I honestly can't think of a better use of political power than to harass and antagonize your enemies while entrenching your people in power and making sure that your people are well paid in the process.

Only 2% of White men between 18-29 are welfare recipients. Who is the audience for this ad?

Texas’s school color makes a lot of sense. It’s the color of the student body.

Fixed it for you

Tennessee Officials: Gates open at 9am on Saturday. Texas fans at 9am on Saturday.

Bungie... Infiltrated by leftists. Blizzard... Infiltrated by leftists. BioWare... Infiltrated by leftists. Rocksteady... Infiltrated by leftists. Naughty Dog... Infiltrated by leftists. 343 Industries... Infiltrated by leftists. CD Projekt Red... Infiltrated by leftists. Rockstar Games... Infiltrated by leftists. Insomniac Games... Infiltrated by leftists. Bethesda Softworks... Infiltrated by leftists. Nintendo of America... Infiltrated by leftists. Santa Monica Studio... Infiltrated by leftists. Microsoft Game Studios... Infiltrated by leftists. Digital Café... Still safe.

> Racism is the brother of transphobia, which are children of homophobia and misogyny, whose are children of capitalism (and the patriarchy is behind all of them)

Fun Fact: DJ'ing only requires 7 out of 23 chromosomes.

"Texas is an idea" is "gender is a social construct" for states. It is a queering of geography. A nu-Texas not defined by a "race, religion, class or creed," a valueless, floating signifier, loosely tied to the consumption of sportsball. This is an attempt to "troon" Texas, to derail it from the track of history. So if you turn against Trump, the Man of our Time, you experience a queering of Time. You derail, become an empty, floating vessel, and fall into an undimensioned sub-domain, otherwise known as Troon Space.

Modern democracy, with universal suffrage, always goes bankrupt over time. Why? Because closely-contested votes are determined by swing voters, which means voters who are easily swayed. There don't have to be a lot of them. Two percent will do, because two percent is the difference between 49% and 51%. This has two first-order effects. First of all, it strips consistent voters of political representation. If you are part of a group that consistently votes Purple, then the Greens won't offer you anything, but neither will the Purples, because they not only don't have to, but because they have to focus their efforts on the swing voters. Secondly, you end up in a situation where the best, and the only viable, political strategy is "bribe swing voters". Elections, at this point, are no longer a contest of ideas, or a debate over the best interests of the nation. They are an auction, where minorities with X amount of votes collectively negotiate their sale to political parties for Y amount of taxpayer dollars. So, neither party is fiscally responsible. They can't be. To be fiscally responsible is to lose. What this means is that government spending is a ratchet... it only turns one way, increasing but never decreasing. Even those who would love to cut spending can't. Instead, they have to try to accumulate political power so they can, which means spending money to bribe swing voters. They end up kicking the can down the road simply because the system effectively forbids anything else. The second-order effect of this is that the nation moves inevitably towards bankruptcy. Why? Because you cannot increase taxes forever. Up to a point, increasing taxes increases the money you get from taxing. But then you reach a point where increasing taxes actually gets you less, because you taxed people too much, and now they don't have as much for you to take. (It's called the Laffer Curve, but when you get there, no one is laughing.) But then you have to spend less, right? Because you have less? Wrong. When you get to the top of the Laffer Curve, you have to keep spending because the reality of elections won't allow anything else. So you print money. But what you don't realize, or maybe you do, but you have no choice, is that inflation is also a tax. A 5% annual inflation rate is a 5% flat tax. But it's not a 5% flat tax on income, it's a 5% flat tax on total net worth. It's taking 5% of every dollar-denominated asset, every year. And since it is a tax, it moves you up the Laffer Curve in the same way. It makes your society poorer, your direct tax revenue less, and also reduces your effective income from printing money because your currency is worth less now. This can happen very fast if you live in Zimbabwe, and your politicians all have double-digit IQs and don't understand any of this. Or it can happen slowly because in you live in America and your politicians do understand this, they just have no choice. But it always happens, because the ratchet only moves in one direction. The amount of money that universal democracies eventually spend is "all there is". @elonmusk found out about this with DOGE. He worked his ass off finding hundreds of billions to cut from the budget, but he was surprised and dismayed when that money was not actually cut from the federal budget, just traded away for political capital. Which was, in fact, always the plan. Because in a universal democracy, there is no political path to budget cuts. He then expressed the hope that if we cannot tame the devouring monster, we could simply leverage emerging technologies like AI, robotics, and space capitalism to increase productivity and stay ahead of the monster's appetite. But you can't. Because universal democracies don't devour a fixed percent of society wealth. They devour All There Is. You can't appease All There Is. You can't satiate it or satisfy it. You can't put it on a diet. And you can never shut it down with the political process, because swing voters control elections, and they will never allow anyone who does this to retain the political power to keep doing it. The ratchet only spins one direction. This means that a political collapse is inevitable. But not all political collapses are the same. Some political collapses are the Supreme Soviet voting to dissolve itself. Others are a Rwandian Machete Party. The trick is that when the normies finally realize they are being taxed to death, and are ready for a change, there need to be new leaders who understand that the problem is not the budget, the problem is universal suffrage. Leaders who are willing to ignore the usual collection of abstract-principle wankers cheeping out "Who decides?" like a small trained birds. Because somebody has to decide. Look where not-deciding got us.

Look at the comments. They’re literally just trying to sell the shirt.

If the GOP went after the 16th amendment half as hard as the DNC goes after the second, maybe this country wouldn’t be devolving into communism from both sides?

You are not far from the kingdom of God.

And this is just a tiny fraction of all the abuse consumers are facing. Higher prices, smaller portions, worse ingredients, worse customer service, worse quality control, bad experiences, bad employees, dirty stores, it never ends. And that's just food. It's everything.

It’s time for me to clarify my policy positions on voting. I believe the primary purpose and effect of elections is to confer a sense of legitimacy to illegitimate acts of the state. Candidate elections are not in any way shape or form an effective means of representing the will of the American public in any meaningful way. This isn’t an opinion, it’s basic data-science. Therefor, I am explicitly opposed to voting and suffrage. I explicitly support any proposal to reduce the available voter pool if for no other reason than to further frustrate and agitate the electorate against the state. I’m relatively indifferent to proposals that change the process itself, but in general if they make people feel better about the electoral process they are likely counterproductive to libertarian ends. I don’t think you should participate in elections unless doing so helps you legally avoid some nonsense like taxes from the state, or if it provides a means of educating potential voters to the evil of the state. If you do participate, I think you should write in invalid candidates (Like Jesus, the best candidate) or choose “None of these candidates” in Nevada to signal your clear disapproval of the process. This analysis applies specifically to voting for candidates, not issues. Voting against state coercion in direct referrendums is a different analysis. If you can directly vote against some aggression, you probably should. But this is never an option when voting for candidates. And that’s about all I have to say about that.

Gay race communists are larping as libertarians now, making up weird bullshit about property rights that George Washington would shoot them in the face for. Listen, you balsa-wood frying pan, if you don't think property can be held collectively, go hit a beehive with a stick and see what happens to your dumb ass. These clowns don't really understand property rights at all, because to them, rights are just some shit they heard once and it sounded okay, so now they just make up shit about them based on whatever they think sounds good, too. But the word "property rights" comes from two Latin roots. "Property" meaning "shit I invested my time and effort in". "Rights" meaning "I will hurt you if you mess with it". So if we put that together, "property rights" means "if you mess with the stuff I worked for, I will hurt you". That's how a creature as simple as a bee still manages to understand property rights when gay race communists don't. It's not just because the bee is smarter, it's also because bees put effort into things, and bees know how to hurt people. Both investment and violence predate humanity, therefore so do property rights. This means they aren't just some shit we made up. The only thing we invented was the words. Which means you don't get to argue about what they are. They are not a matter of opinion. They are exactly as I describe them here, and if you disagree, then you are just wrong. If you don't think property can be held collectively, you are wrong. People can band together to put effort into building something, like a house, a corporation, or a nation, and they can band together to hurt people who try to take it. Investment + defense = property. Without defense, there is no property, and without property, there will be no investment, because no one, not even some Boomer who doesn't have the sense nature gave to the humble bee, is stupid enough to keep putting efforts into things that will just get taken from him. Socialism isn't ass because it holds property collectively. Everybody holds some property collectively. It's ass because it takes from investors and gives to non-investors. Socialism is an inversion of property rights. It forbids the violence of the investor defending his property, and endorses the violence of the robber who steals it. Americans are the heirs of those who invested in America. Property rights means they control that investment and defend it from robbers. A robber isn't just anyone who steals your property to keep it. He's also anyone who steals your property to give it to someone else. I recommend dealing with him the way Washington would.

2006 me: Hanging witches! Wow, the Puritans sure could be a backward people 2026 me: Witches are real and they must burn

"if Appalachia was a third world nation for white people" You'd get an economy roughly the size of Spain's, divided among half as many people, giving you a GDP per capita comparable to Finland or Canada. Finance & manufacturing are the top industries (15.6% & 14.1% of regional GDP, respectively). Note the irrelevance of tourism (3% of GDP) compared to other 'third world nations.' Appalachistan would have a slightly lower Gini coefficient (less income inequality) than the U.S. as a whole. The unemployment rate is ~4%, comparable to the rest of the U.S. & half of France's. Counting associates degrees + bachelors, Appalachistan would have a tertiary educational attainment rate of 39%, higher than the EU. Counting bachelor's degrees only (4 yrs in the U.S. vs. 3 yrs in the EU, so biased toward EU), Appalachistan's educational attainment is comparable to Germany (29% vs 30%).

And that’s everything wrong with the LP.