Trump is Loki

Why are people supporting Trump? Not for the reasons you think.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditDigg thisShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

30 thoughts on “Trump is Loki

  1. The “academification” is staggering. While everyone shouts back and forth about what “socialist” means and what “democratic socialist” means and what “Marxist” means, we’re all getting closer to the precipice.

    Let me offer this:

    In the real world, the one you, I and all the rest of the people live in, none of these terms have any real utility. They are useful in a classroom setting so that students can cut-paste reports out of Wikipedia and get college degrees. But for real political discussion? Not so much. Here: in all the bogeyman talk about “Collectivism” … Hang on. Wait. Sorry. Isn’t social security “collectivism”? And the post office? And the highways? The water coming out of my tap? That didn’t just magically appear. All the first-world countries have a “collectivist” form of universal medical coverage, and none of them ever say, “Gosh, I wish we had the system the U.S. has.”

    The truth is that our great “democracy” (which isn’t actually a democracy, look up the term) has lots of socialist trappings, and, despite all the talk of the evils of socialism, no one seems to be stepping forward to surrender their own retirement, their weekends off, etc. And those are all things that emerged from the pinko era in which the labor unions (more socialism) went up against cops who were publicly instructed to go in and break the heads of the organizers.

    Stop looking at the labels and playing the intellectual masturbatory game of definitions to the nth degree. You aren’t getting to the armistice because you’re too busy negotiating over what size and shape the table should be.

    • Individualism is not antithetical to cooperative efforts. Cooperation denotes voluntary participation however. Collectivism is all about compulsory activity. I don’t get to opt out of Social Security. I absolutely would if I could. It’s nothing but a Ponzi scheme. And for all those who disagree, look up the definition of Ponzi scheme.

      I know exactly what I’m talking about. I do not support those government programs precisely because as you say they are collectivist.

      And people all loving their government healthcare? Please. Thing is, it’s about impossible to end a government program, especially an economic sector takeover, once implemented. As you say, who is talking about ending Social Security? Almost nobody.l

      • The “Ponzi” scheme of social security.

        A staggering percentage of retirement-age people do not have enough money saved to retire. Google it. All they’ve got is a few thousand in a 401(k) and whatever they’ll get from social security. Without social security? The streets would be filled with homeless old people. Look up what the country was like for the elderly before pinko social security and the pinko medicare system rolled into town. Elder poverty in a developed nation? I’m sorry, but that is prima facie evidence of a failed state.

        No one “chooses” to enter old age without a nickel to their name. That isn’t a “choice.” Unless the money is kept out of their hands until retirement, a lot of people will tap the retirement nest egg for a new TV, a trip to Europe, tuition, a car, etc. Or they’ll make bad investments and end up broke. That is a fact. (See first paragraph.)

        And what happens when they do? Without social security and Medicare, all those penniless old fools will clog the system. And we can’t put them in prison. Why? Because prison is filled with all the people who didn’t get a proper education (another “ponzi” scheme: Ben Franklin never went to high school, and he retired at 42. We should burn all these schools to the ground, they’re just Collectivist traps to sap the essence from the Individual).

        It is much, much cheaper to run the “Ponzi” scheme than to fantasize about the “rational” person who will calmly and methodically run their own economic affairs correctly so that they entire retirement with enough money to live on.

        Similarly, you cannot let some people “opt out.” Taxes for the sewer system? Oh, no. I’m going to opt out. I’ll just crap in a plastic bag and throw it in my neighbor’s trash (I won’t pay for trash pickup either. More Collectivist nonsense, that is.)

        If we got to pick and choose, we wouldn’t have libraries, firehouses, public schools, parks, or any of the rest of it. You can’t run a country with a PBS pledge drive. “And Boston, we need just 563 more donations in order to fund the fire department for another year. Won’t you please contribute to keep gas leaks from blowing up all to Kingdom Come?”

        I don’t like paying taxes, either. But I really, really like that the water taps always work, that I can drive down a road, that the canned food I buy doesn’t have bits of cat in it because that was cheaper (read “The Jungle”) and so forth. And if I have to choose, I prefer taxes.

      • @ alex_the_tired –

        And for some of us (my wife & I) retirement in Mexico is made (almost) luxurious with our Social Security benefits.

      • Come on, alex, you’re better than this. So you really believe that people are so stupid and helpless they need the government to step in and make their decisions and take care of them? That’s the path to tyranny. We cannot trust people with their own thoughts and lives. We know what’s good for them better than they do. It’s the argument of monarchists.

        “No one “chooses” to enter old age without a nickel to their name.”

        Then you go on to say they indeed often do choose to spend their money on things other than their retirement. That’s called opportunity cost.

        Social Security is a failed program. The payouts are paltry. It is FALSE security. “Oh, I don’t have to worry–I’ll have SS.” It is a disincentive for good planning. For many today, there will be nothing for them when their time comes. There is almost no chance I will ever get ANY money from it.

        Fertility rates are in the toilet, largely courtesy of Second Wave Feminism. There will be fewer and fewer workers paying in for all these seniors. What then?

        Such programs are unsustainable. Socialist states fail. Those states with just “some” socialist programs also crash. How many more historical examples do we need of this? There always ends up being too much debt, too many promises, too few paying in, and too many taking out. All these “Western” European countries with massive debts. You cannot pull the massive military spending card like you can with the US.

        Then there’s the taxes. Have you really never met someone who either decides not to start or expand a business because the taxes made it cost prohibitive? How many better products, services, and employment opportunities that might’ve been if not for the taxes necessitated by a welfare state.

        Speaking of taxes, 401(k)s are taxed at earned income rates. They are a terrifically poor investment vehicle, that is except for those using them as slush funds for their fraud and rampant speculation. They were created by GOVERNMENT as a favor to Wall Street. Thanks, Nixon. Anyone who recommends 401(k)s or “invests” in one himself is helping facilitate the next stock market crash.

        Our regulatory agencies hardly keep us safe. The FDA keeps out important drugs as a favor to pharmaceutical companies who would have to weather the competition. The EPA pesters small businessmen instead of taking on big offenders.

        Do you really believe that roads, trash collection, sewers, libraries, schools, fire departments, and parks can only exist when the government pays for them??

      • Seriously, the irony that the “progressive” feminism will destroy the “progressive” social security! But then, internal ideological contradiction is a feature of Leftism, not a bug.

        Then there’s the irony that feminism was astroturf not grassroots. The CIA funded Ms. Magazine. Who benefits from weakened families? The state. Who benefits from a doubling of the workforce? Our corporatist masters.

      • @ alex_the_tired –

        If you didn’t get the message (above) I’ll state it simply: No individual would ever make the foolish mistake of choosing to make unwise decisions regarding his own future retirement because anybody can see what the future holds and can invest his money so that his future is secure. We don’t need the damned SSA to take over our individual options and decisions. FDR was a fool! We know what we’re doing and don’t need the government’s interference.
        And the abundance of privately funded roads and fire departments and police departments, etc. shows that we don’d need government financing.

        Aren’t you smart enough to see that?

      • “So you really believe that people are so stupid and helpless they need the government to step in and make their decisions and take care of them? That’s the path to tyranny.”

        Partly, it’s the stupidity. Partly, it’s the economic realities. According to Fidelity and Vanguard, Baby Boomers (50-67) have $126K on average in their 401(k)s. Those 55 and over have an average of $150K. That’s AVERAGE, which means half the people in both groups have even less. And that means a lot of people have practically nothing.

        Some people have no choice but to not contribute to the 401(k). Salaries are stagnant. Job security is a fanciful delusion. When your kids need shoes you don’t take out an Excel spreadsheet. Sometimes, you say to hell with dinner and order a pizza. It is impossible to have 100% devotion to economic doctrine.

        But the numbers are right there in your face, Jack. PEOPLE DON’T SAVE UNLESS FORCED TO. That isn’t tyranny, that’s just practicality.

        Back in 1974, for instance, men lived on average to 68.2. Women made it to 75.9. Your “retirement” ran about three years. If you were a woman, it ran 10 years. In about three more years, the average man will make it to about 80. Of course social security is in trouble, but only because the adjustment hasn’t been made for longer lifespans.

        And social security was never designed as a guaranteed pension to live on. It was always intended solely as part of a retirement plan. But again, we come back to how a lot of people simply don’t “get” that they’re going to get old and stop being able to work. They put nothing aside, or far too little, or all in one basket.

        I’ve got my spreadsheet right in front of me: I buy bonds, I have a savings account with automatic transfer, I have one of those “loose change” apps to invest a small amount on my own every two weeks (also automatic). My 401(k), still in the low-5 figures, is a terrible investment–you’re absolutely right about that–but my company matches a percentage, so I’m coming out ahead on that compared to others.

        I’ve done the math. I need continuous employment for the next 20 years and I have to salt away at least $500 a paycheck or I’m going to be eating catfood in a dumpster. I pay cash for everything I can, I have one credit card. I am counting on social security (and medicare), but I am also being realistic–it could be a pittance when I get to it, after a lifetime of payments.

        But I know that if I didn’t have the money taken out before I got my paychecks, I would have never put it aside in the first place. Laws to roll back the tide never work. And expecting people to suddenly become investment-wise is like expecting the ocean to stand still.

        “That’s called opportunity cost.”

        You make an interesting point. How many people, seriously now, I’m not trying for a “gotcha” I’m just asking the question in genuine curiosity: How many people, do you think, understand the concept of “opportunity cost” fully, especially as it relates to lost opportunities for compounding of capital? If Wanda Pennington gives up her daily latte (with tip), the three Lean Cuisines a week at the supermarket, the Wednesday afternoon TGIF with the gang from work, and her daily lottery ticket. How much has she saved in a year? About $3,000. Don’t forget that once-a-year trip to Vegas ($1,500). People trade long-term benefit (and I’m one of the people who does this) for immediate gratification all the time.

        It is almost impossible to grind into someone the premise that opportunity cost is woefully underestimated.

        “Oh, I don’t have to worry–I’ll have SS.” It is a disincentive for good planning.

        Now hang on. You present us with people who are too stupid to comprehend that social security isn’t enough, but also argue that people know best about investing? I start from the premise that long-term investing is incredibly difficult for the average person to grok. And I go from that point. Your stance is inconsistent.

        “There will be fewer and fewer workers paying in for all these seniors. What then?”

        As I said, eventually, someone will have to bite the political bullet and raise the retiement age. This will SCREW the laborer class. Working in an office? You can do that into your late 60s with little trouble. Trundling cement in a wheelbarrow or digging a trench? Not so much.

        “Socialist states fail. Those states with just “some” socialist programs also crash. How many more historical examples do we need of this?”

        Jack, ALL states fail. ALL. The middle class is going extinct. When if falls, so will the empire.

        “There always ends up being too much debt, too many promises, too few paying in, and too many taking out.”

        Yes. Fiat currency. And again, that’s true of ALL the countries of the Earth. Maybe there’s a few places with barter systems in place. They’ll survive without any trouble. The U.S.? Where Facebook is a multibillion-dollar “business”? We are well and truly fucked.

        “How many better products, services, and employment opportunities that might’ve been if not for the taxes necessitated by a welfare state.”

        This is the standard boo-scare tactic. What is the percentage of the tax base that goes to “welfare”? You know all this stuff, so let us all in on the figure. The military gets 33 cents of every dollar. Education gets two cents. Where’s welfare? And how much of the taxbase comes from taxes paid by corporations? Which corporations paid zero taxes last year?

        “Do you really believe that roads, trash collection, sewers, libraries, schools, fire departments, and parks can only exist when the government pays for them?”

        Okay. How would you run a “private” sewer system? Who installs it? How do I know it’s working correctly? If they go broke, what do I do then? What if the competition puts in the one next door and it doesn’t work right and raw sewage pollutes my land (and my well, because I won’t have “government” water either)? Where do I go to get all that resolved? Court? Will it be a private court or one of those government-swindle courts?

      • Quite right. People don’t have to save so they don’t. After all, someone or something is always there to rescue people when their the reality of their mistakes hits them. Add to that the fact that our culture encourages instant gratification and protection of feelings at every turn instead of personal responsibility…

        And again, the culture thing. Nobody thinks they need to know about investing. Just contribute to a work 401(k) or do whatever some “financial expert” says. Bonds and mutual funds! Even though, for instance, tax lien certificates and silver are priced so that virtually anyone can get into them.

        Further, we have all been conditioned to a knee-jerk response that whenever crisis emerges we all need to be saved by government action. That is inevitably nearly everyone’s first thought. “A problem! What is the government going to do about it?!”

        I am in my twenties “going without” because I know it’s my responsibility to plan for my own future. I’d love to have the extra money the government takes. It would be a great help to me right now. After all it is MY money. But instead it will go to other people’s futures.

        We both look at these issues with different goals in mind. I look for maximum possible freedom without people being subject to fraud or violence. You are more concerned with everyone doing “well.” Most people are intelligent enough to provide for themselves. But they don’t have to. So they don’t. We as a society could incentivise responsibility. Ignorance and laziness do not equal stupidity or a lack of potential.

        You want to save people from themselves. It isn’t possible. When people fail they should fail.

        The difference between us is that I believe that government is only legitimate when its role is to protect people from violence and fraud. Nothing more. Certainly not from themselves.

        There’s just no getting around the fact that you and your allies openly advocate government theft–yes, theft as it is done with force without consultation or consent–to pay for non-necessities. We need courts, police, and military out of our government and not much else.

        When I say “welfare state,” I am not just referring to “welfare.” I’m talking about ALL “social” spending.

        US Federal Budget expenditures

        Social Security 24%, Healthcare another 24%, food stamps and unemployment etc. 12%, federal agencies 17%. With military only another 17%, dwarfed by social spending.

        In the past, families could care for the elderly. Everyone recognizes that people are living longer which adds a new difficulty. I hesitate even to go here as it opens one big can of worms. Suffice to say that the past several decades, respect for and the valuing of families and the elderly have been dangerously weakened.

        Also keep in mind, I do not mean to imply that today’s economy provides opportunities for all. I am advocating a massive reordering of society–not merely the dismantling of social programs alone. But again, this is another topic entirely.

        All states fail in the sense that nothing is eternal. I’m not going to win you or anyone else over here. I think governments should be fiscally responsible. I think that will lead to greater longevity for a nation. I don’t think that’s too controversial.

        Now history shows us that “empires” (and I use that term loosely), eventually enter a stage of decline marked by decadence, indolence, and a loss of values that created and sustained it. I would like to believe that at some point in the future, since it seems all but impossible for the US, that some nation will learn to turn this around.

        Two of my favorite examples are Sparta and Rome, both of which adopted proto-feminist and other reforms that contributed to their decline. A fascinating topic in its own right. Point being, I don’t have to guess about the weakening of families, traditional sex roles, and cultural cohesion leading to the fall of countries. People get soft with success and start forgetting what made them great in the first place. It has happened before and is happening to the West today before our very eyes.

        I don’t know exactly how private sewer systems would work. It’s an interesting question. I don’t know everything quite yet. 🙂 I have little doubt it could be done though. A private company would install it. You would know it works because the company could only stay in business if it provided a good service. If however, it did go broke, another company would buy its assets and assume maintenance. And as with any other time someone infringed on your property rights, yes, if your property were polluted, you would find restitution in a government court because that’s its job. To protect your person, which includes the products of your labor, i.e. property. I don’t think any of this is too hard to imagine honestly. People need their waste taken care of. It’d be a good business to be in. “Recession-proof” as they say.

        Thanks for giving me things to think about. I always enjoy your posts, alex.

    • I’m afraid I must disagree, Alex – how can we have a discussion if everyone uses the same words to mean different things?

      But more to the point, we have a couple trolls who insist they are economic experts, yet they’ve never cracked a book, taken a class, or even googled the words they throw around so casually. If you were discussing calculus, and a self-proclaimed expert insisted that subtraction and multiplication were the same thing, would you take them seriously?

      Americans have been carefully conditioned to believe that communism involves police states and atheism, and that kind of knee-jerk Pavlovian idiocy is precisely what I’m fighting. If we want to convince people that other economic systems are viable, we first have counteract that programming.

      • On the contrary, Americans have been conditioned to believe social programs are part of a free market system! Americans haven’t had to be conditioned that communism involves a police state and atheism because it always HAS. You know, historically? It is antithetical to both liberty and Christianity. Unfortunately for you, people know at least this.

        Ah, yes. If only I had taken university economics classes in which I’d have been inundated with failed Keynesian or Marxist ideas. The Austrian School is in fact the one with desperately needed ideas that have been systematically marginalized for decades.

        And what was your argument regarding The Wealth of Nations? That I cannot be in favor of free markets because Adam Smith recommended progressive taxation? That I’m supposed to believe he is some infallible god if I’m to be a capitalist? One of the stupidest arguments I’ve ever heard. Keynes was brilliant too. And he made mistakes too.

        And since you’re such an expert on The Wealth of Nations, you’re aware it is one hell of a tome. I have it here next to me and will get to it when I can. You have quite an advantage on me in years. I have not had the chance to read everything under the sun just yet.

        I am no economic expert. But neither are you nor are the Keynesians who run the world. You see, one can have all the credentials and experience in the world and still be WRONG. See: Dick Cheney.

      • Cute. And ironic. Someone states what communism is and you respond in predictable knee-jerk fashion. Typical Leftist projection.

  2. hmmm, as reasonable explanation as any. When Baby Bush ran for his second term, I said that if we were collectively stupid enough to elect him, then we obviously needed the lesson that his presidency would give us. (I’d say “teach” us – but I’m not so sure our electorate is capable of learning)

    I’ll say the same about Trump. I sincerely doubt he’ll make it through the primary, and cannot believe for an instant he’d attract the swing voters if he did.

    Trump v. Sanders would be a great race, doncha think? It’d be a contest between who can *alienate* the greater number of voters: the Socialist or the Reality Show host.

    Too bad too many of the electorate got no idea what socialism is, let alone “democratic socialism”

    • So you’re in good company then! The last people who will ever know what socialism is are “democratic socialists” like you. A contradiction of terms if there ever was one. Like a left-wing libertarian or theistic atheist.

      The only way useful idiots learn what socialism really is is directly from the real socialists–right after they secure power. You’ll be on the receiving end of their purge because your usefulness will be up. Marxists have no time for concepts like
      rule of law, due process, or freedom of thought. Just take a look at any number of socialist revolutions. But hey, if they do succeed, at least you’ll have died for such a worthy cause, eh, CrazyH?

      • From my experience, the two largest groups of people who know nothing about Marx’s analysis are:

        1) those who say they are Marxists and
        2) those who say others are Marxists.

        Neither Karl nor Groucho wanted to belong to a club that would have them as members.

      • > Marxists have no time for concepts like
        rule of law, due process, or freedom of thought.

        As usual, you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about. Here’s some hints: Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, he wasn’t a Socialist, and neither am I.

        Now here’s the part that will blow your tiny, little mind: if you insist that Socialism is a dictatorship – you would be in agreement with Marx and little ol’ me. But then, by the same token, capitalism is likewise a dictatorship.

        To avoid further mockery and scorn: tell the class what that token is.

      • @Glenn:

        “All I know is that I am not a Marxist.” – Karl Marx But then, I’m betting you knew that already.

        I once saw a little white boy call another ‘nigger’ – it was obvious he had no idea what the word meant, he just knew it was a bad word. Similarly our local useful idiots have no idea what ‘communism’ or ‘socialism’ actually are, they’ve just been told over and over that they are some sort of bad thing.

        If they had the brains god promised a turnip, they’d come to realize they’ve been lied to. An especially bright turnip might even try to figure out who & why.

        But our useful idiots? Oh, hell no, they’ll just go back to picking cotton & dreaming of the day they own their own plantation.

      • In order for me to be a useful idiot myself, I’d have to support the current corporatist status quo. Since I do not…

        Marxism has “come a long way” since Marx. You are trying to distract here. It doesn’t matter what he believed. What matters is the ideology his admirers created and also those who usually unwittingly hold similar beliefs. Oh, you wouldn’t call yourself a Marxist or a socialist? Too bad. You are. Of course you don’t want people to know that.

        Here’s the truth. Socialism, Marxism, and Communism are just flavors of Collectivism, which is the belief that the individual is subordinate to the “collective” and can be sacrificed in some way to said collective. This requires violence or at least threat of violence to enFORCE. And by definition, there can be no respect for freedom here. The tiny differences between the different extreme Leftist ideologies are just that: inconsequential.

        You are far, far too ego-invested in Leftism ever to realize let alone admit that YOU ARE THE DUPE.

      • And derlehrer,

        Enough already. We all know you think I’m a troll. So stop your indirect replies to me and try ACTUALLY not replying. It’s passive-agressive to the point of utter childishness.

      • : Kindergarten teacher voice :

        Jackie? Don’t you remember? I explained it to you a couple months ago … ? I was just goading Flaming BS about it …?

        : pats head :

        It’s okay, honey, don’t worry about it. You just keep picking that cotton and dreaming of the day you get your own plantation. Won’t that be fun?

        : walks away, shaking head and trying not to snicker :

      • @ CrazyH –

        I couldn’t have said it any better than that!

        (Well, maybe I could have — but only with a passive-aggressive retort that might be deemed childish.)

        😀

      • Collectivism does not necessarily imply coercion; see anarcho-syndicalism. Of course, anarcho-syndicalism would only work if everyone were well-intended, in which case any system would lead to just outcomes because people would make sure of it.

        Mixed governance works best: a social safety net and environmental regulations to protect people and the earth along with a market economy to stimulate innovation. But it requires constant fine tuning.

    • BACK IN THE DAY, America’s Continental Congress was contained of a rebellious membership that was about as “socialist” as any reprobate imperial colony could ever (at that time) become … the one common trait of both King George back then and Shaka-Obama today is that they are both institutionally sustained TYRANTS.

      BarryHO selectively practices “soft”(economic)-tyranny in the Anglo/Caucasoid-centric “HOMELAND” bantustans of the West, and drone tyranny everwhere else. But even he is just another Nigger-slave to the Bankster-class.

      The primary tool of the tyrant is the POLICE STATE. Whether it was Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, or Roosevelt, all four were Bankster-appointed, (geater-or-lesser) charismatic heads-of-state in a capital-intensive world.

      Among their own peoples, they all carried BIG STICKS that they “liberally” employed against all economically rebellious subjects.

      Meanwhile, derl neve displays or otherwise discusses any ideas of his own, just insults. At one time or another, he’s proclaims everybody else to be what he incontestably is, a troll.

      DanD

  3. I’ll be using that line for some time now, myself. The essential correctness of the observation is one of those things that once said is obvious, but also obviously takes a keen observer to discern in the first place, or someone else would have drawn it before.

    But there is no Loki without a Thor as well. Just like Loki, figures like Trump can only exist within such an essential duality. it’s like a physical law of the universe.

Leave a Reply