conflicted to me, and even if not every aspect of it is bad, I jsut can't support the mentality. I mean, I welcome allies wherever they lie, even in religions i otherwise disagree with, but honestly? Christianity in general just gets caught in the crossfire for me. Secularism has led me away from Christianity, and I see no reason to go back. Even if not all versions of it are bad. Because...it just doesnt make sense to me, it doesnt click, and I think the fact that it has the mentality that it does, where it does not emphasize reason and following evidence, is inherently a negative. Even if some within the faith agree with me, we agree for different reasons. I wont turn away allies, but still, you see how I can't just...go back to being pro that stuff?

And it's the same with the work ethic. I know elizabeth anderson, for example, who has such a good book on the protestant work ethic, which has heavily influenced my current views, loves to emphasize that there is a progressive work ethic...I have to ask....why keep the work ethic at all? I dont wanna save the work ethic. I wanna kill it. I wanna drive a sake through its heart so we dont have to work any more.

And that's kinda how I feel about organized religion in general. Even if catholics sometimes have social justice teachings and the like....I think that the world just makes so much more sense when you dont allow such weird influences to corrupt your worldview. These mindsets arent designed to be compatible with reason and evidence....so why accept them?

And yes, I understand even secularism isnt perfect. The secularization of the work ethic and its influence by utilitarians has caused great harm as well in my view. It was the utilitarians who argued for the panopticon for the poor for example, who created a proto doctrine of growth, who saw capitalism as a race with no finish. It was them who decided that the suffering of the poor was worth it if it advanced society by their own metrics. If anything, the secularization of the work ethic made it far worse, removing its humanitarian impulses. Likewise, I've come to realize that without religion, the right won't just go away, it'll just become more outspokenly fascistic. It'll argue its ideas under the guise of structural functionalism and become about race politics, with open authoritarianism being promoted as functional to build a strong nation or whatever. So...to be fair, secularism isnt perfect either.

Still....my ethos is...fundamentally...secular. It has its origins in the New Atheist movement of the 2000s and early 2010s, it embraces reason and evidence in finding truth, and it embraces a humanistic mindset its ethics. Hell, human centered capitalism as we understand it is just...humanism. It's literally taking secular humanist principles and applying them to economics.  And yeah. That's where I'm at. 

The fact is, religion is a tool often used by the rich and powerful to justify the status quo, especially in regard to wealth and privileges. Protestant christianity is just a perfect tool to be used by the wealthy to domesticate people into the perfect slaves. It's not surprising it was used by the CIA to enslave people. It's always been used that way, going back to the dawn of capitalism. And before that, we had the divine right of kings and feudalism, and so on and so forth. So yeah, I just see no reason to support religion, especially given the way the world is today. I just wanted to comment on this, as it's right up my alley as far as my political ideology goes.  

Discussing Fulton County FBI raid and Trump's goal here

 So, Trump's FBI raided Fulton County Georgia's election office. The reason for the raid seems to be largely related to the 2020 election and how he was salty that he lost, believing it's rigged. That is part of it, but I think Trump has much more nefarious concerns. Keep in mind what I said, this guy is gonna wanna rig and break the 2026 and 2028 elections. he stands to lose big in them, and wants to limit that. So he's gonna make up crap about voter fraud.

We know in minneapolis, he said he'd leave if he got the voter rolls there. Idk exactly what he wants done with voter rolls, but he might be wanting to collect them so he can start disenfranchising voters he doesn't like. And he seems to be targetting swing states. I know there's talk he's gonna come here to PA next, but it seems like Georgia is his next target, particularly atlanta. 

But why is that such a big deal? Well, Atlanta might hold the key to democratic success in the coming decades. It's a city that's rapidly growing, has a large POC population, and is shifting more liberal very quickly. Even in 2024, when the rest of the country shifted right, Atlanta shifted left. The trends are happening so fast that if you look at those maps showing the arrows and what direction voters went in, atlanta was the most prominent blue arrow location in a sea of red. 

And it's causing the state to rapidly shift left. In 2024, it actually ended up being less red than PA, and it's the only sun belt state that shifted that way. While other sunbelt states are rather cool on democrats, the atlanta metro seems to be turning georgia into the south's illinois, ya know, a state that would otherwise be deep red but there's this one huge city that makes it deep blue instead? Yeah. 

And...if anything, that's why the GOP is so desperate. Keep in mind what I said, party realignments. During the obama years there was the idea that demographic shifts were happening that were gonna kill the reagan coalition for good. We already saw the GOP at the brink of electoral oblivion during the obama years, but then, the dems dropped the ball, allowing trump to win twice. Trump breathed new life into the map as his electoral strategy was able to flip states like iowa, ohio, and florida away from us, flipping them from swing states toward being hard right states, while also making pennsylvania, wisconsin, and michigan THE new bellwethers for the country.  

But...here's the thing, these guys won't go quietly. The trends that started during the obama year are still happening, and they were at risk of losing parts of the south as well as the electoral map they were doing well with. Admittedly, democrats got too arrogant and cocky about it, trying to aggressively appeal to these states way before they were ripe for the picking, and in doing so, they F-ed up the map in a way that drove people back to conservatism. 

Still, if we can make it through the trump years, one state where the GOP cant stem the bleeding is georgia. And 2024 proved it. It's just going too left too fast. They have been able to claw back support elsewhere, but they cant reliably win georgia any more, and they're functionally equivalent of a PA/MI/WI style state demographically.

If demographics are destiny, the key for republicans to control future elections is to control those demographics. Which is why they're focusing so much on deportations. The more brown people they can deport, the more republicans win. For them, they call it the great replacement theory, the idea that white people becoming a minority in america is bad and will end poorly for them. It won't end poorly for us, fyi. It'll just end poorly for republicans, whose current brand is tied to white christian evangelical types remaining the dominant demographic. So that's why the fascism, and that's why they're focusing on intimidating swing states to get voter rolls. They wanna purge the country of those who dont think like them to ensure another generation of rule under their ideas. 

It's like watching a DBZ villain realize they lost and then try to nuke the whole planet (looking at you frieza, cell, etc.). That's what the GOP is doing, they're trying to nuke the country in order to preserve their brand of politics. And that's why the fascism, the attempted intimidation of protesters and lefties, the focus on deportations, collecting voter rolls., etc. It's all about preserving power for another generation in an election system that, if allowed to remain fair and free, would basically kill off their brand of politics, as it would become unpopular. 

So...that's what Trump is doing. I felt a need to report on this so we can understand what's really going on here and what the end game is. It's about control. It's about shaping the demographics to favor permanent republican party rule. That's what they're planning and that's what their end game is. 

Should we abolish ICE?

 So...the ICE situation is MASSIVELY out of hand. And there's calls on the left to "abolish ICE." The argument is that ICE was only established in 2003, and not it's basically Trump's little private army of proud boy types who are basically patrolling our streets "looking for immigrants", but hassling and even killing American citizens, and basically acting like he modern Gestapo.

The debate on the matter is a bit disheartening on the left. The democrats in congress just basically approved ICE's funding and are proposing the most mild of mild compromises like "wear body cameras", while leftists are calling for full abolishment of the agency. And like on many things liberal vs leftist, my views are somewhat in between.

ICE was founded in 2003 as part of Bush's national security consolidations. It absorbed several previous agencies, and while it has multiple functions, its biggest domestic one is finding and deporting illegal immigrants. It's always been controversial among LEFTISTS, ie, the types who dont believe we should ever deport illegal immigrants, but it has been used both by republican and democratic administrations to fulfill this role. 

With that said, in principle, do I support abolishing the agency? Not really. I believe it depends on who uses it and how it's used. Trump massively beefed it up, expanded it, and weaponized it in the way he's done during this administration. However, given proper constraints, it's been effective, while not being particularly harmful to citizens. The problem clearly comes from Trump's iteration of it, which acts more like a lawless secret police. 

With that said, thinking about it, do I support abolishing ICE? I mean, let me put it this way, when you get cancer, you do everything you can to get rid of it. The Trump's second term is basically fascism as a metastasized cancer. ICE has been corrupted, possibly beyond the point of no return. As he attempts his authoritarian takeover, he's radically shifted the culture of ICE to basically act as his private army of brown shirt types. The people they're hiring for ICE are untrained, unqualified, and probably have deeply fascistic beliefs themselves. They literally signed up in order to beat of on immigrants IMO. 

We like to talk about police having culture problems in recent years. We did this with defund the police. We talked about how "all cops are b#######s" because of their own cultural problems, where they cover up for each other, and they hire people who fit a certain profile. But now these ICE guys are so bad now liberals and even some leftists are wanting normal police back now. To be fair libs were never truly anti police, that's a far left "leftist" stance, and one that I don't fully embrace (although I kinda see the point of), but honestly, after this administration, I think ICE might be too far gone to salvage. The cultural problems will be too rampant, and the people there too toxic. Because let's be honest, Trump massively expanded them, militarized them, and the people in ICE are...mostly not good people at this point. They're white nationalist yeehaws who wanna beat up on brown people and even libs. And before anyone thinks this is some massive gaffe, uh...just look at comments online, they're like "YOU"RE NEXT LIB!" and crap like that, and even ICE officers themselves are basically talking like they're chomping at the bit to kill liberals and protesters and blah blah blah. So yeah, these guys have a culture problem, it's fascism, which as far as I'm concerned is like a metastasized cancer on this administration, and with the next one, it needs to be excised. Trump's long term success relies in part on consolidating agencies under control of the executive branch under him. Right now, our best defense is good people in say, the US military who have a standard of ethics where they'd refuse unlawful orders. But...it also works the other way. Because if ICE are Donald Trump's brownshirts, and they are, well, yeah. The best way to solve that problem is to nuke it from orbit. 

ya know, when I started this article, I really thought I was gonna conclude something like "yeah ICE need a massive restructuring but idk about abolishment", but I think I did talk myself into abolishment here. The issues with its current iteration are too severe. 

However, I do want to make one thing clear. I'm not entirely anti law enforcement, or anti cop, or even anti immigration enforcement. My own ideas are more aligned with moderate democrats like Obama and Biden, who deported millions of illegal immigrants, but who did so relatively lawfully. I'm not AGAINST enforcing immigration laws, and I believe the next administration that comes in from the democrats should still maintain some level of law enforcement regarding immigration. But they should focus on criminals, they should focus on new arrivals at the border, and they should always follow the law and the constitution and proper procedures.

My call to abolish ICE is, again, due to what Trump has done to the agency in his second term, and the lingering cultural issues with the agency that likely will persist long after he's gone. Just as Trump came in and tried to purge the executive branch of everyone not loyal to him, the next democratic administration must do the same. We must purge the executive branch and all of its agencies of Trump loyalists. We need to reform the federal bureaucracy back to its pre Trumpian state. We must hire civil servants who care about serving the public and the rule of law and the constitution. We're gonna need to do some heavy chemotherapy on the executive branch in the post Trump branch to minimize his legacy as much as possible. And if that means destroying entire agencies and replacing them with new ones with new people to fulfill several functions, so be it. If it means purging the administration of everyone who wasn't there before January 20th 2025, then so be it. We gotta rescue our country from this attempted fascist takeover, and if that means mass firing anyone associated with this administration, then SO FRICKING BE IT!

And yeah. That's my stance on that.  

Where do we go from here?

 So...as I've been saying since basically this blog's inception, we've been undergoing a party realignment since 2016. And, as I see it, it could've gone one of two ways. Either we got a strong progressive left with a weak and moderate right, or we get a strong populist right with a weak and moderate left. I wanted us to go in the other direction, but because the democrats basically F-ed us, we're on the other trajectory. 

And now we're basically in the midst of an authoritarian police state attempting to solidify its control over the country. It's control is not complete or absolute, but we are clearly in the phase where the threat is present, and conditions are worsening by the day. With that said, I want to map a few possibilities of how things will go from here.

1) Trump succeeds, American democracy is over

So say Trump invokes the insurrection act, suspends elections, or does other things that make the idea of a fair election like we've had basically impossible. The range of outcomes here can vary. On the one extreme, elections are cancelled altogether, and on the other, Trump basically is able to get some legislation through mandating voter IDs, banning mail in voting, and deporting POC on a level that shifts the demographics in a way to make democratic wins impossible. We could slide into a one party state with the pretense of democracy like Russia, or we could just do away with the concept like Nazi Germany. It's a spectrum, but the outcome could be on that spectrum. 

Well, then we're screwed. While it is possible a realignment occurs as the democrats are forced to realign themselves to this new reality and come back even more moderate, it's possible that, much like with Russia, the republican party maintains power by sabotaging further movements from democrats to ensure that they always win. And America just keeps backsliding.

This is the worst outcome, and yeah, we're screwed if things go this way. 

2) Trump fails; democrats claw back power

Now, Trump's solidification of power is not yet complete. He CAN still fail here. We are in a dangerous time, but I believe if we make it through 2026, we can begin to make a come back. If American democracy is allowed to continue as is, it's very likely that democrats will retake the house next November. I dont know what margins we'll see, but based on the generic congressional vote, I estimate the public has shifted 4 points since 2024, which means we should have a rather comfortable win, with a ballpark estimate of a 85% shot at retaking the house. The senate, that's gonna be a tough nut to crack. My own estimate is that democrats might gain ground, particularly in North Carolina and Maine, but I doubt they'll be able to secure a net of four seats required to control the senate outright. I'd say, optimistically, the democrats have a 25% shot there based on raw polling at this point (tipping point: Texas), but I wouldn't count on that.

Still, with the house, Trump's ability to get legislation passed grinds to a halt. There will be investigations, impeachments, although without a compliant senate, it's unclear how much will stick. At the very least, Trump's ability to actually do things will be reined in, and he will be a lame duck the rest of his term. 

And in 2028, well, then we very well could likely retake the senate and the presidency. And with that, a new era of politics can begin...or can it?

At this point, I'm gonna split things into various possible outcomes depending on how democrats act.

2a) Democrats learn nothing and do nothing, MAGA wins again

So...we saw this game before. Biden won in 2020, Trump did January 6th...and then F all happened. The house investigated and voted to impeach but the senate saved Trump. Trump plotted his come back. The Biden DOJ investigated him for several crimes, but never acted fast enough to actually put the guy behind bars, despite Jack Smith now saying they had a hole in one case. And now Trump is enacting his revenge. 

And....let's face it. The democrats propped up Biden in 2024 when he wasnt in any condition to actually continue to govern. Then they replaced him with Harris. They learned nothing, blamed Biden but refused to look internally at their own brand of politics, which I would argue has been unpopular since 2016 (because we ARE in a realignment). And uh...yeah. So they get in, they dont have a grand vision beyond getting Trump out. They don't prosecute Trump or his officials for obvious crimes against the constitution and humanity because they wanna put the thing behind us. And then...in 2030, republicans retake the house, and in 2032, they retake the presidency with someone else. Possibly Vance, or someone else.

And what happens from here? Well...we're back to square one. Keep in mind, Trump is too stupid to do everything he's doing. He has people behind him. He has infrastructure behind him. He has true believers behind him. And his own voter base is NUTS. They LIKE what he's doing. I was reading what they were saying about today's....uh...event, and they were cheering on the ICE officers. They are beyond hope and beyond help.

And given the direction of America first, the MAGA civil war, we could see the next wave of MAGA be outright Nazis. Trump might be a transition president for the GOP...with the next guy after him being a full blown fascist, like, the ones openly talking about concentration camps and screaming about Jews. Nick Fuentes's fanbase. Those people. They might be in charge. 

If that's the case, we're still screwed. We'll avert disaster....only to repeat the same cycle because the democrats refuse to learn.

2b) Democrats learn nothing, but public too afraid to vote republican again for a while

It's possible MAGA scars the country's psyche so bad that people just end up voting for the democrats by default for the next 12-20 years. They dont change, they don't learn anything, but the public realizes what we just went through and is so scared of Trump and his ilk ever getting power again that democrats maintain strong bipartisan support for a while among the 60% of the country that's sane. We see landslide type electoral wins in 2028, 2032, and 2036, and possibly beyond. After all, a telltale sign of a realignment is strong, overwhelming wins for one party and the end of the other party's current brand of politics. Here, the republicans would forced to moderate in order to win back voters, and the republicans would end up becoming relatively socially moderate, but still fiscally conservative. The democrats would remain fiscally conservative, but be socially liberal. It wouldn't be a great outcome, as things would never improve economically for the people. But everyone is just so glad that the Trump era is over that democrats are able to remain this third way party that no one likes but everyone tolerates anyway.

This is the "crappy status quo" outcome. It's not my preferred outcome, and progressives would be very muted because stepping out of line would mean electing another Trump, but at least we avoid fascism.

Still, this might be kicking the can that is our economic reckoning down the road. Kinda like how Jacksonian democrats and whigs distracted from the slavery issue, or how the democrats and republicans in the 4th party system did F all to actually improve things significantly for the working classes, and it required the great depression a generation later for real change. Such is the nature of American politics, we'll do everything but the right thing, and we'll only do the right thing when absolutely forced.

Speaking of which, when will said reckoning come? Give or take...2060. Why then? Well, let's keep in mind the 36 year cycles. And then keep in mind the possibility for messy transition periods between cycles. For example, we had the New Deal coalition win in 1932, the collapse of it in 1968, and the Reagan revolution in 1980. And what was 36 years after 1980? 2016.

If Trump counts as the transitional figure, 36 years after 2016 is...2052. If we start with 2028, we might see a 36 year coalitional collapse in 2064, with potentially another messy transition lasting from 2064 to...2076. 

So yeah the exact timeline is variable. Could begin as early as the 2050s, might not see the crap hit the fan until the 2060s. But expect the crap to hit the fan in the mid 21st century sometime. What would cause that? Who knows. Could be climate change. Could be the national debt, or China's ascendancy. I'm not sure. But the cycles tend to happen. I'm not sure what will happen in terms of cycles if Trump ends democracy though. We could see a revolution around that time if he succeeds in solidifying control in this era. Or some sort of Soviet collapse. Who knows.

2c) Democrats learn, we get the progressive future I wanted

I'm starting to consider this a long shot, but it's possible that we could end up seeing the democrats learn from their mistakes. I know it looks like Newsom, Harris, and the like are ahead NOW, but what if the democratic primary season is a really nasty and bitter one. What if a popular charismatic candidate like Jon Stewart comes out of nowhere and wins it? What if the public decides they're enough with centrist democratic leaders and their approved candidates fall on their face? What then? Well, then we might see the democrats come back, elect a more extreme progressive candidate, and be able to enact a positive agenda that improves the lives of the people and wins them over. 

This is my preferred outcome and the one I hope for, but it's also the least likely. But if this happens, we get the happily ever after ending. The bad guys get tribunals, the country gets a new new deal, and we get a coalition of progressive interests centered around democratic socialism, human centered capitalism, or some variation thereof. And that lasts until around 2064 before it collapses, while it is replaced by the next thing in 2076. 

How do I rank the likelihood of these scenarios?

I won't assign percentages, but the outcomes are ranked as is from worst to best. From most likely to least likely...idk. 

I personally dont think Trump's control on power is complete enough that we'll get the truly hellish outcome, although he's certainly gonna try something I think before ceding power. I doubt he will succeed, but he's gonna try. And he COULD succeed, so that should scare everyone. 

Anyway, I asked chatGPT, and it basically broke it down like this:

5-10% chance of ending democracy itself

30-40% chance of democratic backsliding (similar to Hungary in the 2010s or Turkey in the 2000s)

50-65% chance of Trump failing and a reversal to some version of the status quo

 They seem to think that the US is very resistant to authoritarian takeovers (I would agree) and that Trump just taking over and creating a one party state is unlikely. However, there is a significant likelihood of some sort of "1B" (Trump weakens democracy but doesn't destroy it) or "2A" type situation. 

I also asked chatGPT about how they think the democrats would respond to Trump and Trumpism, and they tend to agree with me that they're more likely to basically double down on their current identity rather than embrace some sort of economic transformation. They'll lean into moderation and appealing to donors and the donor class over embracing something resembling a new New Deal. 

 If anything, the more I discussed it with chatgpt, their analysis seems to suggest some variation of 2a or 2b. We're in for a long messy period in which democrats become centrist institutionalists, and republicans keep doubling down on a post trump version of Trumpism. I will say, we do have different takes on what this post trump trumpism will look like. They think the GOP will likely become more insane, but still quietly authoritarian, a la, say, JD Vance, whereas I think that the "America first" people might draw them even further into radicalism. I recognize the Vance approach is very much a possibility. I just believe that the GOP keeps trying to "manage" their chaos agents only to be taken over by them and driven more and more to the right. So...idk. 

So I guess....2a and 2b are the most likely outcomes, with 1 being less likely, and 2c (my preferred outcome) being even less likely. 

If anything, the more I think about it, and chatGPT seems to concur with my analysis. We're kinda screwed. I was kinda hoping 2016 would merely be the chaotic period leading up to a realignment, with a real realignment around 2028, but if the democrats learn nothing, and they probably won't, 2016 was the event, and the best hope we have until like 2052 or so is just "voting blue no matter who." Which sucks. 

So...yeah. idk what to say here. This exercise kinda made me depressed about our future chances.  

Just another day in an authoritarian police state...

 So...it happened. Again. We're still talking about Renee Good and ICE just executed another citizen in Minneapolis. And this one was even less defensible than the Renee Good one. With that one, it was like, okay....well....she drove away. There were questions of the trajectory of the vehicle, whether law enforcement was in danger, etc. And while, upon close examination, it seems obvious that regardless of whether Renee Good was cleared to drive away (that's still debatable), she was not threatening law enforcement and the shooting was arguably unjustified. 

With this one, they just straight up executed this man. While Trumpers are saying "he had a gun", if you look at the video closely, you can see that he had a (lawful) concealed carry pistol that was taken off of him moments before the shooting. So...why did they shoot him? Yeah. Exactly. Not only were 7 agents dog piling the guy, he was disarmed, and they STILL shot him. This is basically just an execution. And then DHS has the gall to make it sound like he was a domestic terrorist. He wasn't. He was innocent all things considered.

And...much like Renee Good, this whole incident could've been prevented if we didn't have these ICE thugs patrolling American cities and harassing them. Really, this is all on ICE, it's all on DHS, it's all on the white house. But they'll tell us that he was a terrorist and blah blah blah. Ya know, just like they did with Kilmar Abrego Garcia when they locked him up on CECOT. Just like they did to Renee Good. These people have no shame. They lie about everything. 

And uh...yeah. Bad things are bad.  What else you want me to say?

The point of simplified narratives and their importance for political worldviews

 So...as you guys know, I'm trying to write a book about my ideas. And in order to really make the book work, I kind of need to, you know, craft a worldview. So my first topic in the book is really establishing that worldview. I spend the first chapter discussing the ideological divide between myself and, say, the fundamentalist christians on the right. I spend the second establishing a brief overview of history.

 And my overview of history is based on Karl Widerquist's books, which discussed how income inequality, private property, and economic unfreedom came about. And the general gist is this. First, we had hunter gatherer societies where everyone was equal and free, then we shifted to farming where over time, as societies grew, they became more complex, required leaders to run the whole thing smoothly, and those leaders became increasingly authoritarian and divorced from the people they served. This is how we essentially got monarchies, feudalism, and those kinds of authoritarian systems. We had strong men who had this idea that they had a divine right to rule. They distributed property to their friends and allies. And then everyone else just kinda worked under them, paying tribute and taxes to the monarchy and the nobles. And out of that, we got capitalism, which mostly preserved the privileges of those who were wealthy under the old system, while functionally coercing the serf classes to work under "free market" principles. Land was privatized, people had to go get jobs, and that's how we got the system we got today.

It's a simple narrative. But is it too simple? Perhaps. I know a friend of mine recommended david wengrow and david graeber's book "the dawn of everything", which explicitly attempts to debunk these kinds of simplified "grand narratives" of history. It turns out that the narrative that widerquist put forward that I parrot tends to oversimplify to some degree (especially my own simplification, since I need to cut it very short in order to sum it up in just a few paragraphs). My friend said that my own narrative was "wrong" according to this book. I took the criticism under advisement, and left a note to myself to check into this book later when I came back to this topic, as I was writing on other topics at the time. Well, now the time has come to do that. And while I didnt want to read the book directly as it's quite long and I really only dwell on the issue for a couple of pages, I did read summaries of the book to get a gist of the main arguments, and read what others have said about it. One criticism really stands out to me, and I feel is very relevant to my own main book. 

Basically, the guy's criticism is this. The book does point out that history is far more complex in practice, and there are exceptions to the rule for everything, but it doesn't mean that the rule itself is necessarily wrong. If anything, a core weakness of this book (and I've heard this criticism from multiple places) is that while it attempts to tear down the existing narrative, it doesn't replace it with anything. It just points out that complexity exists. For example, we might have the narrative "there are four seasons, summer, fall, winter, and spring." And then some guy comes out of nowhere and is like "well ackshully, nuance exists, it doesnt snow in Arizona, so do they really experience winter? Some locations it's always cold like in the poles, some places it's always hot like in the tropics, sometimes it rains in the summer, sometimes it doesn't snow in the winter, sometimes some places have the seasons reversed because of being in the southern hemisphere, some places like southeastern asia might only have two seasons, a wet one and a dry one, etc."

And in the grand scheme of things, it's like "yeah, you're technically right, but this doesn't really disprove the main thesis, complexity exists but it doesnt mean the general theory is wrong or inaccurate, and many anthropologists understand exceptions to the rule exist while still accepting the general rule." And that's kind of the core weakness of this book as I understand it. Yes, history is complex. It's hard to simplify history into a simple narrative. However, if you need to, you will end up with...well...the narrative that these guys are trying to debunk. That originally we had relatively little inequality and unfreedom, something happened with society to make it more in a more authoritarian direction, and we deal with the consequences of that today as social systems have evolved in ways to protect the privileged classes at the expense of everyone else.

The person above even pointed out that this book could be used as fodder for the right, as the counter examples could provide talking points for right wingers to muddy the water. And that this could kill and sabotage left wing political movements. And in thinking about my book, and its context, and what I'm trying to accomplish, I tend to agree with that. 

What I'm trying to do here is establish a basic worldview. A frame of reference for the world in which we draw our sense of reality. My own worldview is set up in opposition to the conservative Christian worldview, which bases its own conception of reality on the bible, and tends to believe things like the world always operated under the principles of private property and what became capitalism, and that this was established by God, and deviations from it are immoral. Given 40% of the US give or take believes the world is 6000 years old or so, and that humans were created in their current form, this narrative has sway. And even among moderate christians, you still got people with one foot in that worldview, and another foot in the real worldview, where they're always reconciling religious doctrines with physical reality as we understand it.

I say, no, we need a narrative to explain how we got to where we are, so we can look at this system properly. So...I attempt to draw history from hunter gatherer societies through capitalism, but because my book isnt designed to focus on all of the details, and dwelling on the topic for too long will take away from the clarity of the book, I simplify. I point out that, "yeah, there are four seasons, summer, fall, winter, and spring", and I let the pieces fall from there. 

Does it evade nuance? Yes. Is that bad? Not necessarily. The more time I spend on a topic the more detail I can give, but the more detail that I give, the more it bogs me down, distracting from the main topics which deviated to this one to focus on. The less detail I give, the more I oversimplify, but if I know I oversimplify, is that really bad?

Well, again, if anything, the oversimplification is a necessity. The comment above was written by a leftist. leftists are often aware of the same history I draw from, and use that general narrative to critique capitalism as just an evolution of a system that favors the wealthy at the expense of all else, and calls for its abolition. I dont quite call for its abolition, but for heavy reform, BUT...I deal with a lot of the same common history that these guys do and my own analysis is parallel to leftism. I do emphasize different things than they do. They focus on the means of production and alienation, I focus more on the protestant work ethic and economic coercion. They think the solution is a new system. I think the solution is a new new deal within the existing system. There are ideological differences. 

But...again, imagine you try to point out a narrative and someone comes around complicating everything with a lot of details. And the right is a lot like this. To build on the weather ideology, we see this a lot with climate change. "Oh, its snowing in chicago, guess it still gets cold in winter, checkmate librul!"Or on evolution, I know I was taught creationism in high school and they focused on how various early transitional forms were found to be hoaxes, they emphasized microevolution over macroevolution (even though they're the same thing on different time scales), etc. And the point is, even if these small nuances exist, does that disprove the greater trends? And I would argue no.

And it's the same thing here. I think, as an author, well, if I had to replace this narrative based on this new work, what would I get? And the answer is that I would get...nothing. Just an overcomplicated picture bogged down in details that lacks any form of clarity on problem definition. And it probably misses the point. And that can sabotage political movements, because left wing political movements need a worldview, to compete with the right's worldview. We need a narrative of how we got here. And while I admit, we cant teach everything in a condensed format, we can at least teach the basics and general trends. 

The problem with this book is that it complicates conventional narratives, without replacing it. it just bogs down the reader in unnecessary details. And when youre trying to build a worldview, it paralyzes you. it leads to nihilism. It can unravel political movements, like the one I'm trying to build.

So...to respond to this book, I'll say this. I acknowledge that complexity exists in the real world. it is very difficult to explain everything that has happened in human history in only a few paragraphs, or pages. And I dont want to dedicate entire books JUST to this topic. There are other people who have covered it, and I can assure you, rereading the prehistory of private property lately, that stuff is addressed somewhat. Similar counter examples are brought up, but they dont disprove the narrative widerquist puts forward.

For me, I have to simplify though. I have to boil it down to "there are four seasons" without worrying about whether it snows in arizona or whether india experiences them the same as the US does. Why? Because the point of this book is to build a political movement with a clear problem definition and solution, and quite frankly, the exact details of the past dont matter, as long as I have a narrative to get me to the more important parts, which is capitalism. because even if the ancient world is complex, well....in the end, capitalism won. It's the worldwide system now. THe authoritarians won. They beat out these other systems through never ending conquest and imposition of their systems on the whole world. And that's kind of the point of discussing things anyway. Ya know? I spend like, maybe a couple pages discussing the distant past, and then the rest of the chapter I dedicate to discussing the history of capitalism and political movement within it. And that's what defines modern history anyway. All I really need to show is that hey, these social structures we practice today aren't natural. Things werent always like this, AND WE CAN CHANGE THEM, AND SHOULD CHANGE THEM! Is that so hard? Apparently, to people who want to write 700 page books arguing 'well ackshully some group in the distant past defied the trend", it is, but for the rest of us looking to use history of the past to educate people on CURRENT realities, it really isn't. And that's the point I'm trying to make here.