Watching people go into emotional detail about things they “don’t care about” is always an interesting paradigm.



Over time, the probability of an SJW writing a nonsensical and overly emotional race/gender/ethnicity based analysis of movie or video game you like, possibly ruining it for you forever, becomes 1.

Actually it’s 0, because that’s the number of fucks I give about what someone else thinks about something I enjoy.

I remember thinking that would be a solid mindset.

But I too, underestimated the abyss.


Anonymous asked:

Do you like capitalism?



Depends on how one defines capitalism.  Though, most arguments can be settled if people just agreed on definitions. 

I define capitalism as the voluntary interaction between consenting individuals based on self ownership and individual rights.  I love that definition of capitalism. 

Capitalism, according to that definition, is anarchism. 

>getting weird emails in my gmail

>turns out people are emailing me, thinking its the email of a Couple’s Therapist in NYC.

>Look up therapist, turns out she has the same first initial and last name as me.

>Last name is super rare, email her to let her know her clients got mixed up.

>Her family immigrated from Russia/Ukraine/Lithuania and changed their last name, same as ours.

So now I have a relative I never new about in NYC. Sweet.

Over time, the probability of an SJW writing a nonsensical and overly emotional race/gender/ethnicity based analysis of movie or video game you like, possibly ruining it for you forever, becomes 1.

“Anarchists are not opposed to leadership in the sense of individuals who guide or direct other people. What Anarchists oppose are fixed positions of hierarchical authority in organisations in which the leaders are separate from the membership and elevated above the membership in terms of power. Anarchists seek temporary positions of leadership based upon the circumstances and the abilities of members of the group. An Anarchist instance of leadership would be that when a car breaks down it seems that the mechanic in the car should lead the repair of the car and instruct other members of the group towards actions which help the car become fixed, such as instructing people to pass them tools as they work. As Bakunin puts it “I receive and I give - such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination.””
— Correcting Marxist Inaccuracies on Anarchism (via zahgurim)

(via freexcitizen)

Ben Swann, Why RT Has The State Department So Concerned


Ben Swann was a guest on the new RT show “In The Now” Wednesday, where he was asked about claims by the U.S. State Department that RT is a propaganda channel.

“Is RT speaking to people in the United States the way that other media are not? Without question, the answer is yes.” says Swann

Swann claims that the State Department is concerned about the message of RT and other non U.S. media beginning to break through and pointed out that only a short time ago, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for the United States to create “its own government propaganda channel to compete with RT, China’s CCTV TV and Press TV from Iran.”

Asked about the claim that only 6 companies in the United States control nearly all media, Swann pointed out that some of those companies have changed ownership since 2011 when that claim was first popularized but that the number of media companies in control hasn’t really changed. He also pointed out that even local television in the United States is controlled by a handful of companies.

“Local media, local TV stations are owned by a variety of different owner but even then you have this enormous concentration of power where one company might own TV stations in 50 or 60 TV markets and provide content for all of those TV markets. So, at the end of the day you have a lot of information being concentrated in very few hands.” says Swann.

“The Cable News audience in America, national news audience is shrinking. Old media is dying in this country and new media is rising.”

Nevertheless, RT has come under fire from not only the state department but from other media in the United States. Especially after RT America anchor Liz Wahl quit live on air. Swann says that evidence of the false left/right paradigm in media can be seen when all media find a common enemy.

“We have a left/right paradigm in this country where media pretends to be at odds with each other over the left wing and the right wing. But in reality when both of those wings begin attacking one particular entity, in this case RT, then you know that paradigm is starting to break down.”

Swann goes on to point out that because national media is controlled by so few executives, it has become increasingly controlled by the crony system. That, he says, is the greatest danger to journalism.

“Those executives are becoming so entwined in a crony system with politicians, that it really has become a form of propoganda. Where on the local level and in the newsroom level, journalists don’t really have a say. They are not allowed to talk about certain issues in this country. We are not allowed to show certain pictures. I just had a conversation with someone today, I asked them, ‘When was the last time in the United States that we saw a picture on national or local television of the aftermath of a U.S. drone strike?’ And they couldn’t tell me. The reason for that is because we don’t show those pictures here. American media refuses to show those images.”

You can watch the full “In The Now” segment here:

(via priceofliberty)

With Albany rocked by a seemingly endless barrage of scandals and arrests, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo set up a high-powered commission last summer to root out corruption in state politics. It was barely two months old when its investigators, hunting for violations of campaign-finance laws, issued a subpoena to a media-buying firm that had placed millions of dollars’ worth of advertisements for the New York State Democratic Party.

The investigators did not realize that the firm, Buying Time, also counted Mr. Cuomo among its clients, having bought the airtime for his campaign when he ran for governor in 2010.

Word that the subpoena had been served quickly reached Mr. Cuomo’s most senior aide, Lawrence S. Schwartz. He called one of the commission’s three co-chairs, William J. Fitzpatrick, the district attorney in Syracuse.

“This is wrong,” Mr. Schwartz said, according to Mr. Fitzpatrick, whose account was corroborated by three other people told about the call at the time. He said the firm worked for the governor, and issued a simple directive:

“Pull it back.”

The subpoena was swiftly withdrawn. The panel’s chief investigator explained why in an email to the two other co-chairs later that afternoon.

“They apparently produced ads for the governor,” she wrote.

The pulled-back subpoena was the most flagrant example of how the commission, established with great ceremony by Mr. Cuomo in July 2013, was hobbled almost from the outset by demands from the governor’s office.

Read More.


found footage