VID: Reason Remembers the Victims of Communism on Berlin Wall Anniversary

|

"Remembering the Victims of Communism," produced by Meredith Bragg and Michael C. Moynihan. About 4 minutes. Original release date was November 9, 2009 and original writeup is below.

Twenty years ago today, the Berlin Wall was breached and Soviet communism, at long last, entered its death spiral. 

After claiming approximately 100 million victims in the 20th century, communism was dismissed to the ash heap of history. But those who suffered under its boot heel have largely been confined to the history books when not forgotten altogether.

Author and historian Lee Edwards set out to correct this oversight with the creation of the Victims of Communism memorial and online museum, dedicated to those who perished because of Communist regimes between 1917 and 1989.  

Reason.tv spoke to Edwards about the importance of historical memory, plans for a forthcoming bricks-and-mortar museum in Washington, DC, and the paintings of Ukrainian gulag survivor Nikolai Gettman, currently on display at the Heritage Foundation, where Edwards is a "Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought."

Produced by Meredith Bragg and Michael C. Moynihan.

 Interview by Moynihan. Shot and edited by Bragg. Approximately 4 minutes.

NEXT: Video: Berliners Mark 25 Years Since Fall of the Berlin Wall

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What? Victims of communism? There are no victims of communism! Those were victims of free markets run wild! And we’re bringing back communism to prove it, but with a prettier name, we have the right people this time!

    /The Proglodytes

    1. There are few easier ways to demonstrate one’s ignorance of history or current events than to support communism. The only truly communist nations remaining are a couple of miserable, closed societies. The Chinese still go through the motions, but they gave up on the ideology decades ago. If Castro and Kim are the only remaining paragons of your preferred economic system you need to choose a new economic system.

      1. The only truly communist nations remaining are a couple of miserable, closed societies.

        Vietnam is still pretty serious about it and they are not a miserable, closed society. Unfortunately China seems to be doing a lot more than going through the motions recently. “One Country Two Systems” survives because the Chinese government needs the money a free market generates. The free part seems to terrify the politburo.

        1. Neither Vietnam nor China is anything remotely close to communism today.
          They both run on private enterprise. They just happen to have ruthless police states, like they did when they were communist. The similarity ends there.
          They aren’t trying to collectivize all industries and have the government run them.

      2. Even North Korea gave up on Soviet style Communism decades ago. They now have an amalgam of Imperial Japanese style race based fascism (Juche) coupled with some Cuban style “reform” where farmers and small entrepreneurs are given just enough freedom to keep everyone from starving and state industries are mostly phantoms where people pretend to work. Utterly miserable in other words. Both NK and Cuba survive mostly by promoting a constant fear of invasion by their more successful neighbor.

  2. Jonathan Chait: Legal genius.

    Even if the meaning of the law were ambiguous, which it isn’t, legal principle also holds that the government can choose the meaning it finds most plausible.

    …It can? And what legal principle?

    1. Conservatives essentially argued that, since the Constitution did not specifically authorize Congress to require buying health insurance, it did not allow such a law. That strict, literal Constitutionalism was in vogue before the New Deal, but had disappeared since.

      Words having meanings is so passe!

      The Supreme Court, after flirting with restoring it, decided to sidestep the issue by upholding rewriting the individual mandate penalty as a tax.

      Fixed, you revisionist shit.

      1. Yeah, believing the literal meaning of the wording of laws makes you a crazy Rethuglican.

        1. Protect the Queen Ant at all costs.

      2. So it looks like SCOTUS just fast-tracked a decision on whether subsidies can move through the Federal Exchange. Should be interesting to see what happens. Will Roberts re-write the plain language of the law again to say that the Federal Exchange qualifies as a State Exchange even though it explicitly does not?

        1. Not only does the wording of the law specifically not allow it, but that was the admitted intent.

          Yes, it will be fun to see how they get around that. they can’t argue that the wording is vague and they can’t argue intent. FYTW is the only thing they have left.

          If anyone is dumb enough to still think this government is legitimate and that we live under the rule of law, this should crush that fantasy.

          1. The problem is that while one part of the law says there will be subsidies for those on state exchanges other parts say that if states do not create exchanges the federal government shall create exchanges and shall operate ‘such exchanges.’

            1. Nice try. The case isn’t about exchanges. It is about subsidies. The law explicitly says that subsidies apply only to those on state exchanges. The intent of that was to incentivize the states to create exchanges and they said so.

              The wording is explicit and the intent is plain.

              1. I don’t think that’s quite right. The sentence in question is about who gets subsidies, and it says people in state exchanges get it (it doesn’t say ‘only people in state exchanges’ it just doesn’t mention anything but ‘state exchanges’). So the government is arguing that when it says ‘state exchange’ it should include ‘exchanges for a state not playing where the federal government created an exchange for the state.’ So their argument is that it is about exchanges, and whether the federal exchanges created in states not playing are the equivalent of state exchanges such that the subsidies apply to them too. Given other language in the statute I don’t think that’s an unreasonable argument (note, unreasonable doesn’t mean it has me persuaded).

                I obviously don’t like the ACA, but I’d rather see it repealed straight up.

                1. “I don’t think that’s quite right.”

                  No, it’s exactly right.

                2. The intent of that clause is clearly to coerce states to create exchanges and drive all insurance coverage through them.

                  Otherwise, why limit the subsidy to people buy on an exchange instead subsidizing everyone who buys insurance?

                3. No Bo. That is exactly right. I don’t think you are arguing in good faith. You are making shit up. The authors and the people they were writing for all said outright that the subsidies were only for people buying through the state exchange. They wrote it that way deliberately to bribe the states into creating exchanges. They never expected the states to tell them to go fuck themselves. They laid a turd and now they are left holding it because they can’t pass it off on anyone. Fuck them.

                  And hey, if I were a judge and you tried arguing like that in my court I would kick your ass out.

                4. Every single other mention of exchanges either says “state and federal” or only says “exchanges”; only the subsidy clauses explicitly say “state exchanges”.

                  The speeches in Congress at the time explicitly said there would be no subsidies for federal exchanges, as an incentive for states to set up their own exchanges.

                  Some of the most outspoken propaganda explaining and justifying the ACA was also quite explicit that subsides were for state exchanges only, again to discourage federal exchanges.

                  All arguments I have seen to the contrary dodge or deny all these irrefutable facts. It’s as clear a demonstration of FYTW as you will find anywhere.

      3. The constitution didn’t authorize the government to FORCE PEOPLE To DO ARBITRARY STUFF, just by virtue of being US citizens. And we won that argument. That’s why Roberts came up with the “it’s a tax” line.

    2. I can not believe that the man has never heard of the ‘rule of lenity’? Even if not by that name he’s got to have heard of the concept that if a laws is ambiguous, those ambiguities should be studied/resolved in the light most favorable to the *non-government* party.

      1. That’s only with criminal law, right?

        1. Supposed to be for all law – though there is a strong trend in business/regulation law to give the benefit of the doubt to the government, basically in complete contradiction of the core principles of Common Law jurisprudence.

          Its that fucking ‘deference’ to the other branches shit screwing things up again.

    3. legal principle also holds that the government can choose the meaning it finds most plausible.

      “Laws”: They’re not Laws.

    4. “..It can? And what legal principle?”

      The fuck you that’s why clause written at the end of the constitution in invisible ink.

  3. Where’s commie-kid to tell us how great mass murder is?

    1. They’ll tell you that Christian fundies have murdered more people than communists. A factual inaccuracy by a long shot. But they aren’t big on facts.

      But their main Modus operandi consists of obfuscation and deflection. Example: But Booosh did it tooo!!!!

      1. Why would the murders of one group of thugs make the murders of another any less egregious?

        1. It wouldn’t – but its a good distraction technique.

        2. They’ll tell you that Christian fundies have murdered more people than communists. A factual inaccuracy by a long shot.

          Because the ‘christian fundies’ argument isn’t made in good faith. It’s supposed to snidely refer to people like Jerry Falwell, when the reality is that whatever the competing number of victims is with Christians, it was done over 2000 years. And it was done along side all the other religions’ victims because that’s what the world did back then: Kill each other over religion.

          Communism, on the other hand, manufactured its victims over an incredibly short period of time — about 70 years.

          The conclusion is obvious: if you really want to kill a lot of people in a very short time, go commie!

      2. I had one commie whip out population statistics to prove the Soviets never killed anyone?

        1. So he was a holocaust denier that voted Democrat. Okay then.

    2. You can’t shame these people. They’re evil.

  4. Dr. Jonathan Gruber

    “What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.”

    1. Pertinent part is at 31:25.

      1. He’s filed an amicus brief on the government’s side. I wonder what it says. “Hey look, I was going through a rough time, I was lashing out at people I loved, and I think I never really processed Princess Diana’s death.”

        1. He has said that he simply “misspoke,” multiples times, in public talks. So he’s a bald-faced liar.

          1. Oh yeah. Like that time the guy meant to ask his wife “Please pass the salt” and instead it came out as “You ugly shrew, you’ve ruined my life.”

  5. Still hard to comprehend how fast the floodgates opened.

  6. It is a crime in some countries to deny the Holocaust. Denying the Red Holocaust will get you tenure and a job at the NYT.

    I took some friends to the Victims of Communism Memorial in DC near the Supreme Court. One of them wondered why there was no memorial to the victims of capitalism.

    DERP!

    1. One thing they love to do is blame the foreign policy of the United States on capitalism, even though the capitalist system itself in no way necessitates an expansionist or interventionist foreign policy. I don’t think Communism necessitates an expansionist foreign policy either, which is why I think it’s idiotic to blame the people killed by Soviet invasions on Communism.

      Communism inevitably kills its own people because it has to.

      1. Also take into account that leftists either feign knowledge of the difference between cronyism and free markets, or they intentionally ignore it.

      2. A more sophisticated version of this is that blaming the actions of Communist nations like the USSR on Marxism in general is analogous to blaming the actions of the US in areas like slavery and Manifest Destiny on the Lockean liberalism upon which the US was largely based.

        1. Only if by “sophisticated”, you mean “less retarded”.

        2. A more sophisticated version of this is that blaming the actions of Communist nations like the USSR on Marxism in general is analogous to blaming the actions of the US in areas like slavery and Manifest Destiny on the Lockean liberalism upon which the US was largely based.

          How is slavery a free market position? You’re denying someone’s ability to buy goods, to control the price of their own labor, and to engage in any sort of free movement without being shot to death.

          The people who abolished slavery were overwhelmingly capitalists and free-marketeers. The liberals of the time were the ones against slavery and they were also the ones arguing in favor of capitalism and markets. Therefore, anyone making that argument is a moron.

          1. An even better response, if I may humbly propose it, is, Bo, “who said anything about Marxism? This is limited to Communism.”

            Thanks for playing.

            1. “”who said anything about Marxism? This is limited to Communism.”

              Thanks for playing.”

              Er, Marxism is a subset of Communism.

              1. Er, 1917-present Communism as a political movement was also a function of Lenin, whose ideology skipped an important development in the stages that were supposed to happen from pure captialism to socialism, IIRC.

                And then there’s this: “Communism is most associated with Marxism.”

                Not a subset. Communism is largely considered a subset of Marxism, in all practical terms, if I’m not mistaken.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

                1. From Wiki:

                  For the political ideology commonly associated with states governed by Communist parties, see Marxism-Leninism.

                  1. The, er, capital letter in your usage of “Communism” is important, too. I know I’m beating a dead horse and that I would be judged correct by almost any neutral arbiter, but…

                    Get it?

                    Capital?

                    C’mon… c’mon…

          2. “The people who abolished slavery were overwhelmingly capitalists and free-marketeers. The liberals of the time were the ones against slavery”

            Where in the world do you get this? Plenty of proponents of slavery considered themselves proponents of small government and free markets. The North, where abolition thrived most, was seen as the centralizing, big government part of the country. The Radical Republicans may have been ‘pro business’, but they were the party of taxpayer funded public schooling, public infrastructure development, a massive expansion of federal programs via Reconstruction and high tariffs.

            In England Locke himself participated in the slave trade.

            1. “Plenty of proponents of slavery considered themselves proponents of small government and free markets.”

              You may find quotes where people claim this is so, and it’s not surprising that you believe it.
              However, you need a pretty strong government to keep a majority of the local population in slavery.
              It is the diameteric opposite of ‘free market’ it can exist in civilization only where government will enforce slavery.

              1. Of course we can say ‘well any supporter of slavery was not a real lover of freedom’ but Marxists can say ‘well anyone who would take out all the intellectuals and shoot them or starve millions of Ukranians is not a real communist.’ The empirical reality is that many who used small government and liberalism rhetoric did not find slavery to be problematic and many of its opponents easily used the rhetoric of an activist government.

                1. Bo Cara Esq.|11.9.14 @ 8:07PM|#
                  “Of course we can say ‘well any supporter of slavery…”

                  Yeah, you can say anything you want, but anyone other than a bullshit artist understands the FACT that it requires a strong government to enforce slavery.
                  You might even say it is revealed preference.

                2. The empirical reality is that many who used small government and liberalism rhetoric did not find slavery to be problematic

                  Can you provide an empirical citation for this?

            2. Where in the world do you get this? Plenty of proponents of slavery considered themselves proponents of small government and free markets. The North, where abolition thrived most, was seen as the centralizing, big government part of the country.

              I get this from Lincoln Reconsidered by David Herbert Donald where he mentions that most of the abolitionists didn’t give a shit about organized labor, were in favor of free trade, and were generally from old-stock wealthy families.

              Furthermore, Adam Smith argued against slavery and liberal thinkers like Montesquiue were against slavery. Voltaire and De Tocquiville also despised slavery, although Voltaire was himself a terrible racist who just thought slavery was too much even for him.

              I think the French liberal/libertarian thinkers were more consistently anti-slavery than the British or Americans, but there was definitely an Adam Smith strain of opposition as early as the mid 1700s in England.

              1. I’m not arguing that many liberals rightly saw slavery as incompatible with liberalism, just that many did not.

                The idea that ‘most of the abolitionists…were in favor of free trade’ is simply false. Just look at the policies the Radical Republicans pushed when they controlled the agenda. Tariffs, public infrastructure development, and the biggest federal government social welfare spending the nation had by far ever seen.

                1. The Republicans joined a bunch of groups together, who united basically on limiting proslavery influence. Onr key bloc was from New Englanders and their Western descendants, who believed in the government legislating righteousness and making the whole country more New Englanf-ish. Freeing slaves, govt schools, public works, tariffs, prohibition (until the Reps needed German votes and the Civil War made people thirsty), etc.

                  Then you have your consistent liberals who opposed slavery, tariffs, and other govt restrictions all down the line. One of them was Lysander Spooner, inventor of the Spoonerism.*

                  *Not actually the inventor of Spoonerisms.

          3. The people who abolished slavery were overwhelmingly capitalists and free-marketeers.

            And Christian fundies.

        3. Not really.

          Lockean liberty in no way requires violent revolution or anything apart from the willingness of those with political power to provide a system of freedom in contract, allowance of property, and free individualization.

          Marx’s writings predict and require a violent revolution on the part of the proletariat as a prerequisite to the state he envisions, and the murder or forced rehabilitation of those in disagreement or of the wrong class.

          You need to look up the definition of “sophisticated” in your dictionary.

          1. And honestly, I don’t know why anyone pretends to deny this central fact about Marxism. It is not as though this was left undiscussed by the leftist movements at the time of Marx’s writings. There were plenty of non-Marxist socialists who left these requirements out of their manifestos, and of course left-anarchism was non-Marxist and therefore based on entirely distinct philosophical premises (though it is a mistake to suggest that most were non-violent as a result).

            When I was a Marxist, I absolutely supported the violent revolution, divestment of property and all the rest as a logical outcome of my philosophy, and so did all of the other Marxists I knew. This is really not something that was up for debate among Marxists; I can’t imagine why you would wish to suggest otherwise.

        4. The difference is that Marx believed that every single Capitalist society was supposed to go through a phrase of “dictatorship of the proletariat”, and that massive amounts of people will have to die to reach the “Communist” state.

          Indeed, it was Marx who specifically said “In order to make an omlette, you have to break a few eggs.”

          Is it any wonder that every Communist society, since then, has resulted in the death of significant portions of that society?

          Meanwhile, Manifest Destiny and Slavery are merely political policies of a country that was, at it’s base, was designed to respect the freedom of individuals. Even in our Founding Documents, the Founders tried to take steps to end slavery: declaring rights to be “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, leaving out Property, fearing that by declaring such, slave owners would latch on to the idea that people are property that should be respected; requiring that Slaves be counted 3/5 of a free person, so that the South would be taxed, but receive full representation for, slaves; ending the Slave Trade outright in 1807.

          It is clear that in Marxism and Communism, Revolution and Death are the Rule, while in Capitalism, Slavery and Manifest Destiny are the Exceptions.

      3. capitalist system itself in no way necessitates an expansionist or interventionist foreign policy.

        Progs do not know how to differentiate between things that are different and/or unrelated.

        In other news, there was some weather today.

        1. No, they genuinely believe that all of foreign policy can be explained by examining the economic interests of the establishment. As far as they are concerned, religion, nationalism, and everything else, is just a ruse that the ruling class uses to trick the masses into supporting their interests.

      4. I don’t think Communism necessitates an expansionist foreign policy either,

        Yeah, you’re wrong about that.

        The original 19th century socialists realized that socialism would only work if it were universal. Every communist state tried exporting their marxist religion at their inception and only pulled back to the extent that they were forced to.

      5. Well, if you pay attention to Marxist theory, everything is always motivated by the interests of the ruling class. It is central to their world view. They don’t believe that people have motivation outside of economics. It’s ALL economic self-interest, you just have to figure out how everything is secretly about building an oil pipeline across Afghianistan, or whatever.
        This is how they think. There is always an evil capitalist secretly orchestrating every war or revolution – except for the communist ones, of course.

    2. Communism is one of the few things in history that was no shit worse than the Holocaust. Communism’s victims deserve a museum at least twice as big.

    3. Damn, I have been there countless times and I didn’t even know it existed. I have to go there next time I’m in DC.

      1. Seriously, I’ve had this discussion with a few people who bought into the capitalism is bad meme. When I tell them that Libertarians are for free markets but against cronyism, it’s all deer in the headlights. They have not a clue what that means.

        1. Those same people have no clue what capitalism is.

          Ask ’em. All you will get is blathering nonsense; regurgitated OWS flavored talking points. For added fun ask them to explain exactly what they say. Usually they can’t. They really do just parrot that shit without thinking.

          “You need the ideology of Marxism Leninism pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of students without being challenged by the basic values of Americanism. The result you can see. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black you still cannot change their basic perception and the logical behavior. For these people the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. Most of these people would be marked for extermination because the psychological shock of what they will see in the future, what the beautiful society of equality and social justice means in practice they will be very unhappy.

          1. …..As I mentioned earlier exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to access true information; facts tell nothing to them. Even if you shower them with proof, with documents, with pictures, even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camps he will refuse to believe it. When he receives a boot to his bottom, when the military boot crushes his balls then he will understand, but not before. “

            1. Brilliant. But don’t expect the ‘useful idiots’ to get it. They won’t, that’s why they are known as useful idiots.

              If they’re lucky, we can save them from themselves.

              Great post, Derpetologist, I enjoyed that one a lot.

                1. I’ll be sure to watch all I can from this guy, he certainly has the leftist mentality exposed.

                2. First comment:

                  Did america really win the cold war? USA full of nigs, spicks, fags and divorces. I think they both LOST!!?

                  Fucking Youtube.

                  1. “First comment:

                    Did america really win the cold war? USA full of nigs, spicks, fags and divorces. I think they both LOST!!?

                    Fucking Youtube.”
                    —————–
                    You could tell we won if we’d have lost this asshole someplace.

    4. Dude, you need different friends.

      1. I met them in the Peace Corps. Shared experience and all that.

        1. I have only known one person who was in the peace corps. She was a flaming proggie and so full of shit I couldn’t believe she could breath on her own.

          She had very strong ideas about how everyone should live. Those ideas involved impoverishing the united states, and not inadvertently, she said that explicitly.

          1. Yeah, as you might expect, libertarians are even fewer there. But as far as progs go, the ones I met were actually tolerant and open-minded.

    5. the *victims of capitalism museum* could memorialize, all the company’s that have ever gone out of business, or every busines man that lost his shirt!

      Probably not what your friend had in mind.

    6. “One of them wondered why there was no memorial to the victims of capitalism.”

      Oh, there are many! Typically, it’s a 5br, 4b on an acre of land.

  7. NJ professor denies communist atrocities:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdajUraK0LM

    If a professor said something similar about Nazis, there would be a shoe imprint on his ass as he went flying out the door.

    1. My mistake- that would only apply to a non-Muslim professor.

    2. I love the applause when professor dingleberry claims that ‘its bullshit! It is a lie!’ that communist regimes murdered people.

      See my quote above from the soviet political officer.

      1. It’s faith, not reason. Belief, not logic.

      2. Yes, Mr. Bezmenov has many gems.

    3. The really hilarious thing is that Barack Obama, and 99% of the Democrat party, including Hillary Clinton, would agree with this guy.

    4. Derpy, this could well be one of your most frightening finds yet.

      1. Ooh, I found that he’s defending the Moscow trials and wrote a book about Khruschev’s secret speech being a lying defamation of Stalin.

        1. Ooh, I found that he’s defending the Moscow trials and wrote a book about Khruschev’s secret speech being a lying defamation of Stalin.

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA!

          1. It’s called Khruschev Lied, and Wikipedia indicates that it sold well in Russia. What fun.

      2. “Derpy, this could well be one of your most frightening finds yet.”

        Oh, I know I can find worse. But alas I am all derped out for today.

    5. The best part of that video is that he says all this while standing right next to Yuri Maltsev. This English professor feels confident enough to say all this shit next to an economist that defected from the Soviet Union.

  8. I hate commies with the passion of a thousand super novas…

    1. Don’t forget that they are known as progressives today, just redirect that hate, I’m with you bro.

  9. Victor Vashi is artist and gulag survivor. Do a search for his Red Primer. The cartoons are great. I can’t find the whole thing online anymore, but it pops up as pdf downloads and on image searches. I downloaded my version from smashwords.

  10. *is also an artist and gulag survivor

    1. The original, is very Russian.

  11. Zero Hedge has a tendency to be really fucking stupid.

    Apparently low oil prices are bad and we must raise oil prices OR CATASTROPHE WILL HAPPEN!

    I feel like that’s a trend with Zero Hedge. We have to change X or catastrophe will happen. They just change what X is and hope no one notices.

    1. With catastrophe being a constant. That’s pretty fucked up.

    2. Jesus, the comments are a hot mess of conspiracy nuts

    3. Zero Hedge prints contradictory stuff every day. You get more consistency from Infowars.

  12. OT: VA patients treated with bogus medical equipment, supplies

    Unauthorized and potentially counterfeit, dangerous surgical devices and medical supplies have flowed unchecked into the Department of Veterans Affairs supply chain and into VA operating rooms, according to internal agency correspondence from a major supplier who blamed new procurement rules.

    The bogus supplies gained a foothold when the department started using reverse auctions to fulfill some contracts, according to both department officials and a 2012 memo from Johnson & Johnson, the world’s largest medical device business.

    Officials also warned the VA that an ongoing corporate investigation into the gray market showed how some unauthorized sellers were passing off products stolen from other hospitals.

    “We do not believe that the VA intended for its efforts to utilize new procurement tools such as reverse auctions to result in these outcomes,” a company official wrote.

    The Johnson & Johnson memo included a list of seven gray market surgical supply purchases by agency medical centers in a half-dozen states. But the company made clear there were more examples across the VA.

    1. Single payer.

      Everytime I hear someone champion that I want to punch them in their fucking mouth.

      1. Yes, single payer. Because somehow, the government bureaucracies that can’t successfully manage the healthcare of 10 million people will successfully manage the healthcare of 330 million people.

        1. Economies of scale FTW!

        2. This is what Alice Bowie believes.

  13. Prisoner dies of dehydration while in police custody.

    “His name is Mr. Kerr and he died from all of this and some of the thing they did to him just wasn’t right,” Chambers wrote. “He wasn’t eating and he was using the bathroom on himself laying in feces.”

    March 6: “He used the bathroom on his self.” A guard and a sergeant said “his pants is halfway down, his butt is out, look at his crusty feet.”

    March 7: “Ate nothing and they called a code blue because he was unresponse.” A guard went into the cell and handcuffed Kerr. A nurse went into the cell.

    “I don’t no what they did but when they came out of his cell they were like, Mr. Kerr come to the door so we can take the cuffs off,” Chambers wrote.

    Kerr did not respond and was left in handcuffs. The prison log of observations made by guards who routinely checked on him shows he wasn’t seen standing, sitting or moving after the night of March 7. Over the next 99 hours, they noted “Appears Asleep” 91 times and “Awake On Bunk” 26 times.

    1. “If you visit a prison you will see the worst that humanity has to offer. You will also see prisoners.”

      -Samuel Clemens

      1. He was a REAL satirist.

  14. moar commi eclaptrap

    A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least
    be sufficient to maintain him.”

    glad no one here puts uo witht he lunatic that came upw ith it.

    1. Yes, yes, now add in the parts *around* that ‘quote’.

    2. “Comrades! The insurrection of five kulak districts should be pitilessly suppressed. The interests of the whole revolution require this because ‘the last decisive battle’ with the kulaks is now under way everywhere. An example must be demonstrated.

      Hang (and make sure that the hanging takes place in full view of the people) no fewer than one hundred known landlords, rich men, bloodsuckers.
      Publish their names.
      Seize all their grain from them.
      Designate hostages in accordance with yesterday’s telegram.
      Do it in such a fashion that for hundreds of kilometres around the people might see, tremble, know, shout: “they are strangling, and will strangle to death, the bloodsucking kulaks”.

      Telegraph receipt and implementation.

      Yours, Lenin.

      Find some truly hard people”

      Go fuck a volcano, scumbag.

    3. A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least
      be sufficient to maintain him.

      Given that wages are sufficient to ‘maintain’ workers everywhere in the United States, we’ve already achieved this goal.

      If we had no minimum wage and no welfare we would still have no starvation in this country. None. It was eradicated a hundred years ago.

      Don’t let basic facts get in the way of your narrative, Ballsack. Given that wages have gone up about 100x since Adam Smith said that, I think he’d be weeping with joy if he could see how well the poorest person in America today lives.

      1. In cheap years it is pretended, workmen are generally more idle,
        and in dear times more industrious than ordinary. A plentiful sub-
        sistence, therefore, it has been concluded, relaxes, and a scanty
        one quickens their industry. That a little more plenty than ordi-
        nary may render some workmen idle, cannot be well doubted; but
        that it should have this effect upon the greater part, or that men in
        general should work better when they are ill fed, than when they
        are well fed, when they are disheartened than when they are in
        good spirits, when they are frequently sick than when they are
        generally in good health, seems not very probable.

        1. WIH is the point of that? Are you sentient, or some sort of random-quote bot?

          1. He’s trying to pull the nonsense progs always pull, which is that he claims people can’t survive without a high minimum wage, then when it’s pointed out that no one starved to death in this country even before welfare was implemented, he moves the goal posts.

            I especially love his use of a 250 year old quote from Adam Smith, given that Adam Smith never could have imagined the amount of money the poorest people in modern America make. Progressives really don’t understand the difference between relative poverty, in which you’re poor compared to rich Americans, and the actual poverty Smith was talking about. This is because they are stupid.

            1. It’s also, parsed of Smith’s verbosity, true; people who need money tend to work harder for it than those who are well-off.
              So what?

            1. By george, I think you have it!

            2. BTW, is Mary a lefty ignoramus, or merely a deranged twit?

              1. Why can’t she be both?

              2. BTW, is Mary a lefty ignoramus, or merely a deranged twit?

                She was a prog, but as I recall, she hated libertarians more than she supported pogs.

              3. Yes?

          2. This is the dipshit that proclaimed here yesterday evening, that he knows ‘everything’ using some quote attributed to Isaac Asimov.

            I’m still waiting for some answers from the know it all.

    1. Said pretty much everyone ever!

      They have plenty of disturbing and downright weird propaganda

    2. South Koreans are just bonkers period, and my South Korean friends are living proof of it. But they do make good TVs and cars.

  15. I personally think the conservative freak out over this Salon article over how we shouldn’t call soldiers heroes is just idiotic social signaling, but this sentence actually made me laugh my ass off:

    Put a man in uniform, preferably a white man, give him a gun, and Americans will worship him.

    Yeah, who ever heard of a black man in the army? It’s unheard of!

    1. “Americans, especially those who oppose war, should do everything they can to discourage young, poor and working-class men and women from joining the military.”

      Hell, I’m not even that pro-military, but why on earth would young, poor working class men and women want a job with likely long-term employment and benefits? Yes, we need to convince those people to stay out that profession!

      1. Also its shocking the amount of people suggesting America reinstate the draft in the comments.

        1. Jon Stewart wants to reinstate the draft, being a totalitarian piece of shit.

          1. Isn’t he like Rangel, saying he supports reinstating the draft because it would end support for most wars?

            1. From what I recall his concept of a draft includes non-military service to the state as well, his argument is that Americans lack investment ‘in the same game’.

              1. Ugh, ‘national service.’ That’s some real pernicious collectivist clap trap there.

                1. Ugh, ‘national service.’ That’s some real pernicious collectivist clap trap there.

                  Yeah, Stewart’s disgusting. Here’s the quote:

                  When I say there should be a draft, I also think it should be noncompulsory military. There should be a draft where every young person has to do one year of something ? military, public works ? something so that we all feel invested in the same game, because that’s the part that we’ve lost.

                  This is a great way to raise a generation of young people who are mindlessly obedient to the state and will glory in weeding out dissenters.

                  1. He is just pushing Obumbles plan. That slimy fuck was talking about this during his 2008 campaign. It didn’t fly then so he shut his lying fucking mouth about it.

                    Stewart is just trotting it out again to see if it takes this time.

                    This is how proggies operate.

            2. Isn’t he like Rangel, saying he supports reinstating the draft because it would end support for most wars?

              Yeah, and if we required everyone to be raped once in their lives, maybe rape would end because we’d all know how it feels.

              1. Wait, isn’t this just Starship Troopers?

                1. Wait, isn’t this just Starship Troopers?

                  Not at all. The service in Starship Troopers was entirely optional. You only had to serve if you wanted citizenship. This was not a Hobson’s choice, either: citizenship only conferred political privileges; the liberty of all, citizen and non, was respected equally by the government.

                  I think this system would be unsustainable, but to say that “mandatory national service” was the nature of Heinlein’s philosophy in Starship Troopers is quite incorrect. It is true however that Heinlein viewed military service as only one possible form of acceptable service, albeit the preferred one.

          2. I’d support a mandatory one-year requirement to train in the local militia, where everyone would be free to take their fully-automatic rifle and pistol home afterwards, kindof like what Switzerland does. Such training would focus on how to patrol a neighborhood when a disaster strikes (heck, it would probably include general disaster preparedness as well) and what we would do if we’re invaded by a foreign army.

            Such training probably doesn’t literally need to take a year. Heck, I’d be happy if it were simply offered, even if we had to bring our own rifle and pistol. It’s the kind of thing that the Free Market should (and to some extent does) fill in, since our Government has failed to provide such training.

            But I have a funny feeling that such training is the LAST think that Jon Stewart has in mind!

    2. The various special forces are overwhelmingly white. Not sure why that is.

      http://sbpdl.net/2011/05/05/ho…..ple-seals/

      1. Wow, that’s a racist as hell website right there.

        1. It is. Should have posted this instead:

          http://www.npr.org/2012/05/28/…..-the-seals

          1. [Insert joke about Black people and swimming here]

            1. from the article:

              JONES: I’m glad you asked that and it’s something that I address to almost every diverse audience that I speak to because I get that question a lot and it’s not racism. It’s not because of anything other than two things that I’ve seen from personal experience, talking to other friends and family and it’s – one is awareness. You can’t aspire to be something that you have no idea – you truly don’t know what it is. And the other thing is swimming. A lot of African-Americans, especially ones that I know personally, don’t know how to swim or are not comfortable in the water and, obviously, being a U.S. Navy SEAL, you have to be very proficient in the water.

              1. Yeah, I saw that after I posted.

              2. When I was growing up in the rural south blacks swam as much as whites. It was not uncommon to see both swimming in the many swimming holes.

                It wasn’t until I began to be around urban blacks that the whole blacks and water became a thing.

                Historically Urban blacks simply didn’t have opportunities to swim.

            2. [Followed up with skier/hockey player joke]

              Figure skater?

            3. Actually it probably is the swimming. When I was in boot camp I was the company Athletic Petty Officer and my main job was to ensure that every one in my company was a Fourth Class Swimmer. All you need to do to be a Fourth Class Swimmer is float, and every member of the Navy is required to meet that minimum standard.
              On the first day of swim tests there were 5 girls who were non-swimmers, 2 whites and 3 blacks. Every morning, we’d get up 2 hours before the rest of the company and go down to the pool to practice floating (not strokes mind you just floating). The white girls got the hang of it in one day. One of the black girls got the hang of relaxing in the water after 2 days. The other two still could not float after 3 weeks and were set back to another company. I am a First Class Swimmer and I have been a part time Life Guard as a teenager and on swim teams from the time I was 5, and have lost count of all the people I have taught to swim or swim better, but that was the darnedest shit I’ve ever seen: just a complete mental block that made it impossible for them to learn.

              1. Oh and I think it was definitely a cultural thing and not a race thing necessarily, because my company was about a quarter black and the girls from rural midwest and the south swam on a par with the whites. The non-swimmers were both inner city urban (South Side and Bronx).

              2. Uh, you’ll forgive me if I find you sample of 3 less than convincing.

                1. No, I think she’s right. The issue is that inner city African Americans often have no opportunity to swim and so they just aren’t good at it. Like Suthenboy mentioned, the rural black people he knew would go swimming with the white kids and were just as good at it.

                  I think it’s an accurate statement that because of a lack of opportunity inner city African Americans often aren’t good swimmers. It’s true for the same reason most people in the inner city don’t know how to pitch a tent and it would be true of a white person too, if you put them in the same situation.

                2. I wasn’t the only APO in the pool, Sevo. Every other company APO going through boot camp during that time frame was also at the pool with their hard core non-swimmers (who were black), and also very frustrated because no one wants to be in the fucking pool before the sun is up. It’s what I saw. It’s an anecdote, take away what you will.

                  1. The thing with SEALS is that the very first requirement before any of the other strenuous physical requirements is that you be a First Class Swimmer: which is, without going into all the specific details, being able to swim long distances at speed while wearing a full uniform, perform in-water rescues, and move heavy objects around under water.

    3. Yeah, who ever heard of a black man in the army?

      Or more pertinently, who’s ever heard of conservatives going goo-goo eyed over Colin Powell or Allen West?

      Of course Salon wouldn’t go there. Against the “narrative”, you see.

    4. Sort of like this guy? Or how the proggies fell in love with him after he noisily left the Bush Administration and wagged his finger at RomBot 2.0?

    5. Yes, it’s totally fucking retarded. But when you get into redneckville, it’s prevalent. I always hear folks saying things like ‘That’s what a young man is sposed to do! Fight for his country!’

      Umm, fight for what you retards, WW2 has been over for 60 years you know.

      Now if they mean take up arms against our own corrupt and repressive government, then I might be more easily convinced, although as always, I prefer the peaceful solution.

      1. I saw someone on twitter seriously argue that ‘all of our wars were fighting for our freedom.’

        Yeah, we were in serious danger of being conquered if we hadn’t intervened in Grenada.

        1. Don’t forget the scary terrorists under all of our beds, and bigfoot too, or something like that I think.

          1. Are the Bigfoot Wars still classified?

            1. Yes, they’re in the secret file cabinet right under the alien wars.

        2. Why do you hate our expat medical students?

        3. I was all for Reagan slapping down the Cubans invasion of Grenada. If the pretense was thin, so what? We got to shoot some commies and keep their grasping fingers off of Grenada.

          Castro needs to be kept in a box. he is not in the box of my choice, yet, but a box still.

    6. We’ve got too much worship of government-sector violence, but it really sucks that the people most stridently commenting against it are Salon-type idiots and their ilk.

  16. And it came to pass that Thom Hartmann and Jesse Myerson discussed myths about communism, and many straw men were slain:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkEjUAO-4-8

    1. One of the comments is MONEY:

      “theshreddingdead
      5 days ago
      You obviously only heard what you wanted to. Stalin was no communist”

      Mmmkay.?

      1. Of course Stalin was no Communist. No True Communist would ever send his political enemies to the Gulag, or have them disappeared, or decimate the economy of an entire nation. No sir-ee Bob.

      2. Let’s say Stalin wasn’t a ‘real’ communist, but someone who hijacked a communist movement/government. Is it supposed to be some big defense of communism that it builds systems that seem to be hijacked by sadistic mass murderers in different cultures and places all over the world with regularity?

        1. And that said sadistic mass murderers were somehow able to easily portray themselves as communists and constantly have other communists defend or cover up their crimes?

          1. It’s a movement built on resentment, that’s an emotion that is not going to stir up the best in people. And as Hayek argued it sets up a system that can be used for incredibly bad ends. Combine those two and it should be obvious for anyone to see why in culture after culture, time after time, it ends in mass murder and repression.

            1. “…it should be obvious for anyone to see…”

              Scroll back up and read my quote from Bezmenov, or click on Derpetologists link.

              I am convinced that Obumbles loves the politics of envy for precisely the reasons mentioned in your post. Hildebeasts latest ‘businesses don’t create jobs’ horseshit was very transparently an attempt at that.

              1. She didn’t build that concept!

        2. Let’s say Stalin wasn’t a ‘real’ communist, but someone who hijacked a communist movement/government. Is it supposed to be some big defense of communism that it builds systems that seem to be hijacked by sadistic mass murderers in different cultures and places all over the world with regularity?

          This. The basic argument by Communists is that they themselves aren’t murderers, they just accidentally keep giving murderers unlimited power.

          1. “The basic argument by Communists is that they themselves aren’t murderers, they just accidentally keep giving murderers unlimited power.”

            The way Werner Von Braun kept aiming at the stars and hitting London. Just a slight aiming error.

          2. Mikhail Bakunin recognized this problem with Marxism early on.

          3. Any philosophy that subjugates the individual to the collective will is bound for death camps.

        3. So, Lenin was no “real” communist, either? Why does everyone focus on Stalin, when all he did was continue the legacy of Lenin?

      3. No offense theshreddingdead, but I think ol’ Stalin’s got more credibility on the subject than you.

        1. A little farther down:

          “In true communism, there is no money, no private property and no government. All labor and production goes to the community. The production of goods is determined by the community. It is not privately owned and it does not exist for profit.”

          IOWs, there is no true communism, since there are no purple unicorns, but, hey, let’s try again!

          1. Ah yes, the anarchist Worker’s Paradise that comes after centuries of state control. I’ve said this before, but at least Lenin was a charismatic genius who worked his ass off for his supposed utopia. So many modern communists are just pathetically ignorant of their own philosophy.

          2. Cool, we’ll play charades to determine who values what.

            1. I’m thrusting at you right now. I blame the jug wine.

            2. Don’t worry comrade, the future will be staffed by automated systems and complex computers that will solve the pricing problem!

              For the record the Venus Project’s ‘founder’ Jacque Fresco claims that it has ‘no parallel in history’.

              1. Christ. The same shit in a super-shiny box.

              2. “It calls for a straightforward redesign of our culture in which the age-old inadequacies of war, poverty, hunger, debt and unnecessary human suffering are viewed not only as avoidable, but as totally unacceptable.”

                How could anyone argue with that?
                Now, let’s see the details…

                1. Oh, except for debt. There’s nothing wrong with debt, except to some econ ignoramus.


                  1. My God, check out the frequently asked questions.

                    Earth is abundant and has plentiful resources. Our practice of rationing resources through monetary control is no longer relevant and is counter-productive to our survival. Today we have highly advanced technologies, but our social and economic system has not kept up with our technological capabilities. We could easily create a world of abundance for all, free of servitude and debt based on the carrying capacity of Earth resources. With the intelligent and humane application of science and technology, the people of the earth can guide and shape the future together while protecting the environment. We don’t have enough money to accomplish these ends but we do have more than enough resources.

                    1. Wouldn’t there be Resistance of the Rich and Powerful?

                      What you had to say about the rich and powerful being resistant to such a society in many cases is true, however if they keep using automation in their industries, as they have to in order to compete, millions of people will be replaced by machines. This includes not only the assembly line workers but also doctors, engineers, architects and the like. As they lose their purchasing power, the very industries that depend on them can no longer function. This will bring an end to the old outworn monetary system. It is not a question of them giving up their industries; it is that their greed will eventually render them obsolete.

                      Only when science and technology are used with human concern in a world in which all of the earth’s resources are held as the common heritage of all of the earth’s people can we truly say that there is intelligent life on earth.

                    2. I’m amazed you guys haven’t heard of the Venus Project yet. It’s 19th century futurism mixed with a hefty dose of garbage ‘resource economy’ economics and ‘robots are gonna take our jerbs!’

                    3. There’s one person who comments on this site, Alice Bowie I think, who I’m pretty sure is a follower. I’ve seen him/her use a lot of the Venus Project’s arguments.

                    4. “I’ve seen him/her use a lot of the Venus Project’s arguments.”

                      According to Alice, he is male, middle-aged, and not real prosperous.
                      I’d guess hoping for some magic to make life wonderful.

                    5. “We don’t have enough money to accomplish these ends but we do have more than enough resources.”

                      What an ignorant comment.
                      Well, give Obo a a bit more time, and we’ll have enough money that you’ll have to cart it around in wheelbarrows!

                    6. Somewhere I have a photo of a cigarette vendor in La Paz bent over double with a bale of cash on his back going down the sidewalk to the bank. It was his income from selling smokes for one day.

                      Bolivia had hyperinflation when I was there. When I arrived they had just printed up new 10,000 peso bills. Soon they instructed everyone to just draw new zeros on them because they could not afford to print more bills and they needed 100,000 peso bills, then 1000000 peso bills…..I shit you not.

                      This is the kind of idiocy and economic ignorance that Obumbles and his ilk engage in.

                    7. Oh. Interesting side story. I brought back huge stacks of that cash, which wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on ( literally. Finest ink and paper and printed by the swiss). I was going to use it for wall paper. I stored it in a desk drawer in the living room.

                      Some thieves broke in my house and found it. They must have thought they hit the jackpot because they took all that cash and left lots of items that were actually valuable.

                      God, what I wouldn’t give to have been a fly on the wall of the bank when those dunces tried to deposit that worthless shit.

                    8. Bolivia had hyperinflation when I was there. When I arrived they had just printed up new 10,000 peso bills. Soon they instructed everyone to just draw new zeros on them because they could not afford to print more bills and they needed 100,000 peso bills, then 1000000 peso bills…..I shit you not.

                      Does anyone remember a Krugman article from a few months back where he claimed the only countries to suffer hyperinflation were Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe? I remember this article distinctly, but I want to find it just to remind myself about how stupid Krugman is.

                      Does anyone remember that or is it something I imagined in a fever dream?

                    9. I think it is a fairly regular occurrence in the history of Latin America.

                      Krugman isn’t stupid. He just thinks you are. Someone here once described him as ‘the incoherent court astrologer’. That nails him. He knows full well that everything he says is bullshit. It is just propaganda to prop up the regime.

                    10. “Krugman isn’t stupid. He just thinks you are.”

                      It is curious that he would lie about something so easy to research.
                      Gimme a minute…

                      4 Hyperinflationary episodes
                      4.1 Angola
                      4.2 Argentina
                      4.3 Armenia
                      4.4 Austria
                      4.5 Azerbaijan
                      4.6 Belarus
                      4.7 Bolivia
                      4.8 Bosnia and Herzegovina
                      4.9 Brazil
                      4.10 Bulgaria
                      4.11 Chile
                      4.12 China
                      4.13 Estonia
                      4.14 France
                      4.15 Free City of Danzig
                      4.16 Georgia
                      4.17 Germany (Weimar Republic)
                      4.18 Greece
                      4.19 Hungary, 1923?24
                      4.20 Hungary, 1945?46
                      4.21 Kazakhstan
                      4.22 Kyrgyzstan
                      4.23 Serbian Krajina
                      4.24 North Korea
                      4.25 Nicaragua
                      4.26 Peru
                      4.27 Philippines
                      4.28 Poland, 1923?1924
                      4.29 Poland, 1989?1990
                      4.30 Republika Srpska
                      4.31 Soviet Union / Russian Federation
                      4.32 Taiwan
                      4.33 Tajikistan
                      4.34 Turkmenistan
                      4.35 Ukraine
                      4.36 Uzbekistan
                      4.37 Yugoslavia
                      4.38 Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo)
                      4.39 Zimbabwe
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation

                      Far less than a minute.

                    11. This is the kind of idiocy and economic ignorance that Obumbles and his ilk engage in.

                      And Jon Stewart spent nearly 15 minutes sucking Evo Morales’ cock on his show a couple years back. It was full-on giggly, googly-eyed fawning puffery. Made me fucking sick, but I couldn’t turn away.

                  2. DEBT IS SLAVERY!

    2. Incidentally, regarding Thom Hartmann:

      “I’ve lived in Europe. I think that the countries that call themselves democratic socialist?Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland?have the most functional political and economic system. So, somebody says, what’s your political philosophy? I’d say Democratic socialism. But boy, the crap you take when you say socialist. Because people don’t understand it. They think I’m talking about Soviet-style socialism, which I’m not.”

      Man, given that he talks about how great Communism is with an actual Communist, it almost sounds like he wasn’t being entirely honest when he said this.

      I also like that he only lists the northern and western European ‘Democratic Socialist’ countries, and neglects to mention that all of the basket case southern European countries area also ‘Democratic socialist.’ For some reason he doesn’t mention the wonderful political systems of social democracies like Greece, Spain, and Italy.

      He also fails to mention that Germany probably has a freer economy in 2014 than we do.

      1. So, he likes countries filled with white people, especially small ones, which can’t defend themselves, and which are demographically crashing. Got it.

      2. He also forgets to mention that France is (and has been for a long time) an economic basketcase and that Sweden, Finland, and Denmark are poor as shit and are steadily backing away from their “socialism.”

    3. I could not watch that video without putting a fist through my screen.

      I read a few comments. Holy shit, that is a black hole of stupidity.

  17. Comrades, it’s not that communism doesn’t work, it’s that they didn’t have the right people in charge. We almost got it right last time with Saint Barack the most Righteous Savior of Mankind, but the Rethuglicans ruined it. But don’t worry, the one who is to come, after the one who was supposed to come but got fucked by the Kochtopus, the Great White Squaw, will finally arrive and bring the true golden age and free ponies for all.

    1. But I don’t want a pony. Ken at Popehat assures me that they are the ultimate force for evil and I believe him.

      1. I’m not sure until I try this Stubb’s marinade with pony. It’s too damn good with pork. I just marinated some more pork ribs with that stuff and OMG, fuck me, I can’t wait to try it with pony!

        1. You want to eat a pony?! What are you French or something?

          1. Only if it pisses off some progs or greenies. Then I’m all for eating some pony. And no, I’m not French… wait … the French eat ponies?

            1. yes they do.

      2. There are some good ones, you can’t generalize like that!

      3. BuSab Agent|11.9.14 @ 8:27PM|#
        “But I don’t want a pony.”

        Tough, comrade. You’ll take that pony and like it!

        1. If you make me take it, I’ll be joining Hyperion with the marinade.

  18. I have to day, that link that Derptologist posted above with Yuri Bezmenov, that is one of the best things I have ever seen here or anywhere. That guy has the leftist mentality and strategy pegged, I mean he fucking nails it. I’ve never seen anyone who explains it more accurately. The more I watch this, it is pure gold, pure freaking gold.

    1. Glad you like it. Sometimes I wonder whether my study of derp is worthwhile.

      Derp in it all its forms is my passion and profession.

    2. Absolutely. I transcribed it a while back and keep it on my desktop to quote from. Derpetologist posted that link sometime back. Priceless.

      Thanks Derp.

    3. I just looked for the link and watched it because of your recommendation. Very interesting. I think his mention about “lack of moral standards” is especially key. In order to be a true progressive you really need to chuck your sense of morality out of the door so you can lie and adopt whacked political priorities while feigning moral outrage to rationalize it all and further the agenda. The indignation is always fake.

    4. C.M. Kornbluth’s novel ‘Not this August’ covers this very sequence.

    5. with Yuri Bezmenov, that is one of the best things I have ever seen here or anywhere.

      Whats more? He hails from a country that gives him first hand experience with the ultimate failures of prog ideology. That man is (or should be) a saint.

      1. There was Vladamir’s Moravian Restaurant in Inverness, CA (west Marin County, on the Point Reyes peninsula).
        According to Vladamir, he had skied out of Czechoslovakia in the early 60s through what passes for the wilderness there. He did so to escape communism, and he expounded on the horror that is communism with slight prompting.
        I enjoyed his food and conversation; most west Marinites were not happy to hear his comments.

        1. I am sad that I did not meet that person.

  19. Eliminating the price system is the ultimate in censorship and collectivists love them some censorship.

    It’s the Holy Grail for them.

  20. OPEN THREAD!!!!

    1. Every thread is an open thread, Comrade. Restricting the proletariat to a single topic is the purview of pig-dog capitalist bourgeoisie.

      1. Some threads are more open than others though.

  21. Looking around at photos on Google Earth. If you look at the ones from the nether regions of the old USSR there are zillions of crumbling, abandoned towns, structures, fortifications etc.

    I especially like the ones with faded, peeling Soviet propaganda painted on them.

    1. I like telling greenies who think communism is the key to environmental utopia to google the Aral Sea.

      1. But look at all of that land that can be farmed with conventional methods!

      2. Given that there are oceans of evidence and countless first hand accounts of the disaster that socialism creates in every sphere I cannot for the life of me figure out why people gravitate to it. I think I know in theory, but I just can’t make myself empathize.

        1. Cynical power mongers and control freaks see it as the road to ultimate power. (Obumbles, Fauxcahontas, etc.)

        2. Barely sentient worthless idiots who see it as a way to make their existence not a waste of skin.

        3. Mental illness.

        1. People gravitate to socialism because it superficially resembles the social structure of a traditional family. Everyone contributes what they can and everyone is fed clothed and sheltered. Dad makes the rules but he does so with everyone’s best interest at heart. However, this structure is only operative if the parents put the long-term best interests of the children above their own. It works because of love. When the parents put their own interests above the good of the children, then you see all sorts of fucked up shit in the family. It doesn’t scale at all beyond the family because no ruler or set of people is ever going to put the interests of strangers above their own–basic human nature. Socialism in the real world is a dysfunctional family written disastrously large.

          1. So option 3.

            1. Basically. Call it a desire to be a child forever.

              1. I get to be the abusive father!!!

                1. Be cautious in what you wish for.

                  My grandfather was fond of saying “hell is having your dreams come true.”

  22. OPEN THREAD!!!!

    What if John Kerry ran for prez in 2016?

    1. I’d love to see Pelosi run. The attack ads would be magnificent.

      1. That would be glorious. Nancy Pelosi in a debate. Didn’t she try to attack Tom Marino with an axe in an immigration debate?

        1. Pelosi can’t think on her feet. I have seen her confounded a number of times when speaking contemporaneously. At least once when asked a question by a child. She just starts rolling her eyes, waving her hands and burbling incoherently.

          1. when speaking contemporaneously

            I think you mean extemporaneously

            unless you are coining a new term for an impromptu contemptuous remark , in which case bravo, sir, bravo. although I think contemptuaneous would be slightly better.

            1. I did mean extemporaneously.

              Thank you.

              *salutes with vodka glass*

              1. *raises can of bohemian style swill*

                gern geschehen!

          2. Are you serious?

            Are you serious?

      2. You mean run for office right? Not just run. When I read your comment I had a vision of vile hag running down a beach in a bikini. *gag, cringe and shiver*

        Then again maybe that is what you meant. Hey, whatever gets you going.

        1. Aaaand there’s another part of my brain I need to have euthanized.

          1. Baywatch: Pelosi Edition.

            1. “Baywatch: Pelosi Edition.”

              Bay(not)watch.

  23. I just saw someone on twitter claim that arguing in favor of a Mexican border fence is the same thing as the Berlin Wall.

    I can think of no difference between those things.

    1. something else identical: a security wall between Israel and the West Bank

    2. I can think of one thing they will have in common. Neither stop people from going where they want to go.

      1. The snipers on the Berlin Wall certainly made it harder.

        1. Goddamn campers.

        2. “The state-funded Centre for Contemporary History (ZZF) in Potsdam has given the official figure of 136 deaths, including people attempting to escape, border guards, and innocent parties. However, researchers at the Checkpoint Charlie Museum and some others had estimated the death toll to be significantly higher.”
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..erlin_Wall

          The border guards get not a scintilla of sympathy from me.

        3. “The snipers on the Berlin Wall certainly made it harder.”

          My point exactly. People still got through. We put up a wall from the pacific ocean to the gulf of mexico it won’t have snipers.

          Drones? we could have machine gun laden drones patrolling with infrared cameras and people would still get through.

        4. I remember seeing a documentary where they discuss the ‘new, improved’ wall the East German government was planning for the 90s. It had MICROWAVE CANNONS. Given the quality of East German engineering at the time I can’t imagine that going bad.

          1. Why fire microwaves at people when toasters would likely do the job for less?

          2. “Given the quality of East German engineering at the time I can’t imagine that going bad.”

            Spook 1: The Russians could deliver a suit-case nuclear weapon to any US city.
            Spook 2: Not possible!
            Spook 1: Why!
            Spook 2: Russians have yet to master suit case technology.

  24. People are freaking out because Nikki Minaj’s new music video appears to contain Nazi imagery.

    Well, it sure is a good thing no one uses the imagery of other mass murderers to promote their products! Otherwise it would be hypocritical if people weren’t equally outraged.

    1. I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she never learned about WWII in school.

      1. I’ve come across a few fairly typical products of inner city public schools who didn’t know what it was. So I don’t think it’s too far-fetched.

        1. lap83|11.9.14 @ 11:37PM|#
          “I’ve come across a few fairly typical products of inner city public schools who didn’t know what it was. So I don’t think it’s too far-fetched.”

          Recently, I mentioned the long economic shadow of WWII to someone who I thought had some education. I was asked whether it started when Germany bombed Hawaii.
          True story…

          1. I had a public school teacher tell me the Axis powers were Germany, Italy and France. I tried really really hard not to giggle at her. I failed.

      2. She probably thinks that “Nazi” rhymes with “jazzy.”

        1. +1 Brad Pitt

    2. Given all of the cheerleading for communism today I don’t see cheerleading for nazism as any more outrageous. Nazism is, after all, just a slightly different flavor of socialism.

      1. With better uniforms.

        1. And fewer murders!

  25. GB/Chi lived up to MNF standards, including Costas trying to inject gravitas into a goddam boring football game.
    But, hey, the 9ers won in spite of our QB trying to hand it over to NO.

  26. OT: How Larry Hogan used tax data to turn Maryland red

    Here is where objective data came in that told the complete story and trumped O’Malley-Brown political spin. The IRS compiles statistics on tax filers’ addresses, which the agency’s Statistics of Income Division uses to show who is coming and going to every state and county in the nation. Maryland’s numbers were pathetic, yet they were being ignored. While more than mere numbers to residents who were losing friends and relatives to other states, the issue of tax flight was not quantified.

    Change Maryland researched and reported on the data, put it in a user-friendly format and made it widely available. The bottom line was stunning. Maryland lost $1.7 billion in taxable income to other states in just three years under O’Malley and Brown. Maryland joins high-tax states in the Northeast, Midwest and California among those with the largest exodus between 2007 and 2010. Maryland saw the seventh-highest negative net migration in the nation, hardly a beacon of prosperity. Hogan’s opponent could not refute the facts.

  27. Brown was also caught flat-footed trying to explain the tax legacy of his administration, which many believe is the main reason why Marylanders are moving out. Change Maryland listed the administration’s 40 increases in taxes, fees and tolls buried in state government documents, put them in a table and gave it to the press. The report determined that the new taxes were costing Marylanders $3.1 billion a year ? on top of the levies they already were paying. Hogan reached voters in a lousy economic recovery fed up paying the government more ? at the toll booth, at the cash register, on their state tax returns, when they get a birth certificate and when they renew a driver’s license.

    This is what more politicians need to do, especially libertarians: assemble the economic facts and present them. We could undercut the entire “the government needs more money” argument with an approach like this.

    1. Wait, whut? A number of really smart people on the left told me that higher taxes stimulate the economy. Why no less than Paul Krugman says that having government agents create more expenses and difficulties, even to the point of sabotage, forces businesses to become stronger and smarter.

      Holy crap, maybe I have had too much to drink. Really. 12 oz of vodka.

      1. And the smartest thing to do is get the fuck out of that tax jurisdiction, so Krugman is right! (stopped clock)

      2. Speaking as a business owner, Dr Krugabe can go dick himself.

    2. Anybody who needed these facts printed is a fool, but many of them are voters.

      Everybody in Maryland already knew this to be true instinctively. Even the liberals will grumble about the taxes while assuaging their consciences with bullshit platitudes.

      The employment situation in Maryland is dismal, and what little improvement it has seen since 2010 has come from three factors:

      1. Federal government employment, i.e. on the backs of the other 49 states;

      2. People leaving the state, including many of the long-term unemployed;

      3. State government contracts favoring keeping people employed instead of getting work done.

      Needless to say, none of these 3 factors are sustainable. Eventually we will end up with nothing but state and federal employees, with the former paid from the taxes on the latter. The state will be entirely beholden to the rest of the country, and once people in the other 49 states start waking up to that fact, Maryland will be well and truly fucked.

      I’m sure all those people who tout this state as a model of progressive governance will develop convenient cases of amnesia when that happens. I am hopeful that the new governor will roll back some of the excesses, but most likely he will be another one-termer who keeps this dysfunctional shitshow limping along awhile longer.

  28. my buddy’s step-sister makes $87 every hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for ten months but last month her check was $15488 just working on the internet for a few hours. you can look here….

    ????? http://www.payinsider.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.