I’ve talked about this before, but here I will vent about why I think lots of people (both in the media and ordinary citizens) are enforcing the two-party establishment.

Lots of bitter Hillary fans are saying ‘if you didn’t vote for Hillary (e.g.,. voting for a third party or not voting at all), you voted for Trump.  The funny thing is, in the previous election I didn’t vote at all, and a Republican relative of mine told me that meant I really voted for Obama. 

In this election, I actually voted for Bill Gates (read the home page on this site to find out why).  It sounds crazy, but I would easily prefer him as my President over Trump or Hillary.  And the Trump people saying ‘well Trump is a jackass, but I voted for him to make sure Hillary wouldn’t win,’ have absolutely no excuse.  You could vote for a third party, do a write-in ballot like I did, or simply not vote at all.  Voting for someone you don’t like just to piss someone else off is like shooting yourself in the foot because you hope the blood will ruin some poor bastard’s pants.

Personally, I’m at the point where both the Republicans and Democrats are pathetic jokes, and I’m not sure I could support either one of them.  I’m not going to help perpetuate the two-party system.  Voting for Hillary (or Trump) is not only endorsing them as a candidate but a vote for the establishment that controls the strings of the system.

And maybe you actually like Hillary or Trump.  And that’s fine.  But don’t tell everyone else they have to play your game even though they aren’t interested.  I’ve read that somewhere around 50% of eligible voters won’t vote at all.  And talking heads in the media are making that sound like a bad thing.  I think it isn’t.  If someone hates all of the candidates, they are entitled to that just as much as you are allowed to believe that they’ll save us.

And the Hillary supporters really don’t have a point when you consider the corruption to cheat Bernie out of the election.  I could be talking here till the cows come home, but I’ll give the best example.  The DNC actively collaborated with Hillary to make sure Bernie would lose…  Then when they got caught, Hillary not only didn’t apologize but promoted the former DNC chairmen (who was the ringleader in this cheating scandal) as her campaign manager.  Once you do that, I’m not voting for you even if the Republicans are running Hitler and Satan.  Of course, I wouldn’t vote for Hitler and Satan either, but I wouldn’t vote for you.

The Democrats and Republicans (but especially the Democrats this time around) have made it abundantly clear that they are NOT run like a fair democracy during their primaries.  So if you then argue that people should only be allowed to vote for the R or D, then you are saying we shouldn’t have a democracy.

Butthurt Democrats complained about Ralph Nader making George Bush win in 2000, even though Nader has just as much right to run as Al Gore.  Similarly, a lot of conservatives blamed the libertarian and constitution parties for Mitt Romney’s loss in 2012.

If a law was passed that, 1) everyone has to vote whether they like it or not, and 2) you can only vote for the Republican or Democrat, we would become less democratic, not more.  Don’t kid yourselves.

Now, all that being said, the Hillary people do have a right to feel mad.  But not at me.  Hillary won the popular vote (and by a wide margin) but lost the election.  The idea that a country where that is possible would call itself a ‘democracy’ is absolutely hilarious.  Blame the electoral college system that we hold onto for reasons beyond my understanding.  Not me.


Is it a hate crime or a normal crime?

I am no lawyer, but my understanding is ‘hate crime’ means when you commit a crime on someone based on their race, gender, orientation, religion, etc.  If it’s a non-hate crime, that means those things weren’t a factor.

The problem is, some people seem to scream ‘hate crime’ every time a minority gets attacked, regardless of whether their minority status was a factor or not.

Let me give you some examples.

Let’s say I shoot a gay guy.  But I killed him because he said something bad about my mother, I didn’t give a damn that he’s gay.  I would clearly deserve to go to jail for this regardless, but it isn’t a hate crime. Now, if I kill him just for being gay, that’s something else.

Let’s say I go to Portland, Oregon (which from my research, is one of the whitest cities in America).  Based off Wikipedia, they are roughly 77% percent white.  If I go there and start shooting people trigger happy, and my victims match the racial demographics of the town (77% white 33% minority), it is far more likely that I was going to pop everyone in my path regardless of who they are, rather than shooting those minorities for being minorities.  Even though the majority of my victims would be white, it wouldn’t be fair to say I was specifically targeting white people either.  Not unless I explicitly stated otherwise.

Now, this is not the same as the guy we kept hearing about who said all kinds of anti-black prejudice, said the specific words “I hate black people and want to kill them,” went into a black church, shot 9 people, every one of them black.  You couldn’t call all of that a coincidence.  If he isn’t racist, nobody is.

I know this is going to sound massively unpopular, but this is also something where I sometimes disagree with the whole ‘violence against women’ thing.  Before anything else, let me say I am entirely sure women have it worse than men.  They are far more likely to be sexually assaulted, catcalled, and paid 77% to the dollar for the same thing that a man would do.  All of these are sexism against women.  This can be assumed because they are a universal phenomenon that happens far more often to women than they do to men.  But if I sucker punch someone and walk off with their wallet, that’s not necessarily sexist.  Because men are victims of that stuff just as much as women, and the reason it happens is that you just wanted their money.  Of course, you’d deserve to go to jail if you did that, but we cannot jump to conclusions that you are a sexist for it.  Hell, it’s possible that a sexist would do it.  But we would need more evidence to work with than ‘the victim happened to be female.’  Like, anyone could be held at gunpoint and/or robbed.  Maybe their attackers were racist and sexist or maybe not.  You’d have to make a compelling case.

Then they would probably say ‘women are weaker than men so they shouldn’t be held to the same standard.’  I can see where they’re coming from, but I would still dispute it.  Let’s use my fictional character, Daniel, from my story Pax Romana, City of Angels.  He was learning mixed martial arts at a very young age, and stronger at 15 than most 20 something men.  He is used to the thug life on a regular basis, has served in the Army, been a private mercenary, has been a professional boxer, and has an extremely short temper.  I am of the same gender as Daniel, but I wouldn’t be able to feasibly defend myself against him either.  He could probably beat the snot out of me with his eyes closed.  But if he does, it should not automatically be assumed that he’s sexist against men either.  Anyone like Daniel in real life is gangster as fuck.  They’d be a danger to everyone, not just women.  In fact, I’d wager Ronda Rousey (female world champion mixed martial artist) would have a much better chance against him than I would.  Rousey herself could probably put me in the hospital in less than 10 seconds.  If I went up to her and started messing with her just to stir up trouble, I’d be a dumbass.  Now, if I minded my own business and she was the one that started bothering me, that’s different.  If you hurt anyone, you deserve to rot in jail.  But we should not automatically assume sexism or racism unless we have a good reason to think otherwise.  If a man beats up a woman, he definitely should rot in jail (and in hell for that matter).  But if he beats up a fellow man, I would feel the same way.  That’s where I’m getting at.  I also think the issue of violence in America is very complicated, and I think a ‘violence against women act’ 1) is oversimplifying the issue.  2) won’t fix it.  There are several reasons why.  First, 80% of homicide victims are actually men.  This surprised me because I would imagine people can defend themselves easier than women.  Then I did some research and found out what could be the reason.  The vast, vast majority of violence that takes place is people like my character Daniel fighting other men of the same background.  Men stuck in the cycle of poverty, with absolutely nothing to lose.  And they are typically more violent to women as well.  Gang warfare is a real thing.  If you lived in Beverly Hills, you would barely know what I’m talking about.  If you grew up in the ghettos of Oakland, California, you would be used to it.  And women stuck in the cycle of poverty would be more likely to sell their bodies.  Perhaps giving all of these people a fair chance at life would be mutually beneficial for everybody.  According to my research, this is what I have found.  First, countries with less absurd income inequality than the United States typically have fewer rates of violence.  Social safety nets for those who need it, so they aren’t forced to result to a life of crime would also be beneficial.  The other issue is guns.  Men are using guns to wipe out a lot of each other, and some women too.  Countries with better gun control laws do not have nearly as many homicides.  The gun might be the worst invention ever made and has caused an unbelievable amount of suffering to everybody.  So a ‘violence against women act,’ surely has the best of intentions.  I am just skeptical about the results, especially when there is no sufficient data to say it is helping.  But if there is, I am all for it.  In case I haven’t made myself abundantly clear, I DEFINITELY don’t think men should be allowed to attack women and get away with it. My problem with the ‘violence against women act,’ is it seems like a placebo scapegoat from implementing the real solutions that would minimize the problem.

  What bothers me (and what led me to write this) is there seem to be some Tumblr social justice people who scream sexism, racism, and everything else, every time a minority gets attacked.  Then you have some white supremacists/sexist people on Breitbart, among other horrible places, who won’t call it a hate crime even if the evidence is abundant.  Where you want to be is somewhere in the middle.

Gun control and the military

This should probably be two different blurbs rather than one, but I’m lazy. 

First I will mention gun control.  I am really on the fence about this and see the truth to both sides.  The freedom to own a gun is in the bill of rights, and I support the constitution.  However, this has gotten out of hand.  I think the best summary of my position is “I support gun rights, but you must be responsible for it.”  For starters, lock it up when it’s not in use.  If you have children in your house and you don’t lock it up, that’s even worse.  It’s like this:  You have the right to own a pet, but you don’t have the right be irresponsible and forget to feed it.  Criminal background checks are a splendid thing as well, and I’d personally support not letting people diagnosed with depression from having guns, even though that would specifically exclude me, and I think guns are badass.

I can tell you there are several times in my life where I would have already killed myself if all I needed to do is pull a trigger.  If you’re going through a major depression, a gun might not be a good idea.  Blowing your brains out will have a near 100% success rate.  If you didn’t have a gun and you ate a bunch of pills, at least your friends might be able to rush you to the hospital.

Which brings me to my next point, the military.

The military has enormous rates of both suicide and homelessness.  If you have someone with PTSD, was brainwashed into having a ‘tough guys can’t cry or show weakness’ mentality, and is not getting help because the VA is massively underfunded, this is a recipe for destruction.  He could be a danger to either himself or someone else.  As a side note, I hope any veterans who have read this blog and are aware of my unpatriotic views still realize that I know you are human beings.  The way veterans get treated in this country is nothing short of a national disgrace.  If taking guns away from a veteran who has mental issues could save his life, I think we’re doing him better in the long run.   

They aggressively recruit kids as young as 15 to sign up for a huge commitment at poverty stricken high schools (if you came from a wealthy one you may not know what I’m talking about).  They tell them this is their only ticket out of it, and that they’ll take good care of them.  Even though what’s really going on is very different.

On tanks, battleships, and things like that, the United States literally spends about as much on the rest of the world combined.  To get these people who fight in the wars some help when they come back, we barely want to give them anything.  There are a lot of things we could do to fix the problem.  A good place to start would be adopting the attitude “these people are human beings with feelings and bleed like the rest of us, they are not disposable pieces of meat.”  If all you do is put up bumper stickers that say “God bless the troops,” that’s nice but is not gonna cut it.  Here are some better ways:  For starters, you could donate to a charityYou could write your local congressman and threaten to vote them out of office unless they take action.  You could join an organization that raises awareness.

 Now back to guns. The supporters of unlimited gun rights say ‘it’s not just in the bill of rights but in the original 10, which is the most important.’  And that the original founding fathers were saints of God.  I dispute this.  I think the emancipation of slavery and giving women the right to vote are just a little bit famous, among other things.  On the other hand, I would be really devastated if I was forced to let some soldiers come to my house and fool around on my Xbox.


Conservatives and their idea of ‘political correctness’.

I mock left-wing hypocrisy and their safe spaces all the time (being somewhat conservative myself) but I don’t mind criticizing what I’ve heard from many of my fellow conservatives.  That is:

They are always complaining about ‘political correctness.’  They do not seem to know what the word means.  Politically incorrect just means you take an unpopular standpoint.  Almost everything on this blog is extremely politically incorrect.  But these people are mad that they don’t get to say “black people are niggers and women are sluts.”  George Carlin was politically incorrect.  He was not a bigot.

I identify as a conservative myself.  Here are my conservative characteristics:  I think being politically incorrect is acceptable, I think socialism doesn’t work and (non-crony) capitalism does, I don’t identify as a feminist and some other things, and I have Christian values.

But what the Republican party (and mainstream conservatism in America today) has become is something that I’m not comfortable with.  Not only are they horribly prejudice against everything that doesn’t look like them and they’re not used to, but they’re proud to be dumb.  They actually say things like “I don’t give a damn who is the president in the such and such country, America is all that matters.”   All they can do is parrot back Fox News, and share photos with others on Facebook saying “aren’t you glad Jesus is back in the white house,” as if Donald Trump even remotely resembles Jesus.  As an actual Christian, I am offended.

It breaks my heart as a conservative to say this, but intellectualism within the conservative movement is borderline dead.  Maybe this is just a little bit arrogant, but you’re going to need someone like me, capable of critical thinking if you want to properly trade blows with the left.  These ‘conservatives’ are an embarrassment.

I don’t necessarily agree with liberals, but I would be willing to sit down and have a reasonable discussion with them.  But these ‘conservatives’ are never willing to change their mind even when evidence is presented.  To be a better conservative, you must have some self-reflection.  It also applies to liberals, of course, they just seem to be better at it. 

My problem with American politics today

This criticism I’m about to make is particularly the case of Democrats, although, to a lesser extent, it applies to Republicans too.

That is:  Everybody is saying they want Michelle Obama to run, or Hillary Clinton’s daughter.  My issue with this is they think they should run only because they’re connected to somebody else.  I want a candidate who has done something with their own lives, not someone who parades around based on the accomplishments of their parents or spouse.  The Clintons, Obamas, Kennedy’s, Bush’s, and a few others, should not have more power than everybody else.  Talent is not hereditary, no matter how bad you want it to be.  The founding fathers were viciously against this kind of ‘Dynasty.’  They’d be laughing their asses off to see what we’ve become.

My opinion on the social justice warrior ‘triggered’ thing

There seems to be a lot of people (especially on the far left wing of the political spectrum) that use the word ‘trigger warning.’  I have noticed this on various internet sites and discussion forums.  My understanding of the term is something you see ‘triggers’ a reaction which disturbs you. 

Here is my opinion:  If you served in a war, then a violent war movie comes on that “triggers” you, you would have a valid reason to be triggered.  Because war is a horrible thing.

If you were raped or otherwise severely sexually assaulted and then a movie/book/whatever comes on that depicts this, you would have a valid reason to be triggered.  Because sexual abuse is a horrible thing.

If you get ‘triggered’ every time someone makes a slightly politically incorrect joke, you are a crybaby.  So to me, ‘triggered’ is just a relative term.  Sometimes valid, sometimes not.

Is Donald Trump the next Malcolm X and Julius Caesar?


Yes, I mean this with absolute sincerity.  And if you’re looking for a crazy Alex Jones type of conspiracy theory, look elsewhere.  Because what I’m saying is a prediction, and that I see so many similarities between these three individuals.

Malcolm X and Julius Caesar were both incredibly charismatic for their time periods, as is Trump today.  Malcolm X was a prominent civil rights advocate.  He brought many black people in this country together.  Some could even say he helped Martin Luther King more successful, in the context that Martin Luther King was better than the alternative that would have been Malcolm X (in the minds of potentially terrified white people).

Julius Caesar was arguably even more successful in this regard.  He established a system in Rome that the populace grew accustomed to.

Straight from Julius Caesar’s Wikipedia page:  “On the way across the Aegean Sea,[22] Caesar was kidnapped by pirates and held prisoner.[23][24] He maintained an attitude of superiority throughout his captivity. The pirates demanded a ransom of 20 talents of silver, but he insisted that they ask for 50.[25][26] After the ransom was paid, Caesar raised a fleet, pursued and captured the pirates, and imprisoned them. He had them crucified on his own authority, as he had promised while in captivity[27]—a promise that the pirates had taken as a joke. ”

This has Donald Trump written all over it, doesn’t it?  Malcolm X would have done the same if the KKK or Nazis had captured him.

Caesar was in debt to various other prevalent figures of his time, just like Trump racked up lots of debt and foreclosures with his businesses.  I doubt Malcolm X racked up debt, though I’m not sure.  But he had other striking similarities.

Here is what Malcolm X said:  “[In 1963, on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy] Chickens coming home to roost never did make me sad, they’ve always make me glad.”

So here we have Malcolm X publicly applauding the death of an elected official.  Julius Ceasar did it so many times that it’s hard to find just one to use as an example.  But to hell with it, he was surely thrilled to have Pompey gone.

Has Trump done it?  Yes.  While the man Trump insulted didn’t exactly die, the effect of his statements was equally profound.  ““He’s not a war hero,” said Trump. “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” – he said, referring to John McCain.

And all three of them had quite the victim complex.

“If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” – Malcolm X.

“Look at the way I’ve been treated lately, especially by the media.  No politician in history — and I say this with great surety — has been treated worse or more unfairly.  You can’t let them get you down, You can’t let the critics and the naysayers get in the way of your dreams. Adversity makes you stronger.” – Donald Trump

“There is no better than adversity. Every defeat, every heartbreak, every loss, contains its own seed, its own lesson on how to improve your performance next time.” – Malcolm X

Some Julius Caesar quotes now:

-Experience is the teacher of all things.

– Cowards die many times before their actual deaths.

-If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it.

Malcolm x-  by any means necessary.

(back to Caesar)

“Men are nearly always willing to believe what they wish.”

Malcolm X:

-“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

-Truth is on the side of the oppressed.

Back to Trump:

-“Wow, so many Fake News stories today. No matter what I do or say, they will not write or speak truth. The Fake News Media is out of control!”

And this is just one example.  He has accused the media of being “fake news” time and time again.

So I think I have made my point about the similarities between these three individuals.  Caesar made himself very established and the de-facto dictator of the Roman Empire.  He would be betrayed by former allies (the Senate).  Former allies are the hardest to defend against because they are expected to be on your side.  It’s like a company who has a security breach by a disgruntled employee within the company itself.  Such things are almost impossible to defend against.  Nonetheless, while Caesar himself did not live, his dream lived on.  The Roman Republic came to an end and time of a Roman Empire was there to replace it.   There would not be another such “republic” in western civilization for well over a millennia longer.

But Malcolm X was also historically decisive, though probably not as much as Caesar.  He was incredibly aggressive and outspoken for change in the civil rights era.  How far have we come since then?

-antidiscrimination laws.

-A first African American President.

-acceptance of interracial marriage for more than in the past

-NFL players kneeling for the anthem for an end to police brutality

-black lives matter

Malcolm X had built himself a large following of African Americans and liberal whites to protest in favor of civil rights.  He simultaneously built up the Nation of Islam’s reputation, and then seriously hampered it.  Elijah Muhammad and his followers were not going to forgive him, and again, protecting yourself from former allies is always the hardest.

What about Trump?  Trump has revamped American politics for the foreseeable future, to say the least… and that’s even supposing he goes out peacefully without getting reelected!

It’s definitely possible that he could get reelected.  Incumbents get elected the vast majority of the time.  And Trump has built an unbeatable coalition of financially savvy business guys, and redneck white nationalists, to come together to defeat anything in their way.  There were many people who had never voted before in their lives, or haven’t voted in a long time but voted just for Trump.

In Trump’s own words “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”

Everyone already knew who Trump was and how he was going to be before he got elected.  Why would his outcome be any different in 2020?  The people who voted for him last time will vote for him next time because they already knew what they were buying last time.  Trump spent 18 months campaigning before the election, and he made it abundantly clear what his platforms would be.

Just as Julius Caesar and Malcolm X, Trump has some fanatical followers who will worship him no matter what he does.  And just like those two, Trump is starting to get out of hand.  His political rise was a rebellion against the political establishment and elites and their status quo- just as Malcolm X and Julius Caesar had done.

And again, the keyword here is former allies.  And to be more specific, former allies with nothing to lose.  As an example of what that wouldn’t consist of:  Trump was spotted at a golf resort, playing golf with Peyton Manning (I wish I was making this up).  Could Peyton Manning read Trump’s (flimsy) defenses, call some audibles and then go in for the touchdown?  I think so.  But why would he want to?  He’d have nothing to gain from killing Trump other than going down a legend, and he already has that.  He would also have tons to lose.  So it would have to be a former ally with nothing (or at the very least, much less) to lose with lots to gain.  These are the types that would do it.

Who could these be?  The people close to him within his administration.  His very own cabinet members and white house staff.  The people close to him, within his administration, have already made it clear they can’t stand him.  Of course, the Democrats and black lives matter people are going to hate Trump.  That’s both understandable and predictable.  Thus the secret service is protecting him against those kinds of people at their every move.  The establishment of the Republican Party itself, and including members of the Whitehouse staff and his own administration… these are not the kind you can defend from.

Trump has already started to gain weight, and it hasn’t been even one year since he’s been in office.  Weight gain, in this context, means he’s stressed out.  Will he be even mentally stable enough?  He has already caused irreversible damage to the Republican Party, and the longer he stays in office the longer it continues.  But we can take it to another extreme:  Unlike Caesar or Malcolm X, Trump has access to nuclear launch codes.  “As your commander in chief, I demand you send a nuke to North Korea.  No questions asked!”

What would you do in such a situation?  Trump has the legal authority to order such a strike, even for no valid reason or with no approval from the congress or senate.  This, among other things, is surely already on their minds.  And again, his followers have made it clear they’re going to continue to vote for him no matter what he actually does.  The possibility of a second Trump term (supposing he lives through the first one) is more likely than not.

Of course, Trump getting assassinated would not make it “all over” any more than Caesar getting killed stopped the Roman Empire (rather than further cementing it) or that Malcolm X’s death “ended” civil rights (quite the opposite if anything because people were understandably outraged).  I’m not sure what will happen in the next 7 years, but we’re in for a wild ride.

What do you think?

Malcolm X speech

Trump Speech

Julius Caesar Speech