breeding little fascists
Baltimore
Joined September 2009
- Tweets13.6K
- Following1.5K
- Followers2.1K
- Likes14.5K
Shrug Life retweeted
Mark, you call Tucker the spiritual leader of his followers. Look at your own record before you hand out that title.
In 2018 you said no tariffs and no subsidies was the Levin position. You called Trump's steel tariffs a tax on Americans and a favor for the connected. In 2025 the same policy became a growth plan. The economics did not change. The man imposing it did. Why does Trump get a pass from you?
Tariffs are a tax paid by Americans. The Tax Foundation, the free market think tank conservatives have cited for decades, found they cost the average household $1,000 last year, the largest tax increase as a share of GDP since 1993. Add trillions in deficit spending and inflation climbed back to 3.4 percent by August. Voters felt it at the register, and 89 percent of them said cost of living drove their vote. You warned about exactly this for years. Where was that Mark Levin this year?
You warn about the debt. Trump added $7.8 trillion in his first term and another $3.7 trillion so far in this one, roughly $11.5 trillion, and the total crossed $40 trillion in August with no plan to reverse it. COVID is no excuse. Trump issued the 15 Days to Slow the Spread guidelines that governors used to close businesses by decree, then signed the $2.2 trillion CARES Act to pay people for a shutdown his own administration endorsed. A president who understood liberty would have defended every man's right to open his shop and earn his living. Why the pass?
You built a career attacking the welfare state. Trump Accounts hand $1,000 of taxpayer money to every child born from 2025 through 2028, the same baby bond scheme Democrats ran in their own cities. Redistribution with a president's name on it is still redistribution. Why the silence?
You were right that the Iranian regime had to be ended, and I agreed with you. A just war still has to be fought to win. Eight months in, at least 18 Americans are dead and more than 750 wounded, the regime still rules Tehran, and Trump has claimed a regime change that did not happen. Then he cut Israel almost entirely out of the talks, and Israeli officials warned that left Iran's ballistic missiles off the table. He stopped Netanyahu from hitting Iran's energy sites, reportedly told him to stop blowing up buildings, and called him a very difficult guy. In June he signed a memorandum offering sanctions waivers and a path to Tehran's frozen money, the same concession he spent years calling the fatal flaw of the JCPOA, in a deal that even reached into Israel's war in Lebanon. It expired without a deal and the fighting resumed. You called that deal a disaster for Israel on your own show, and still the man who signed it stayed above criticism. Why does Trump get a pass from you?
Then Trump lifted sanctions on Putin's diesel a month before the election, weeks after signing the sanctions law named for Lindsey Graham, and thanked Putin for it. That revenue pays for Russia's war on Ukraine and helps Moscow keep feeding Iran the targeting intelligence and drone parts it uses against American troops. Mike Pence and a dozen senators from both parties objected. Where were you?
Tucker did not lose this election. Voters looked at tariff inflation, record debt, and a foreign policy that bombs one enemy, offers it money, sidelines our ally, then props up another enemy, and they voted it out. The anger in your replies is about the standards you wrote down and then dropped.
So who is the spiritual leader here, and who is the follower who refuses to question him? And who has betrayed their own stated principles?
Tucker Carlson is a loathsome creature. He did all he could, with his foreign followers and influencers, to sabotage the president, the GOP, and the mid-term elections. Funny how the Woke Reich reprobates say nothing about him -- their spiritual leader. As I said before, he is among the biggest traitors to our country in our history.
Objectivism solves a problem that people don't know they have. Objectivist intellectuals should focus on helping people see how the idea of selflessness creates the damages it says it wants to stop. Just "Inception" that idea into people and they will do the rest.
Search the word hellsite. It's interesting. You have people calling this site a hellsite in 2020 and you go to their profile and they're still here posting that this site is a hellsite. Amazing.
Shrug Life retweeted
Grant every count in the indictment. The department store quote is a statist's view of the country. "He who saves his country does not violate any law" is the creed of every strongman in history. Calling critical coverage illegal is an attack on the First Amendment. Those who initiated force on January 6, breaching lines, smashing their way in, assaulting police officers, committed crimes against the constitutional transfer of power, and pardoning men convicted of beating officers is the sanction of that force. None of this needs softening, and Republicans who blocked a resolution saying criticism of the president is legal have earned your contempt.
The argument falls apart at the next step, because the rule of law is a principle, and you apply it to exactly one side.
The party you tell us to vote for across the board has its own ledger. Biden reissued the eviction moratorium after the Supreme Court signaled it was unlawful, saying on camera that the bulk of constitutional scholars told him it would not pass muster but it was worth the effort to buy time. When the Court struck down his $430 billion loan cancellation, he bragged repeatedly, on tape: the Supreme Court blocked me, but that didn't stop me. His OSHA mandate on 84 million private employees, promoted by his own chief of staff as the ultimate work-around, was stayed as beyond his authority. The Fifth Circuit found his officials likely violated the First Amendment by coercing social media platforms to censor Americans, and Zuckerberg confirmed it in writing: repeated pressure for months to censor COVID content, including humor and satire. Sitting Democratic senators have twice introduced a bill to pack the Court from 9 to 13 for the stated purpose of repairing outcomes they dislike. Whitehouse filed a brief telling the justices to heal themselves before the public demands the Court be restructured. Schumer stood on the Court's steps and told two justices by name that they had released the whirlwind and would pay the price. Blue states answered Bruen with laws federal judges have called open defiance of the Supreme Court. Measured by your own standard, the exercise of power without legal limitation, every one of these belongs in your article, and none of them appears.
You anticipate part of this by saying a president unbound by law is worse than legislators who merely want socialized medicine. But that framing smuggles in the conclusion. The choice is not between lawlessness and bad policy. It is between two factions that each treat the Constitution as an obstacle when it blocks what they want, and differ only in which clauses they find inconvenient. A party that packs courts, censors by proxy, and governs by work-around when it holds the presidency does not become the guardian of legal constraints by being out of the presidency. Handing it unified power as a check on lawlessness is prescribing the disease as the cure.
And that is why the vote-Democrat conclusion does not follow even from your own premises. If the rule of law is the issue, the answer is divided power and specific candidates judged one by one, not a blank check to a party with its own record of defiance. A principle invoked against one side only is not functioning as a principle. It is functioning as a weapon, and the reader can tell.
Rand identified where this ends. When both sides abandon principle, politics is reduced to a contest over whose gang holds the gun. The rule of law will not be restored by either gang. It will be restored, if at all, by rebuilding the idea underneath it, that government exists to protect individual rights and may use force only against those who initiate it. Trump does not understand that idea. Neither does the party you are telling us to install unchecked.
I suggest you check your premises.
MIDTERM ELECTIONS: The biggest threat to our freedom comes from those who reject the rule of law. Today, those rejecters are Trump and his Republican abettors. The Republicans need to be replaced by Democrats--even if they are "democratic socialists."
objectivistpeterschwartz.sub…
Shrug Life retweeted
Jean-Luc Picard was one of the best TV characters of all time. And Patrick Stewart made it so.
Rest in peace.
Shrug Life retweeted
What’s a polite way to tell someone, “I’m not discussing this with you because your entire understanding of the subject is built on so many interconnected misconceptions that correcting them would require uninstalling your current worldview and starting the tutorial from birth”?
Altruism has a psycho-epistemological hold. When you say self-interest, their mind fills only with examples of supposed selfishness: destructive ends and dishonest means. Like the movie inception, we need to somehow plant the idea that altruism is a benevolent looking sabotager.
Elon, it is already game over. The question is only how long the clock runs.
Ask yourself why the Democrats even have a shot at all three branches in 2028. Their politics rests on one moral premise: that a man's need is a claim on another man's life. Altruism. And almost no one challenges it, including you. You argue about borders and Senate seats, and concede the premise that produces every policy you fear.
When men like you accept the morality of your opponents, you have already lost. What follows is a matter of time. The Republicans prove it every day. They won't end the welfare state because they believe it is moral and only too expensive. They won't win the war in Iran because they believe America has no right to act in its own interest without apology. Trump thinks tariffs are good. You keep calling this a democracy when it is a constitutional republic built to protect the individual from the majority. Same premise, different flavor, every time.
If you want to save America, there is one way, and it is not an election. It starts with finding the philosophical errors that got us here, learning the answers, and then reaching enough other intellectuals to change the ideas the culture accepts. Elections follow ideas. They never lead them.
Ayn Rand gave men those answers decades ago. Most won't read her, because the morality they already accept won't let them open their eyes. You could be the exception. The rockets prove you can think from first principles. Try it on morality.
Shrug Life retweeted
Elon, it is already game over. The question is only how long the clock runs.
Ask yourself why the Democrats even have a shot at all three branches in 2028. Their politics rests on one moral premise: that a man's need is a claim on another man's life. Altruism. And almost no one challenges it, including you. You argue about borders and Senate seats, and concede the premise that produces every policy you fear.
When men like you accept the morality of your opponents, you have already lost. What follows is a matter of time. The Republicans prove it every day. They won't end the welfare state because they believe it is moral and only too expensive. They won't win the war in Iran because they believe America has no right to act in its own interest without apology. Trump thinks tariffs are good. You keep calling this a democracy when it is a constitutional republic built to protect the individual from the majority. Same premise, different flavor, every time.
If you want to save America, there is one way, and it is not an election. It starts with finding the philosophical errors that got us here, learning the answers, and then reaching enough other intellectuals to change the ideas the culture accepts. Elections follow ideas. They never lead them.
Ayn Rand gave men those answers decades ago. Most won't read her, because the morality they already accept won't let them open their eyes. You could be the exception. The rockets prove you can think from first principles. Try it on morality.
This
“AI is going to take your job!”
I FUCKING HOPE SO.
Take my job. Take your job. Take everyone’s job.
Automate the entire economy.
Make intelligence practically free. Make labor practically free. Drive the cost of everything down.
Why are we treating the elimination of human labor as some kind of tragedy?
For thousands of years, humanity has dreamed of a world where machines do the work and people enjoy their lives.
Now that we’re getting close, everyone’s having a mental breakdown.
I don’t want a better job.
I want a world where nobody needs one.
Shrug Life retweeted
What happened to the Arab World?
Wow, this is what Yemen looked like in the 1960s under British rule. That was over half a century ago, but it looked decades more advanced than Yemen does today.
It’s almost unbelievable compared to what the country has become. And it’s a testament to how quickly a country can collapse once Islam reigns supreme.
Shrug Life retweeted
Malik Willis delivered his best game in Miami, leading the Dolphins to their first win of the season.
14/21, 208 PASS YDS, 2 PASS TD, 8 CAR, 37 RUYDS, 1 RUSH TD vs Jets
Shrug Life retweeted
Capitalism has a win condition. Socialism does not.
Here's why, explained so simply a 10-year-old could get it.
It starts with a book written in 1944 by an Austrian economist named Friedrich Hayek: The Road to Serfdom.
Capitalism has a win condition. Socialism does not.
Here's why, explained so simply a 10-year-old could get it. It starts with a book written in 1944 by an Austrian economist named Friedrich Hayek: The Road to Serfdom.
Imagine a classroom of 30 kids. One day the teacher says: "From now on, I decide what everyone eats for lunch, which games you play at recess, and who sits next to whom. It's fairer that way."
First problem: the teacher doesn't know what you like. You hate carrots. Your friend is allergic to peanuts. Lucas wants to play football, Emma wants to draw. 30 kids, 30 different wishes. Nobody can know all of that, not even the smartest teacher on Earth. Hayek called this the knowledge problem. The information needed to run an economy is scattered across millions of heads, and it can't be gathered in one office.
Second problem: the kids start fighting. "Why does he get the window seat?" "Why football again?" Before, everyone just chose for themselves. Now every choice is a fight, because every choice is made for everyone.
Third problem: the class can't agree on a plan, so someone says "we need one person in charge who just decides." This is Hayek's key insight. Planning doesn't fail because planners are evil. A plan needs everyone to agree on the same goals, and free people never agree on everything. So the plan needs force to work.
Fourth problem, and it's the scariest one: who wants that job? The kind kid doesn't want it, because the kind kid doesn't want to force 29 people to eat carrots. The job attracts the one who likes giving orders and doesn't mind punishing those who disobey. Hayek wrote a whole chapter on this, called "Why the Worst Get on Top." It doesn't happen by accident. It happens by selection.
Here's the trap. When the person who controls your lunch also controls your job, your home, your shop and your newspaper, they control your whole life. You can't say no, because there's nowhere else to go. Controlling the economy doesn't mean controlling one part of life. It means controlling the means to every goal you have.
That's the road to serfdom. Nobody votes for a dictator. People vote for "someone should fix this," then for "give them more power to fix it," and one day they wake up with no one left to say no to.
The USSR, Maoist China, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela. These are different countries with different cultures and languages, and the story has the same ending every time. When a script produces the same ending every time, it isn't bad luck. It's the script.
Now capitalism. Back to the classroom. Instead of one teacher deciding everything, every kid can trade. You give me your carrots, I give you my apple, and we both walk away happier. Nobody needs to know what everyone wants, because prices do that job. A price is a message telling millions of strangers what's scarce and what's wanted, with no one in charge.
That's the win condition. In capitalism, you get rich by making something other people freely choose to buy, so your success depends on serving others. In a planned system, you get ahead by pleasing whoever holds power. One rewards usefulness. The other rewards obedience.
And this isn't theory. Two centuries ago, almost every human being was extremely poor. In 1990, about 38% of humanity still lived in extreme poverty. Today it's under 10%. More than a billion people escaped it in a single generation. It happened when China, India, Vietnam and South Korea opened up to markets, trade and private enterprise. The largest reduction in poverty in human history came from letting people trade.
So why do so many people hate capitalism?
Because what they hate usually isn't capitalism.
They hate the bank that got bailed out with their taxes while they lost their house. They hate the giant company that writes the regulations so no startup can compete with it. They hate rent they can't afford because building new homes has been made nearly impossible. They hate the lobbyist who gets a subsidy while the small business owner drowns in paperwork.
Look closely at each one, and you'll find a state handing out privileges. A bailout is not the market. The market would have let the bank fail. A regulation written by incumbents is not competition. It's protection from competition. None of this is capitalism. It's cronyism, which is what happens when businesses stop competing for customers and start competing for politicians.
People see the symptom and blame the wrong cause. They say "capitalism failed" and ask for more state. That gives more power to the same people who created the problem, and it puts us right back on Hayek's road.
The answer to bad capitalism isn't less freedom. It's less privilege. That means fewer bailouts, fewer protected incumbents, fewer permits, and more people allowed to build, compete and trade.
Capitalism has a win condition: make things people want. Socialism has an end condition: someone has to be in charge. And history keeps showing us who ends up in that chair.
Shrug Life retweeted
It's been months that I keep saying Hitler was far left. Every time, thousands of clowns show up in my replies to give me history lessons.
So I made a video to answer all these low IQ takes at once.
Topic closed. Next.
Shrug Life retweeted
It’s not every day you stumble across a recording in which U.S. citizens discuss plans to declare the federal government illegitimate.
Here’s one particularly alarming excerpt:
“If the federal government’s deemed to be illegitimate … then the governors become the leading governing authority under the current republic framework of our Constitution.”
And then there’s this one:
“I really want to emphasize this is not a concept for a secession. No one is talking about leaving the United States.”
Of course they’re not “talking about leaving the United States”; they’re talking about a planned transfer of governing authority outside the constitutional process—replacing the authority of the federal government with governors and outside networks.
I hope this turns out to be a deep fake or a bad practical joke—because if it’s real, it’s unbelievably frightening.
Either way, it’s a good reminder to vote carefully in November.
🚨🚨THE DEMOCRACY FILES, PART 2: WHEN AND HOW TO DECLARE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ILLEGITIMATE 🚨
Some questioned whether a group of 200 ex-USAID officials could actually pull off their ambitions to rewrite the Constitution.
Here, they describe exactly how it works. They aren't working alone.
The videos all come from Renew to Thrive (R2T) group and associates. Danielle Reiff and Paul Zeitz play key roles within R2T.
R2T sits inside a much, much larger umbrella called United Democracy Alliance (UDA), which is an extremely hush-hush control plane of leaders from major "blocking" NGOs such as 50501 and Indivisible fulfilling various functions. UDA decides when protests get deployed, timelines, how to respond, all that.
R2T's role within UDA is concerned with "the day after tomorrow" - in other words, their function is to conceive what a rewritten American government will look like after the rest of UDA fulfills its purpose. As will be shown, Erica Chenoworth is credited with conceiving UDA in the first place under the Horizons "Big Tent" initiative.
Note here that National Security Leaders for America (NSL4A) is credited for operationalizing UDA. NSL4A is a group of 1,600 ex-military, intelligence, and diplomatic officials. They are led by Rear Admiral Michael E. Smith (Ret). NSL4A also played a key role in the "illegal orders" messaging which targeted Pete Hegseth. Zeitz is also a member of NSL4A.
It must be emphasized that the choice of a military-oriented organization to coordinate NGOs across domestic protests is an interesting one all in itself - especially in an umbrella conceived by a regime change expert like Chenoworth.
You will have a hard time finding any mentions of UDA in the public. They are extremely hush-hush and selective who they talk to.
Mike Smith himself makes a personal appearance in other calls, coordinating Insurrection Act exercises and roleplaying with R2G as one of the participants.
As the audio transcript shows, they have outlined a sequence of "redlines" in which case the federal government should be declared illegitimate. Invoking the Insurrection Act against "peaceful" protesters is one of the most discussed redlines. I will post the illegitimate criteria below, but basically, almost any effective pushback against NGOs is a measure of illegitimacy according to them.
Important to understand:
The audio shows they shopped this idea around governors, but the reality is that governors do not have to explicitly sign on to the pact to play their role in the coup. All they have to do is refuse troops in their state and let UDA / R2G do the work of dissolving the federal government.
I don't think Objectivism is going to spread widely, especially not soon. It's like being a traveling salesman of the world's greatest vacuum going door to door, selling to people who already have vacuums. They say "That is a mighty fine vacuum you have, but mine's fine."
Oh she has a Master's degree? Well why didn't you say so? That's a horse of a different color. Shove away!
I’ve been getting a lot of DM’s about this..
First and foremost. NCAA rule book says all players should be sidelined during injury.
Now let’s get something straight. Grace Dietrich isn’t some random person on the Duke sideline. She’s a certified athletic trainer with a master’s degree, doing her job and responding to an injured player.
Medical personnel should NEVER have to fight their way through anyone to provide care to a student-athlete, especially not knowing the severity of situation.
I don’t care who you are or what position you think you hold. Player safety comes FIRST.
There’s no defending that behavior in my opinion.
Shrug Life retweeted
If this were two men, nobody's job or career would be at risk. Add a woman to the equation and suddenly careers and futures are at stake.
