i'd tweak this a little bit, in investing more effort into separating between mlms and communists. i'd identify as both an anarchist and a communist, but not as a marxist (despite citing marx fairly frequently) and certainly not at all as any kind of leninist or maoist. nihilism is likewise a complicated term, and the author is actually using it wrong, here; i would certainly identify as an existential nihilist, while rejecting colloquial uses of either term.

but, i think this gets an idea across.

http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp001550.html

it's hard being a legitimate anti-capitalist and legitimate leftist in this society, because even the self-identified "left" ends up turning on you at every point that you question the status quo.

how the fuck did we get to the point where the so-called left stands up for religion, supports cultural segregation and upholds property rights? i'm not even telling you what to believe. i'm telling you to stop pretending you're on the left of anything at all. there's never been a left in the history of the world that holds these views. but, this is what we call the left, here.

and, when you actually present leftist ideas to self-identified leftists, this so-called left repeats the same capitalist reasoning that you'd get from any other set of capitalists.

this has been the core of my messaging for years: these people that walk around calling themselves "progressives" and "liberals" nowadays are what we historically have referred to as conservatives. and, the people that call themselves "conservatives" are what we have historically referred to as nihilists, or even barbarians.

i don't want to pick a side between conservatives and barbarians; if we can't have socialism, what is truly left is shades of barbarism. i'd rather stand back and criticize you all. maybe, once this era has passed, i'll be seen as a voice of reason in a period of madness. if the voice survives, i suppose.

...but, all i've ever done is criticize progressives from the left. there is absolutely no evidence that i've ever aligned with these people, and no basis to be surprised by my continuing criticism of their politics, nor any reason to think that criticism will ever subside.

once again: i am not a "progressive", and i am not a "conservative". i'll accept "liberal", but only with a small-l and in a historical context.

i'm an anarchist. i'm a socialist. i'm a communist.

i'm the textbook leftist that makes you realize that you're not, that most of the things you believe in are either very centrist or are downright conservative.

i'm the mirror in which you can see your own embrace of capitalism in.

and, i've been telling you we're not on the same side for years.

well, i mean, what would you rather: seniors forced to retire early (many of whom don't need government checks at all), or 35% youth unemployment and soaring welfare and disability payments, leading to a generation that never gains the experience it needs to take over?

there's your new philips curve: the longer you keep old people working, the more you create young people that have no future outside of social assistance and damage the long term prospects of the country to recover from the boomer catastrophe.

and, no: you can't solve this by bringing in refugees, either. 

i don't think it's a choice: you push the old people out. it's a no-brainer.

so, we need to design policies to prevent this, even if it means encouraging early retirement on government funds. the focus needs to be pushing older workers out of the workforce as quickly as possible, not in trying to convince them to hang on.

these policies don't need to be forever, they just need to get us over this demographic bump.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/job-market-older-workers-1.4101163

http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/seniors-and-the-generation-spending-gap/

here's a fucking reality check, guys.

 According to the Pew Research Center, Americans 65 and older are 47 times richer than those 35 and younger.

and, you're worried about finding ways for young people to support old people? it's a priority rooted in delusions, in a world where data doesn't exist.

how about we put in a special tax for retirees to pay for universal tuition?

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/08/old_people_getting_richer_young_people_getting_poorer/

did this report bother to empirically analyze which generations have wealth to share and which don't? because such an empirical analysis would make it clear that we should be taxing retirees to pay for social services: they're the ones with all of the money, whereas the younger generations are mired in debt, for the precise reason that the older generation refused to pay for anything.

i think what the government needs to do with this is recognize that it's in a special case. there was a demographic bulge, and it was able to skew resources towards itself. their parents suffered, and their kids have suffered, too. at some point, that has to reverse, and resources are going to need to be pulled out of this bulge. what the report is really highlighting is that we're not going to be able to allow this to happen naturally. we're not going to be able to just wait until they die. we're going to need to start distributing resources from rich retirees to less rich retirees, and tell them to their face that they reap what they sow.

if you follow the data properly, you're actually left to conclude that we'd be better off *lowering* the retirement age, in order to shuffle wealthy retirees out and give younger people the opportunity to move into higher wage positions, and generate some savings of their own.

but, whatever the state does to adjust to this over the next twenty to thirty years should be seen as a temporary reaction to a special demographic problem, and should not be intended to be structural or binding on the next generation.

actually, i think you need to tax old people to pay for old people.

they have all of the money, right? the root of the problem is that they're sitting on it. so, they're going to need to pay for themselves.

i usually attack the "most vulnerable" line as a bunch of high tory anglican gibberish. but, this idea that seniors in canada today are vulnerable is complete nonsense. it was true of their parents, for the reason that the boomers wouldn't support them. but, now the boomers are sitting on all of the money they wouldn't give their parents, and won't give their kids. this is the 'me' generation, after all.

they're not just not vulnerable, they're astoundingly wealthy.

no. stop. there's no choice. they ruined the economy. they slashed state finances. they've left unemployment and debt. their own savings are not only sufficient to cover their costs, but they're the only source of wealth that there is.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3428212/old-age-security-report-cd-howe/

what?

the senate descends from the house of lords. it's meant to represent the interests of property, as a counterbalance to the house of commons.

this is a bunch of fucking bullshit. and, that's the exact language you should use, as you send your kids to the fucking internet to do some real research.

but, it's not just a bunch of fucking bullshit, it's a scary level of revisionism - the kind of thing we're not just going to look back and laugh at, but the kind of thing we're going to look back and laugh at very uncomfortably.

don't rot your kids' brains with lies. tell them the truth. we have a lower chamber for commoners, and an upper chamber for feudal property owners. the balance of power was initially designed to ensure that the property owners could override the commoners. over time, this fell into disuse - and for good reason, as it is undemocratic. unfortunately, the current government seems to want to return to feudalism. so, it wants to rebrand the house of lords as some kind of guardian council.

i will repeat what i've stated previously: the senate is invalid as a governing body. it can act as a kind of proof-reading institution without any real backlash. but, the day the senate overturns legislation from the house (that has not already been ruled unconstitutional), the social contract is broken and the entire state loses any claim to legitimacy it claims it has.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wise-owls-senate-childrens-book-1.4094066

nobody expected this.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/divide-conquer-richelieus-playbook-the-middle-east-12441

the russians need to communicate, right now.

there appears to be a substantial shift in policy under way in the middle east, with the united states actually supporting the kurds.

if you wanted to end the war against isis, this would be the obvious and rational strategy as they are the only force on the ground that is capable of doing so. the problem is that it escalates the broader conflict. the syrians can't let the kurds carve out a state. and, all of a sudden, the russians and turks end up on the same side, again.

more to the point is that the united states has provided weak or even treacherous "support" for the kurds for the precise reason that it hasn't wanted to end the conflict. it's moves have been calculated to keep the region in chaos. it's the same tactic the romans used to distract their foes: divide and conquer. this shift in strategy may in the end be stupid, but you should expect that to be the norm for the next four years - most of the geopolitical decisions that trump signs off on will be foolish, will continue to demonstrate a deficit of understanding of the underlying chess board and will often act against us strategic interests, perhaps even often in ways that are catastrophic, as this might end up.

turkey is fucking nato, dude. you want to hand the russians the dardanelles? like, what the fuck?

but, the shift - clueless or not - seems to be towards pulling out. that's the story: for the first time in years, the united states is genuinely signalling that it wants out of the middle east, and is making decisions to that end, with the sole caveat that it wants isis removed first, regardless of the other consequences.