To look at a historical analogue:

The system of government was formed whereby leading Nazi officials were forced to interpret Hitler’s speeches, remarks and writings on government policies and turn them into programs and legislation. Hitler typically did not give written orders; instead he communicated them verbally, or had them conveyed through his close associate, Martin Bormann. He entrusted Bormann with his paperwork, appointments, and personal finances; Bormann used his position to control the flow of information and access to Hitler. Hitler’s cabinet never met after 1938, and he discouraged his ministers from meeting independently.

Hitler’s leadership style was to give contradictory orders to his subordinates and to place them into positions where their duties and responsibilities overlapped with those of others, to have “the stronger one [do] the job”. In this way, Hitler fostered distrust, competition, and infighting among his subordinates to consolidate and maximise his own power.

The process allowed more unscrupulous and ambitious Nazis to get away with implementing the more radical and extreme elements of Hitler’s ideology, such as antisemitism, and in doing so win political favour. It was protected by Joseph Goebbels’ effective propaganda machine, which portrayed Hitler as a heroic and infallible leader. Further, the government was portrayed as a dedicated, dutiful and efficient outfit. Through successive Reichsstatthalter decrees, Germany’s states were effectively replaced by Nazi provinces called Gaue.

Should have been “Milky Whey.”

The US does have an anti-semitism problem, but criticism of Israel and the IDF is not anti-semitism. Fuck Schumer for trying to equate the two and therefore empowering both the real anti-semites and the genocidal Israeli regime.

“Encounters” is such a funny way to phrase it. Like he was traveling through the woods on a quest and had to roll on the random table upon which a pack of wolves was also an option.

On the contrary, conservatives have one very strict standard:

“Will this candidate attack the people I hate?”

Everything else is secondary.

She’s beautiful! I love seeing her on my feed, and I’m glad she has a person who loves her as much as you obviously do.

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Matthew 6:5-6

But think of the CEO who could use a vacation house in Jackson Hole.

Fucked up, yes. But how the fuck is the cop supposed to be know who is who.

You realize that makes it worse, right? How the cop is shooting at someone who he has not identified as a threat?

I want to ride on a dirigible so much.

Hermes Conrad. He’s got a level head and knows his way around a bureaucracy.

Almost like the GOP likes Nazi shit.

That’s my point: billionaires are an establishment unto themselves, and they’re already in a cartel to control the US government.

Corey Robin put it better than I can in The Reactionary Mind:

Far from yielding a knee-jerk defense of an unchanging old regime or a thoughtful traditionalism, the reactionary imperative presses conservatism in two rather different directions: first, to a critique and reconfiguration of the old regime; and second, to an absorption of the ideas and tactics of the very revolution or reform it opposes. What conservatism seeks to accomplish through that reconfiguration of the old and absorption of the new is to make privilege popular, to transform a tottering old regime into a dynamic, ideologically coherent movement of the masses. A new old regime, one could say, which brings the energy and dynamism of the street to the antique inequalities of a dilapidated estate.

Your ears you keep and I’ll tell you why. So that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish. Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, “Dear God! What is that thing,” will echo in your perfect ears. That is what “to the pain means.” It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.

That sounds delightful.

How anyone can see a billionaire as “anti-establishment” is beyond me.

Musk is so impervious to ego-death that I suspect his will hang around for a few decades after his body.

I think it’s a mistake to believe that everyone has a sense of empathy; there are plenty of people who do not because of their brain meat or their experiences.

I think the closest Musk gets is the desperate and pathetic attempts to get gamers to like him: it makes him crazy that he can’t just buy their respect like he does for everything else that he wants.

People like that genuinely believe that they should be in charge because of who they are. He has absolutely no feelings of guilt about the terrible things that he does; he thinks they’re good because he did them.

Narcissistic megalomaniacs, especially ultra wealthy ones, lose their ability to empathize (or even the ability to mask and pretend) because they quite literally never have to care about how another person feels.

I do think he’s confused as to why people hate him though. He sees himself as a lovable cheeky troll instead of the Nazi dickhead that he clearly is.

Please enlighten me on how he could have acquired $200 billion dollars if he had paid his fair share in taxes, fairly compensated his labor, and refrained from monopolistic business practices.

As a reminder, the tax rate for the wealthy during the highest period of economic growth was as high as 91%, whereas Gates has never paid more than 40%.

How do you think his stocks were juiced if not for the aforementioned monopolistic business practices? What kind of capital gains taxes did he pay on those compared to what labor pays on their income? Why should he pay at a lower rate than people who work for a living instead of holding onto wealth?

But perhaps you misunderstand my point: a healthy society would not allow this kind of wealth disparity, as it is inherently destabilizing.