There was a House vote last week over condemning socialism. What does it do? From what I can tell, pretty much nothing, except condemn socialism.

It’s been made out to be a virtue signal by the right, but I think this reveals something significant, which I’ll get into.

You can see the results in the graphic above. What we see out of Republicans isn’t very surprising. Aside from the few who didn’t vote, their condemnation was unanimous. Republicans tend towards limited government and the free market, and it’s great to see them consistent with themselves in this regard.

But let’s get into something concerning that the vote reveals. Democrats should have also been unanimous in their condemnation of socialism. But they were split, nearly half-and-half.

The reason this is sobering is because Socialism is a heavily statist government philosophy which masquerades as an economic theory. It, along with its virtually identical butt-buddy communism, falls under the banner of Marxism. The previous century was the century of Marxism, and it was the bloodiest in all of human history, and it’s not even close. Where Marxism is implemented at scale, death also follows at scale.

The death counts were so high that the margins of error were in the tens of millions.

When asked whether you’d condemn socialism, the only correct answer is “yes”, and it should come emphatically and without hesitation. Yet, the Democrats were split on it, with more saying “nay” than “yay”.

Having a constituency to pander to is no excuse, considering that anyone holding office is expected to be among our intellectual betters, even if the constituency is not.

And, let’s be honest here, Marxists are generally not intelligent. If they appear to win a debate, it’s usually because they were up against someone who knows that Marxism is wrong, but didn’t properly prepare for the debate, likely because they thought that they’d find an easy grand-slam victory.

And the thing is, as stupid as Marxists may be, they’ve studied it extensively enough to present it to those who did not, and they were able to intuit the rules of rhetoric to be able to weild them deceptively against the unprepared.

And stupid people are Marxist for a reason: because capitalism is competitive, and that’s a game which they’d rather not play, because they don’t want to lose. They’d rather that everyone be at the same low level than for some people to be at high levels and some at low levels. Crabs in a bucket.

Let’s not kid ourselves here: some people just can’t succeed in a competitive environment. There’s this idea that everyone can be anything they want to be. It’s a fairy tale that helps people sleep at night. Sadly, some people are just going to work in fast food for years and years, and maybe struggle with it (and when you consider how the Dunning-Kruger effect works, they’ll probably still think they’re too smart for it).

Then along comes Marxism to sell them the pipe dream of equality of outcome. And because gullible people exist in immense numbers, tremendous amounts of bloodshed follow. And all the while, these same gullible people will believe that it’s because people aren’t cooperating.

Marxists are the flat-earthers of economic theory: they win by preying on the unprepared.

And they are a huge chunk of the Democrats constituency. And Democrats themselves don’t have the nerve to tell them that they’re wrong, and know that if they did, they’d split their own vote, and narrowly become a third party to a socialist party, if the above-mentioned House vote is any indication.

How close are we to seeing a repeat of the immense bloodshed of Marxism? I don’t know. It could happen as soon as the left takes control of the major branches of government, and might depend on whether they decide to kowtow to a huge portion of their constituency. And that could be just a few years from now.

The financial capital of the world has just elected a Muslim socialist mayor, less than two-and-a-half decades after both World Trade Center towers were destroyed by a bunch of Muslims.

I know that people have a knack for not learning a damned thing, but come the fuck on.

But wow, what an intersection of mass-murdering ideologies, huh? Muslim and socialist, both at the same time. Imagine the aura of death that comes off of that guy.

I thought that it was legally not allowed for a person to hold office in the United States if they identified as a Communist, in the interest of national security. But it seems they can get around this by instead claiming to be socialist, which is basically identical.

The left practicing equivocation? Imagine my shock!

New York City voters, with the help of a huge number of voters who resided in the city for less than ten years, has just voted in Democrat Zohran Mamdani, who in a recent interview avoided condemning the phrase “globalize the intifada”.

If you’re wondering what “the intifada” is, that’s the repeated bombing of mass transportation, and other terror attacks, in Israel. Mamdani avoided directly condemning that, rather than flat out calling the intifada wrong, like any sane man who knows what that is, especially when presented with the prospect of globalizing that bullshit.

So now, the country is split between those who want to speedrun the destruction of western civilization, and those who want to save them from themselves. Or at least save everyone else from them.

To be honest, I’m starting to lose interest in saving stupidity from itself, and am leaning more in favor of rendering the stupid incapable of causing further harm.

One way of going about it is rendering those who receive public assistance in the form of programs like SNAP ineligible to vote for a few years after the last date in which they receive the assistance. But Democrats would get in the way, considering their obvious incentives to keep people on the public dole.

The “more free stuff for losers” vote is huge.

Best thing that can happen over the next few years is for the damage that Mamdani does to NYC is minimal, which is unlikely considering socialism’s extensive track record of causing immense casualties, before New Yorkers decide “we tried, let’s move on to something that actually works”.

But I’m not betting on it, because stupid people avoid learning their lessons with more passion than they avoid AIDS. And because I’ve worked in grocery and retail longer than what’s good for my mental health, I know that there’s a fuck-ton of stupidity out there.

Yesterday, when commenting on the makeup of the No Kings protest, I pointed out how the vast majority of those in attendance are aging boomers who are just a few years away from not voting anymore.

Since then, I got to thinking about why people joined the hippies, and why people go furry or trans, and as one thought led to another, I began seeing connections, and they seemed to hold up well when considering matters in the broad strokes of recent history.

The recent shooter of Charlie Kirk didn’t surprise anyone when it turned out that he was a leftist. But what was surprising is that he came from a Mormon family, though he turned against his family’s viewpoints, turning hard towards the left. What’s more, he was at least adjacent to the furry community, and was in a homosexual relationship.

Traditional thinking goes that people who are raised in a religious household will maintain said household’s religious beliefs into their adulthood. But in many cases, such as the case of Bulge Rat (Tyler Robinson), they turn against the culture they were raised in.

If you were to study certain communities, such as the trans community and other left-wing communities, you may notice an unusual number of people who grew up in religious households. And, not only that, the households tended to be strict to the point of suffocating the child’s individuality.

For example, Jews can be heavily legalistic, to the point that some refuse to keep beef and cheese in the same refrigerator. The Mormons tend to be strict in their own way. They tend to stock up on non-perishible food, in case the end-time tribulation were to begin tomorrow. I’ve heard of kids who weren’t allowed to watch cartoons or play sports during the Sabbath.

When these kids become old enough to decide for themselves, they often tend towards communities that permit them to express their individualities, sometimes towards communities that are extremely liberal. And whats more, they tend to harbor extreme resentment for their respective families, and for the religions which they saw as stifling their childhoods.

Now, consider the boomer generation, which gave us hippies. Do you suppose that they came from a religious background? I think that’s natural to guess. The generation that preceeded them saw two world wars, and the development of atomic weapons. Considering this, the WW2 generation would have likely believed that the world was about to end. That’s understandable considering that those two world wars saw the deployment of the worst weapons that were available at the time, and shortly afterwards, nuclear weapon stockpiles grew to the point that all of humanity could be wiped out multiple times.

In the face of such annihilation, it’s natural to expect people to lean into their religions. But as parents became overly strict, there would come to be a backlash.

It should be understood that not everyone in a generational group lives up to the stereotypes associated with their respective groups. I see people eschew these stereotypes all the time. But it seems as though the boomer generational group has a disproportionate amount of people who have a distaste for religion, Christianity in particular. In light of this, it’s easy to see why the boomers gave us hippies, and a disproportionate amount of them are sexual libertines.

Their influence on society is difficult to understate. It’s largely due to them that children in the western world today tend to be viewed as an inconvenience rather than a treasure. What’s more, you’d have to search pretty hard to find western made entertainment media which portrays marriage and family in a positive light.

As a consequence of the choices of boomer era liberals, families were broken, communities became more dangerous, societies more dysfunctional, and nations on the verge of falling apart. But while this is obvious to just about everyone else, the liberal boomers obstinately refuse to admit that they were wrong, because they don’t want to go anywhere close to admitting that their religious parents were right.

But what they’re refusing to admit, subsequent generations are learning, resulting in a shift to the right. This shift will become more pronounced as the hippie generation passes away. That is guaranteed.

For those who need to know, parents without a religion tend to be far worse than those with one, by a considerable amount. Not only do they view their children as an inconvenience, there is no moral check on their narcissism, and they’ll only grudgingly show kindness towards their children, usually because they feel an obligation (birthdays, Christmas, etc.). And go ahead and pity the child in such a household when it’s time to punish them. In corporal punishment, the parents tend to go ape shit, and outside of that, their tendency to run their household like a dictator becomes more pronounced.

It’s in light of the left’s tendency to oppose Christianity that their simultaneous advocacy for homosexuality and Islam is easier to comprehend. When left to its own devices, Muslims will kill gays, because they view homosexuality as a sin that merits capital punishment. Obviously, the groups involved cannot be reconciled in the long term. However, each has at least a slight opposition to Christianity.

If it sounds like leftism is a huge anti-Christian club, that’s because it pretty much is. Remember that the term “left” as relates to political affiliation goes back to enlightenment era France, where those who were more traditional and more pro-Christian tended to sit on the right side of the house of representatives, while those who opposed them tended to seat themselves to the left. The political battle that we see today is part of a war that’s been going on for centuries.

As I see it, though, the war might finally be coming to an end, and it looks like conservatives are definitely going to win. Not only is a hugely left-wing generation on the verge of passing away, they’ve shown the obvious outcomes of their experimental ideas, and have left an example that inspires disgust.

And if the hippies are seen in a negative light today, they are definitely not going to be viewed favorably by future generations who will view the record of them with hindsight.

To get right to the answer to the question in the title, yes, the No Kings protest does indeed indicate a shift in the political zeitgeist. But not in the way that people expect.

To understand what I’m getting at, here’s a pic from the protest just a couple days ago:

Do you see it? Here’s another:

See it yet? But we’re not done yet:

And another:

There’s more:

Wait, how’d that get in there? My mistake. Here’s another:

And more:

That one was a little on-the-nose, but you probably get the point. But for those who think I might be cherry picking, here’s one with a lot of people in frame, which you can save to your device and zoom in on, examining at your leisure:

The overwhelming majority of these crowds are retirement age leftists, which, in some cases, turned out in large numbers.

Left-wing social media personalities are pointing at the numbers, and are making them out to be some victory. Because of course they would. If the left’s cheerleaders aren’t making their following feel good, then their following will find someone who does.

But those numbers are not the victory that the left is making it out to be, especially in light of the fact that, however many leftists  mobilized when summoned, they were still outnumbered by the people who voted in the current president, by popular vote no less.

But that they’re currently outnumbered is not my point. And if you still don’t get it, then consider the following question: Where were all the young people?

It’s an important question, considering that the political zeitgeist is already swinging to the right, and quite heavily in some regards. How much more momentum do you suppose the right is going to gain when all those retirement age leftists age out, not just from working, but also from voting?

We all know the joke: that the dead vote Democrat. But to get serious, we might be on the verge of a major swing to the right, much greater than what we’ve been seeing recently, what with people coming to understand the second order consequences of left-wing policies. If all the people who show up to protests in an attempt to relive their pasts are an indication, a previous generation of leftists are going to leave a bunch of younger right-wingers to determine policy, and a swing to the right that we’ve been seeing in recent times is going to gain a lot more momentum.

To further drive the point home, traffic to sites of corporate media outlets, which tend to have a left-wing bias, is continuing their plunge:

Which makes sense considering that the people who trust them are hugely from the generation that is currently dying out. If there’s a characteristic fallacy of the boomer generation, it would be appeal to authority, though it’s selectively applied, as fallacies often are. It’s their tendency to be less skeptical of the things the people on the TV say.

While there are exceptions, people in the boomer generation haven’t done much to exhibit skepticism. To be fair, that seems to happen when people age. If you’ve had to tell someone not to open strange links or email attachments from people they don’t know, it was probably someone from that generational group.

And when you know that people tend to be more gullible as they age, it’s easy to see why legions and legions of old people have shown up in droves to express the delusional belief that the president that was voted in by electoral college and popular vote is actually a monarch.

That these people influence public policy says a lot about the state of the left.

One of the things women learn about dating is to pay attention to how their suitor behaves with those whom they perceive as having an advantage over.

This includes wait staff, the family that they already have, and, of course, animals.

The reason for this is because any indication of abuse from a man would be a strong indication of the abuse a woman would look forward to if she were to enter into a committed relationship with him.

I bring this up because Hasan Piker, one of the biggest breadtubers, is now facing accusations of using a shock collar on his dog live on stream, for the mere crime of fidgeting.

Here’s the footage associated with the accusation:

As Hamas… I mean, Hasan… is talking about violence, his dog gets up, and begins to walk off. Hamas… uh, Hasan… begins to yell at the dog.

Even without the shock collar, this pisses me off. Dogs move around. That’s what they naturally do, and it comes as naturally for them as barking at squirrels. There’s nothing wrong with this. In fact, dog owners have a duty to frequently walk them. That’s a normal part of having a dog.

If you own a dog and don’t even allow it to be a dog, what are you even doing?

Notice how Hamas… You know what? I’m tired of correcting myself when I accidentally call Hasan “Hamas”. He’s a Hamas supporter, so the shoe fits. Let’s get comfortable with calling him “Hamas Piker”.

Notice how Hamas reaches for something just off-camera, then the dog lets out a loud yelp. Hamas’ motion is consistent with pressing a button on a remote device as the dog yelped.

In a subsequent video that Hamas made in his defense, he pointed out that the dog yelped because it clipped its paw on the edge of a table. But we can see the footage. At the instant the dog yelped, we saw its paws, and they were not being injured by anything.

In my opinion, shock collars should be banned, which they are in some countries. The idea of exercising precise control over a small animal with the threat of torture at any given instant is messed up.

And what upset Hamas so much that he yelled at his dog and zapped it? It wouldn’t sit still in-frame, like the good little set piece that he probably viewed it as.

Then, to drive the point home how messed up Hamas is, he then went on a rant about how spoiled the dog is, and how it wants to roam about the house. Like I said before, dogs need to move. Walking the dog is a thing for that reason. But apparently what Hamas thinks his dog needs instead is “structured, regimented” discipline so the poor thing would know to sit still so it wouldn’t ignite his peevishness.

This is the kind of thing that tends to be lethal to streaming careers. You might remember Rich of ReviewTechUSA, and how he fell off. His own daughter wanted to be put to bed while he was streaming. The right thing to do would have been to leave his chair empty in the time it took for him to do his duty as a parent, and his viewers would have understood, and may have even found it heartwarming.

But Rich was not a good dad. He shooed his daughter away, so he could keep right on streaming. This pissed off his viewers.

Of course, it doesn’t help his daughter that there’s footage of her dad floating around on the internet wherein he was playing with his own nipples because people were paying him to do so.

To get back to talking about Hamas, I doubt I would have otherwise remembered him in a few years. For one thing, because I’m already getting his name wrong. But also because I have blended memories of him and another streamer named Density… I mean, Destiny. Okay, maybe I’ll call him Density. Hamas and Density are functionally identical in that they are leftist ideologues and champagne socialists, both breadtubers that are practically indistinguishable and superfluous in respect to one another. It was as though they were identical clones, spit out of the same machine.

But now, Hamas has something that sets him apart, which makes him distinct from his ideological mitosis siblings, but the image of mistreating dogs is not a good look. He was better off being virtually indistinguishable from any other overpaid cheerleader for the left-wing violence machine.

If he’s your hero, then just what are you doing?