Follow by Email


Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Monday, September 12, 2016

Bad news: revisiting the psychology of Jill Stein supporters, American political dogma, how to deal with this, why I support Jill Stein somewhat alone, the common ground principle, & more

Before reading this article, you must watch the video below at least until 12:07.
And watch the full video below as well. If you think that Ry could possibly be racist, watch the entire playlist.

Revisiting the psychology of Jill Stein supporters, how to deal with this, & why I support Jill Stein somewhat alone.

More responses:

I came in hoping to get a productive discussion about a social issue about the American political psychology, & then it became a divisive debate about climate change and then an even worse debate about the holocaust, and then a whole slew of attacks.

Unfortunately, because no Jill Stein supporters came in to my defense or do so much as intervene to cool down and bring the situation under control (this is an example of how negative things get attention), & this was exactly the type of problem that I was originally talking about.

The individual who attacked me seemed to have a pretty clear violent double-standard, as you can see in the screenshots (I'm going to let the pictures say things for themselves).

I honestly don't know if this person is for real or if they're a shill or what, becuase I cannot believe the type of reactions and treatment I got.

This is an example of how polarized Americans have become in politics;

Just as the bigger problem is described in the video above, American political discourse has become more convoluted, less productive, less civilized, more violent, and overall more of all kinds of negatives.

Why is this occurring? I believe that this is occurring becuase, at least in the example of this the particular Stein supporter, still have the political dogma that Americans had for years.
While the video below does talk about American liberals, the explanation of tribalism actually applies to both liberals and conservatives.

So, from what I observed, what does this mean in terms of how the root mentality of many Jill Stein supporters changed now vs with Obama supporters? Sure, they picked up better values, but those values are only over the roots, & in terms of the down-to-the-dirt nitty-gritty, SEEMINGLY NEXT TO NOTHING.

My theory on why this is such as problem is that;
1. Humans are usually pack animals. Many of us actually want to be a member or part of a group of some sort;

2: in our "education" system, we are taught to accept things without question,

and 3, the corporations & banks exploits both of these by using the mainstream media (you do NOT need to be a fan of Ron Paul to see the video below).

And I have a bad feeling that the Stein movement have been, or at least could be hijacked by leftists who have self-esteem, self-control, discipline, emotional maturity, & a slew of other character flaws who got through school but question little to nothing when it comes to ideas that are not already prepacked & given to them;

This is why I'm now disassociating with Jill Stein supporting groups becuase they overall lack the principles of personal liberty, personal responsibility, and free markets, and often do not understand economics and in some cases don't want to understand economics, instead opting for a bigger government in the economy.

For more details, watch the video below. I'm not doing this in opposition to the FSP and it may look like it's about a different issue, but in reality, this issue is very similar to what I'm facing now.

So while I might post on a Jill Stein supporting community or maybe Facebook page, I otherwise disassociate with the rest of the movement until they get their act together & either get people to be less dogmatic (which is the root problem. I am not asking that they change their minds but rather question everything more & be accepting of new information) or kick out those who make the movement look bad & kick out highly partisan extremists like the individual who attacked me so people would feel less alienated & more willing to join. 

If you are a Jill Stein supporter and you hate what you're seeing here, then try to help change this. You will not change this by sending me p*$$$ant messages to get me to shut up; I will not shut up, and thousands of people have already read my blog and more, sometimes in the dozens, read every day. You can thank the individual for screwing things up for your image & giving me bad news.

You can change this by showing people how to have a civilized and reasonable discussion, and calling out those who smear your public image. Yes, this is a more difficult solution, but it's more productive and better for everyone. Sure, we may disagree, but can it be civil and productive about it?

Now, even though I might've talked about some divisive issues, I wish not to divide, especially over minor issues. We have common ground on a few majors.

Can we all agree that all of the wars the U.S. government is involved in right now is wrong, and that we should at least stop with the interventions? If yes, good. This is the most important issue.

Okay. What if we're both anti-war. Would you agree that sending out armed men in blacked out uniforms and automatic weapons (SWAT teams) to bust people for marijuana is at least a waste of taxpayer's money and law enforcement resources, and at most, is wrong, and that drug usage should be treated like a disease and not a crime? If yes, good; oppose the failed drug war, de-regulate drugs, and change how government agencies treat people who take drugs.

We're both anti-war and anti drug-war. Can we agree that the privately owned federal reserve is a fraud?

We're both anti-war, anti drug-war, and anti-Federal reserve. Can we agree that the big bank bailouts was a scam to keep billionaires float?

We're both anti-war, anti drug-war, anti-Federal reserve, and anti-bank-bailouts. Can we agree that the NDAA and Patriot act are both wrong, and that indefinite detentions and assassinations, and spying on civilians without warrants or even probably cause is wrong?

We're both anti-war, anti drug-war, anti-Federal reserve, anti-bank-bailouts, anti-NDAA, and anti-Patriot act. Can we both agree that TPP/TTIP and NAFTA are both scams to help corporations stay wealthy? Good!

And above all, can we agree that the use of force, threats, coercion, and so on and so forth, except for the defense of self and/or others, is wrong? 

(Also read When is violence justified? | StormCloudsGathering & Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle, the latter article of which gives detail, insight, & information not presented in the former article.)

Now there are a few other issues (economicsgun rights, climate change, etc) that I wish that we can agree on. But those are not as essential as the other issues I brought up.
I highly recommend checking out the Facebook page The Common Ground Movement, which actually does better than I do when it comes to promoting common ground.

Here's another article that relates to a very similar issue; Should you join the Facebook group "Worldwide false flags" or follow Amber Amy, along with division in the truth movement, distrust of blogs, comedy & humor replacing reason & respect, American stereotypes, & Facebook alternatives.

False dichotomies & the guilt by association fallacy. 

One of the tactics used by the individual who attacked me (I'm not naming their name becuase this is not intended to be a personal attack) was guilt by association, & he asserted that libertarianism was a fascist ideology seemingly solely on the basis that Murray Rothbard questioned the holocaust and that Ludwig von Mises had influence on the libertarian movement in the 20th century.

I do NOT agree with all of Mises' or Rothbard's opinions. However, to say that Rothbard is politically a fascist for his historical views is simply wrong, is an example of the false dichotomy paradigm, & contradicts his anti-war views.

A big fallacy on the part of the individual who attacked me was the "all or nothing" type of absolutism. They clearly assumed that I was all-around pro-privatisation & deregulation, even though anyone who has really talked to me & looked at my content would know otherwise. Heck, you can still be a libertarian on other issues without supporting complete privatisation & deregulation (I myself want public roads, emergency services, definately government printed money, etc).

The type of "all or nothing" logic that the individual used is like putting in some the strongest glass shattering subwoofers that money could buy in your car & having the volume controls being either 100% or off with no other setting whatsoever. What I mean by that is that there is no gray area or middle ground.

If you believe in the non-agression principle at heart (not that I advocate following it purely or without question), then in a sense, you are a libertarian becuase you wouldn't use force against others if they respect the rights of others, even if you disagree on say, economics.

To add to this, I've seen that many people perceive that libertarians & people with libertarian leanings are more intelligent (, even in cases of disagreement (

Another thing that I'd like to address is how the person who attacked me can actually be, in a sense, similar to their arch enemies in the sense that they use aggression & violence against those who disagree with them & outside of defense.
It has already been demonstrated that Neo-Nazis & Social Justice Warriors (not calling this individual one, which would be wrong in this case) can sound pretty similar if you take a few specific words out.

So, if this person is not bluffing about killing "brownshirts" on sight (seemingly anyone with different enough of an opinion) (in this case the threats alone are a crime, & for icing on the cake, they threatened a minor, but I doubt that Google+ would do much about it), then they are little to no better, & in some cases, worse than their own enemy.

Even Martin Luther King promoted non-violence when he & the people he was trying to help were facing violence! He held up even better than what I probably would've.

And the way that the individual treated me presented an intellectual level on-par to the types of jingoistic collectivists who says crap like "Kill all the Muslims", "All Muslims are terrorists", or "It's the Jew's fault" or "The Jews did it" or something in that manner. That's what I am trying to get across about collectivism; a lot of people are collectivist without realising it, perhaps in part becuase of self-exceptionalism.
In the case of the person who attacked me, he called me a "bigot", & accused me of being intolerant. 
Not to mention how someone can get onto how socialism is tied with communism (there IS a difference!) & how anarcho-socialist is an oxymoron.

What is definitely contradicting about the person is their claim to be an anarcho-socialist, but their belifs about how to treat those who disagree with them contradicts what it means to be an anarchist; let people do as they please.
And things can actually be deadly if these types of characters ever get real power;

So how would I somewhat bluntly sum up what I think of the person who attacked me? Someone who is extremely hypocritical, philosophically contradicting, closed-minded, a closet authoritarian, & possibly has personal issues relating to power & solving disagreements (the latter 2 are common traits among bullies, who themselves often, or at least sometimes have becuase they often know few positive attributes about themselves).

Yet another problem I have is that they imply believing that all types of libertarians are the same, when in reality, there are not.

And it's a complete myth that libertarianism is inherently right (or left) wing.

Even when it comes to my enemies, I acknowledge differences. For example, there are many groups of white nationalists and some different types, as explained in the article A tale of two cities.

It is possible for me to have a civil discussion, as you can see here, and here. I'll also admit that, when I was younger, I was kind've a quasi-socialist neolibertarian. But now that I'm older & after I've listened to Ryan Dawson's work & Michael Rivero's articles ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS! & So You Think Military Intervention is a Good Idea?, I became seriously anti-war & pro free-markets.

If the person wishes for me to take down the pictures, then they must issue me a full apology, retract every statement made before, & promise to not use violence except in the defense of self &/or others.

The horseshoe theory on the divisiveness of Conservatives & Trump supporters & Liberals & Clinton supporters:

Americans seem love being divisive in politics, & seem to flaunt & embrace ultra-partisan labels.

Here are a few examples in memes:

Image credit: .
Image credit: .

As you can already see in the 4 meme images above, it's common for people to make memes on divisive issues & take an ultra-partisan, stereotypical stance on it. If you want me to show more cases (ie the people I've communicated with), just comment below & I'll be more than happy to do so.


Saturday, September 10, 2016

How much should we trust Jill Stein & the Green party? Plus eliminating political parties, slogan propaganda, the psychology of many Jill Stein supporters & American politics in general

Before we start, I know that this is going to be a topic that many Americans will have strong feelings over. I do NOT identify with any party (in fact, I want to entirely eliminate political parties becuase I feel that they're too easy to corrupt, including the American Libertarian party), and I am NOT a conservative (I hate Neocons and I highly dislike social conervatives). I also want a respectful, productive dialogue, so I am NOT calling names, I do NOT intend to make any accusations, and I will overall talk about this respectfully.

If I get enough responses to this post and/or see more Jill Stein supporters speak out, I may make an update for this article.

And, I actually semi-enthusiastically support Jill Stein. I'll explain why deeper in this article.

Less than an hour after I released the video Who should America vote for president in 2016, & Selected candidates by position on important issues, as you can see in the link, a Jill Stein supporter commented. At first, while this individual was pretty enthusiastic, they did not seem to be too bad.

But then, when I checked out the video Green Party Zionist Jill Stein, Pro-Clinton "Libertarian" Shills Gary Johnson/Bill Weld EXPOSED, which just happened to be released on the same day of my video, the same individual commented in Stein's defense, and I started to get suspicious. 
Certainly, I am NOT into the Gematria and Bible numbers thing or things that many people would call "superstitions" that the author of the "Green Party Zionist Jill Stein" video has talked about, and from what I know, Jill Stein is the most anti-war candidate and the least pro-Israel.

My curiosity was that this person was spam commenting and, fortunately, seems to be getting away with it so far. But, on both my video and the "Green Party Zionist Jill Stein", I've replied to this individual, and only got 1 reply out of them, and no more replies in over a week. 

All of this, along with the comments from other Jill Stein supporters, for me, raises a few questions; 
is the mentality of these people a true improvement over the dogmatic Obama, Romney, and now, Hillary and Trump supporters?,
Which many values do these people have?,
What are their principles, if they have any?,
and perhaps most importantly, 
How much did the psychology of American liberals, and just Americans in general, change?

From what I've seen, especially on a couple of Google plus communities that support Jill Stein (, and while they are not as unpleasent for me to look at as Hillary or Trump supporting communities, and the slogans, such as "a new society", "a new economy", "a new way forward", and "a green new deal" (which is normal, I'll take about this deeper in the article, and political rhetoric usally sounds good), there are a couple of things that are missing;
peace (to an extent), and, definitely, liberty.

While of course, Jill Stein is anti-war and is not an authoritarian (from my knowledge) and in facts, opposes many acts such as the Patriot act and NDAA, she does not talk about liberty as much as, say Ron Paul, and while I like her values much more than almost every other American presidential candidate, Stein's supporters seem to go for the "new" and "greater good" buzzwords in their sloganeering that I wonder if they're cliche or close to cliche. At least Stein is an environmentalist.

I also don't always agree with her economics, but her opposition to war, NAFTA, and the TPP would be great and we can save a bit of money by cutting out domestic spying, too.

As for the psychology of Jill Stein supporters, I am happy that people might not be suckering as much as when they did about Obama or now with Hillary and I'm also happy to see some anti-war and anti-establishment people get on the boat, I am also disappointed to see many liberals who don't think much about liberty and are still missing the principle of liberty. Why is this?

I believe that many Americans are still stuck to listening left-wing websites, blogs and social media, and have not listened to the alternate media (a list of websites can be seen to the left side of this blog). Part of this is our culture, part of this is the echo chamber effect, and part of this is the psychology of American politics in the 1st place;

(Begin at 3:38.)
A big part of this problem is the use of sloganeering by Stein supporters. This issue of sloganeering is talked about in
"Honestly I think a huge part of the problem has to do with language. In political language the terminology they use has to the people lost all of what those terms actually mean. There is, on all sides, become certain terms/phrases that invoke a immediate and emotional response either positively or negatively depending on what it is. As a result politicians, on all sides, use these terms and phrases to win support yet because virtually no one actually thinks, or possibly knows, what the words/phrases actually mean it doesn't actually matter to the people what those politicians end up doing. This is why, for example, there are more people who call themselves conservative than progressive, yet when you ask people specific policy questions overwhelmingly people match up with positions that are far to the "left" of the Democratic party. That's just the example that happened to come to mind, I'm not using it to attack either party or side because it is an issue in politics as a whole not with this or that group.

The terms and phrases are supposed to represent something specific which is why they are "labels"... the problem is that instead of the labels defining a certain policy or in the context of a label for a group/party it defining, broadly speaking, the types of policies they support the labels for both specific policies and for the groups/parties have become to be something that identifies something as right or wrong based on what label "your side" chooses to call itself (i.e. to "democrats" something "conservative" is horrible and to "republicans" something "liberal" is evil) despite the fact that hardly anyone can actually define what it is they are so opposed to other than using the label assigned to them/it. Regular/normal people who identify with whatever group need to realize that despite what groups someone identifies with generally speaking they all share the same goals.... with differences on how to achieve them, but the same end goals nonetheless and that the politicians/media have the goals of the wealthy, corporations, etc... which are very different to the people-orientated goals of most of us. We have got to figure this out and start electing politicians that are like ourselves and actually want the same things we the people want, at least then no matter how inept they may be we will at least occasionally get a win (because even if failing when you are actually trying failing to land on the line means you have a chance to land on either side of that line unlike now when they are intentionally aiming to not land on it and to land on only side.)"

Noam Chomsky also has talked about the use of sloganeering propaganda, albeit on a different issue, but it should help give you an idea; 

And, this is my VERY subjective opinion, for one, I have a feeling that if I were to post my "Who should America vote for 2016?" video on, that it could be taken down with little discussion and at worst, have the post deleted and have my kicked from the community with no discussion whatsoever, and that Jill Stein supporters and 
two, some of these people are not looking for true freedom and personal responsibility and eliminating having a slave master; instead, they want a nicer master, especially in the case of some socialist liberals who do not value true freedom.

I can investigate deeper, and I might when time goes on and, as I said in the beginning, if I get enough responses to this post and/or see more Jill Stein supporters speak out, I may make an update for this article.

To summarize this, from what I can tell, so far, with the Jill Stein supporters that I've seen, while they do seem to talk about more important issues than Obama, Romney, and definitely Hillary supporters, and I highly doubt that there are as many shills as there are with Trump or, especially, Hillary, and I feel like their values have at least somewhat improved (since they talk about more important issues), however, they tend to lack principles (seemingly little talk about liberty), and whatever issues they talk about are predominantly social issues, not so much on foreign policy and seemingly no economics.

Not only that, but also, many Stein supporters seem to be overconfident in the Green party and the way that they present themselves imply that they believe that the Green party is at risk to little to no corruption (I've also seen this with people who associate with the Libertarian party and other parties, too). In reality, political parties CAN still be hijacked and/or corrupted, which is why I wish to do away with them.

If you support Jill Stein and wish to comment, even if you disagree with this article, please give me feedback in the comments section below! It is good to have productive dialouge, and please keep it in a manner that would be positive for your public image (which is very important although many Americans seem).

As for climate change, watch the video when you're done reading this article (it's not vital).

Thursday, September 1, 2016

An open message to fellow Americans on foreign policy

I am somewhat unsurprised about why so many people are wondering why much of the world dislikes the Corporate United States of America, mainly becuase of the controlled mainstream media, the culture of American exceptionalism and the now practically dead "National Greatness" conservatism.

First of all, people around the world almost never hate us for our freedom, let alone are willing to attack us simply for it. In actuality, they almost always hate us for our government's foreign policy.
Mainly, the foreign policy that they hate is that the U.S. government has not only started wars as explained in the videos below,

, but also, is responsible for coups of governments and the installation of dictators in places such as Iran, Chile, Egypt, and more, as explained in the video below
Learn the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism;

For those of you who believe that China or Russia will literally take over the world, here's a few questions that we should ask, inspired by the article 5 Reasons Globalism Will Fail:
1: how much control do they have over information other than what is coming out of their own countries (and even at that things still slip through the cracks)? Is China or Russia controlling all of the world's news outlets? Can they even fully control their own media?

2: will the populace accept their presence? In Africa before Neocolonialism, the Europeans tried to hold onto Africa with direct military force. How well did that work?

3: can they hold a moral high ground? American exceptionalism is already dying, and so-called "National Greatness" conservatism is practically dead ( and where's the Chinese exceptionalism or Russian exceptionalism? People will need to make voluntary sacrifices to keep the empire going.

4: how many foreign military bases do they have? From what I know, China doesn't really have any military bases outside its own borders, and here are the places that Russia has a working military base;
Compare that to the military bases the United States of America has;
And the U.S. empire is already having a bit of a challenging time staying up.

And 5: how are they supposed to pay for this? Russia is already not exactly the richest place in the world (you can lookup on how much of their military equipment actually is from the Soviet era), and Chinese military equipment is often cheap and may or may not be as good as the equipment from other countries (except for aircraft and armored vehicles, which are rougher than their U.S. counterparts and probably more reliable than U.S. aircraft such as the F-35).
Also, China's economy is dependent on exports, and on the ground, many people are poor. Imagine what would happen if NATO and EU countries stopped buying stuff from China, and lots of their already poorly paid and treated workers end up getting laid off? Their economy would be trashed if that happens.

Not to mention how, as explained in PLA: Chinese Military Doesn’t Compare to U.S. Military, China's military is not quite as strong as you think, not to mention how western militaries are more advanced, more experienced, much better funded, and possibly better motivated.

A similar case can be seen with Russia, where their military is, overall, not quite as well equipped as the U.S., and spends much less than the U.S. as well.

Also read the following articles in order: 

I won't bother reposting them here.

Here are the main real reasons that America is doing as poorly as it is;

4. education.

3: culture.

2: money from big corporations and special interest groups, especially from AIPAC and the military industrial complex.

And most importantly,

1: the media.

Just 6 corporations own OVER 90% of the media.
I got the above image credit of Fair use while crediting the source is reserved.

As for 9/11 happening, compare George Walker Bush's or Westboro Baptist Church's explanations for 9/11 ("They hate us for our freedoms" and "God hates America" respectively) to Ryan Dawson's investigation and explanation;

This is exactly why American politicians (especially the NeoCons) and people such as Wild Bill for America have to come up with B.S. explanations for things like 9/11; they cannot talk about the truth becuase the truth is anything but on their side.

This is two-thousand and flippin sixteen, not the year six-hundred AD.

What can we do about this?

First, we need a serious paradigm shift. The best way I can think of is to call up political comedians and to tell them to shut up and get out of politics if they are not going to be dead serious about it, and perhaps more importantly, just boycott them and start listening to the alternate media. I know that these more serious alternate media outlets and people are not nearly as funny as comedians or The Daily Show, but the information provided is a whole lot more important and accurate.

Second, then hold out until we're forced to start a revolution, and do what we can to avoid violence;

We shouldn't depend on the system forever; we should try to get the least worst in, and ride this out until we're forced to bring real change, which is explained above.

If you agree with this article, please share it to every American Conservative Christian who thinks that America is doing badly becuase of its lack of faith to god.

Do you like my "Read if you're making assumptions about me" post?

Google+ Badge