TikTok Ban in the U.S.

I’ve been using TikTok since the pandemic in 2020. It’s been a fun little app for me. It was something to do while everyone was stuck inside and not able to go anywhere. It’s fun to watch silly little videos and educational videos when I’m in bed and can’t sleep. It’s just fun to watch, much like YouTube.

I think another ban is coming up on April 5th? I think that’s the day. I can’t remember. So I suppose I’ll go back over to RedNote, which is another Chinese-owned app. I wonder why exactly the U.S. government wants to ban TikTok though. Well, I’ve done some reading and read some comments and such on the matter and here’s what I’ve gathered:

The U.S. government claims it wants to ban TikTok because of data privacy and national security, but that’s not the real reason. They claim that the Chinese government could force TikTok to hand over user data, but they don’t give a shit about that. What they really care about is another country influencing public opinion. They want to suppress information that doesn’t align with their own interests.

The U.S. doesn’t want China to have any potential influence over Americans, whether through data collection, algorithimic control of content, or possible political manipulation. The irony, of course, is that Google and Facebook already influence Americans in similar ways, but because they’re American companies, the government is less concerned. It’s less about protecting people from surveillance or manipulation in general and more about who gets to do the influencing.

The U.S. doesn’t want China shaping political opinion, culture, or political discourse in a way that would challenge American geopolitical dominance. If China can control narratives, push propaganda, or even just collect some data, it gives them leverage in a global power struggle. TikTok is one of the few platforms where the U.S. doesn’t have control over the algorithm or data. It’s not about whether TikTok is actually doing anything nefarious. It’s about the potential for China to use it as a tool in the future.

The U.S. government doesn’t want us thinking negatively of them. They don’t want a foreign power controlling a platform that could shape public perception against them. If an app like TikTok starts amplifying anti-government sentiment, exposing U.S. corruption, or promoting alternative ideologies, that’s a threat to America’s control over the narrative.

They don’t mind when American companies do this because those companies can be pressured, regulated, or even use for political purposes. However, when a Chinese-owned platform is involved, they can’t control what’s being shown, what’s being suppressd, or who’s benefiting from it.

America frames it as a national security issue, but at its core, it’s about controlling public perception and limiting competing narratives. The government isn’t trying to protect people from manipulation, they’re trying to make sure they’re the ones doing the manipulating. If this were purely about data privacy, they’d go after Facebook, Google, and other companies that harvest just as much (if not more) user data. Those companies are American though, meaning they can be influenced, lobbied, and used when needed.

In summation, it’s not about our privacy. It’s about the American government controlling the narrative. The American government wants to be the one to shape public perception, not a foreign entity. They justify their actions by calling it “national security,” but at the end of the day it’s about controlling the narrative and making sure people aren’t exposed to ideas or information that could weaken faith in the American system.

They’re not against manipulation. They just want to be the ones doing it.

So, if TikTok goes bye-bye again, be sure to catch me on RedNote where I’ll be chilling with the communists. Join me, comrades!

Why Do Capitalists Insist on Breeding?

Capitalism is a pyramid scheme, and every pyramid scheme needs and endless supply of new recruits. The whole system depends on a growing population of workers to exploit, consumers to buy useless shit, and taxpayers to fund corporate bailouts. If people stopped breeding, who would be left to take on the crushing debt, work low-wage jobs, and keep the machine running?

Billionaires, of course, push the hardest for more births because they need a steady supply of desperate labor. That’s why you see Apartheid Clyde constantly whining about a “population collapse” while simultaneously advocating for 80-hour workweeks. He doesn’t actually care about civilization, he just needs more cogs for his empire.

Meanwhile, the average capitalist supporter buys into the myth that having kids is an “investment” in their own future, whether for cheap family labor, someone to take care of them when they’re old, or just to pass on their legacy. They don’t see that they’re just creating more foot soldiers for the ruling class.

It’s all just another scheme to ensure there’s always a new generation to squeeze dry.

Libertarian Socialism and Anarchism

Like I mentioned in my last post, I was in a Twitch stream: Socialism for All and asked if I was allowed in since I’m a libertarian socialist. The person who was doing the stream said to me, “As long as you’re not in here, vehemently promoting anarchism.” People get the wrong idea when they hear “anarchism,” and while libertarian socialism basically is anarchism, people get the wrong idea. It’s not people running around, destroying property and causing chaos.

Anarchism is often called libertarian socialism because it aligns with the core principles of socialism — opposing capitalism and advocating for collective ownership — while also emphasizing individual liberty and the rejection of authoritarian structures, including the state. The term distinguishes itself from state socialism like Marxist-Leninism, which relies on centralized authority to manage resources and economic planning.

Historically, the word libertarian was associated with anti-authoritarian leftist movements before right-wing ideologies, particularly in the U.S., co-opted it to mean free market individualism. Anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin argued that true socialism must be libertarian, meaning it must be built on voluntary cooperation and free association rather than imposed by the state.

So, in summation, libertarian socialism (or anarchism) envisions a stateless, classless society where people self-organize through mutual aid, direct democracy, and decentralized institutions. It rejects both capitalism and state control, seeing them as oppressive forces that limit human freedom.

Libertarian Socialism: An Oxymoron?

I spend a good amount of time at night on Twitch. I have made a good many online friends there. I mainly watch people play video games or just chat or what have you. I’ve also started following one streamer that goes by “Socialism for All.” I managed to catch one of their streams last night and asked if Libertarian-Socialists were allowed to contribute. Someone asked me if “libertarian-socialist” was an oxymoron. To that, I say not at all.

While “libertarian” is often associated with right-wing, pro-capitalist ideologies in the U.S., its historical roots are anti-authoritarian socialism. Libertarian socialism is a broad category that includes anarchists, council communists, and other leftists who reject both capitalism and the state. The idea is that socialism should be achieved through decentralization, direct democracy, and worker self-management rather than authoritarian state control.

While American political discourse often treats “libertarian” and “socialist” as opposites, the historical reality is different. Libertarian socialism has a long tradition of advocating for freedom from both the state and capitalist exploitation. Rather than being contradictory, it represents a coherent vision of society based on voluntary cooperation, self-management, and radical democracy.

So while it might sound contradictory if you’re only familiar with the American use of “libertarian,” in a historical and global context, it’s a coherent and well-established political philosophy.

Borders Are Peak Absurdity

Borders are one of the more absurd human constructs. They’re just imaginary lines that people violently enforce to keep others in or out, usually for the benefit of those in power. There’s no natural reason why one side of a river or a mountain should “belong” to one group of people and not another—it’s all about control, resources, and maintaining systems of power.

It’s wild how people will fight and die over borders, even though they only exist because some long-dead rulers or colonizers decided they should. It’s even wilder how most people just accept them as some kind of universal truth rather than a completely arbitrary system designed to divide and exploit.

Borders are peak human absurdity. We literally drew invisible lines on a planet that was just sitting here, existing just fine without them, and decided that stepping over those lines without permission is a crime. Then we built fences, walls, and armies to enforce those lines—often with deadly force.

It gets even more ridiculous when you look at history. Half the time, borders were drawn by some random guys in a room with no connection to the land or the people living there (looking at you, colonialism). Sometimes, entire countries were created or erased by the stroke of a pen, with no regard for the people actually living there. The Middle East? Carved up by Europeans who didn’t even live there. Africa? Sliced into pieces at a conference table in Berlin.

Even within so-called “stable” countries, borders shift. The U.S. stole half of Mexico. Poland has been shuffled around like a deck of cards. And yet, people act like today’s borders are sacred and eternal, as if they weren’t just violently imposed or changed a hundred years ago.

And don’t even get me started on how some borders are enforced for some people and not others. If you’re rich, borders barely exist—you can buy citizenship, get special visas, or just own enough property to move freely. But if you’re poor? Good luck. You could be running from war, climate disaster, or starvation, and still, some bureaucrat will tell you, “Sorry, wrong side of the line.”

At the end of the day, borders are just another tool to maintain inequality. They protect wealth, resources, and power, not people. They’re imaginary lines with real-world consequences, and the fact that we still take them seriously in 2025 is honestly embarrassing.

Elon Musk Deserves No Thanks

The latest NASA/SpaceX mission to bring astronauts back to Earth was a success and you’re probably thinking I’m finally going to give credit where credit is due and thank Apartheid Clyde. I’m not. Apartheid Clyde didn’t personally pilot the spacecraft–NASA and SpaceX engineers did the actual work. SpaceX gets government contracts funded by taxpayer money, so if anyone deserves the thanks, it’s the engineers, scientists, and public funding that made it happen. Apartheid Clyde just slapped his name on it and took the credit.

Musk’s fanboys are all over social media acting like he personally flew the capsule down with his bare hands. Meanwhile, it was NASA’s mission, taxpayer-funded, and executed by engineers who actually know that they’re doing. Musk just happens to own the company that got the contract.

It’s the same routine every time. NASA and a team of highly skilled engineers pull off a complex mission, and Musk cultists flood the internet acting like he personally strapped on a spacesuit and flew them home. Meanwhile, without billions in government contracts, SpaceX wouldn’t even exist at this scale.

It’s wild how people will credit him for everything, but when SpaceX has failures, suddenly it’s “the engineer’s fault” and not his. Apartheid Clyde is just a billionaire middleman who hoards credit and wealth.

Why I Became a Socialist

I was raised in a Republican family. For the longest time, that’s just what I thought I was supposed to be because that’s what my family was. I supported George W. Bush up until he invaded Iraq. I was all about “rah! rah! guns for everybody!” in my youth. While I still own guns, I think there need to be stricter laws, closed loopholes, and no, not everyone needs to have a fucking gun. “But the Second Amendment!” Yeah, yeah, yeah. Look up the definition of “amendment” and get back to me.

As a teen I was obsessed with Ayn Rand. Maybe it was just me being an edgy teenager, but I was all “Yeah! Every man for himself! To hell with everyone else!” I’ve grown and matured and after re-reading Atlas Shrugged eight years ago. I learned that her philosophy is self-serving and does no one any good. Not to mention, she turned toward government help later on in her life so what a hypocrite. It’s funny. Every time capitalism spirals into crisis, socialist-inspired policies step in to save it. The same people who attack socialism are often the first to demand government help when capitalism crashes. If capitalism actually followed its own “sink or swim” logic, it wouldn’t have survived this long.

To be honest, I didn’t care much for politics until the rise of Donald Trump. His presidency made me more engaged. His corruption, authoritarianism, and the broader failures of the system reinforced my belief that capitalism and electoral policies alone won’t fix anything. I used to think no matter what party the President aligns himself with, they have the good of the country at heart deep down. After both of Trump’s wins, I no longer believe that. Just like Ayn Rand, Trump is self-serving and in it for Trump and his brand.

I’ve always considered myself a misanthrope. Hell, I even have the word “misanthrope” tattooed on my arm. I don’t want to go so far as to say I hate other people, but I am deeply distrustful of them and the systems they create. No one wants to help others anymore. It’s all “me, me, me!” With socialism, it’s about helping your fellow man. Not everyone is in it for themselves when it comes to socialism. It’s a collective effort to make the world a better place than we found it. Capitalism is nothing but “how can I get richer?” and “I want to get ahead no matter how many people I have to trample underfoot to do so.”

I’ve also been doing more reading and research. People like Albert Camus, Emil Cioran, and Noam Chomsky are people I hold in high regard. Camus’ idea of the absurd is about the conflict between human desire for meaning and a meaningless universe. Capitalism mirrors this: it promises purpose through work, consumption, and success, but ultimately, it’s an empty grind. The absurdity of capitalism is that it demands people dedicate their lives to meaningless labor while pretending it’s freedom. Camus believed in revolt — not in the sense of violent revolution (although at this point, I support that), but in refusing to submit to oppressive structures. When this is applied to capitalism, it means rejecting the illusion that the system is natural or inevitable. Instead, we can challenge it, disrupt it, and refuse to play by its rules.

Noam Chomsky is a relentless critic of capitalism. He argues that real democracy is impossible under capitalism because corporations and the wealthy control political decisions. Elections are a spectacle. Real power is concentrated in unelected institutions such as corporations, lobbyists, and banks. He teaches us to organize outside of electoral politics. Build movements that can apply pressure beyond just voting.

And what could I possibly learn from Mr. “Everything Sucks” Emil Cioran? Cioran believed that humans cling to illusions: progress, meaning, and success to avoid confronting the void. Capitalism sells the biggest illusion: that endless work and consumption lead to fulfillment. In reality, it’s a treadmill of disappointment. No matter how much you achieve or accumulate, it’s never enough. What I get from Cioran is that exposing capitalism means stripping away its illusions and showing people that its promises are hollow.

I’ve become frustrated with online complaining and simply waiting for the next election cycle to make changes. I want direct political disruption. Protests don’t work like they used to so I want new, fresh ideas to challenge capitalism. Ultimately, I’ve become frustrated with the whole capitalist system whether it’s healthcare, economic inequality, or corporate control. I see capitalism as unsustainable and in need of radical change.

Trumpism has taken over and even the Democrats are too chicken shit to do anything about it. Trump is just a belligerent old man who, if he could, rule the world if given enough power. I’m tired of power being in the hands of the wealthy. I want the common people to rise up and fight this oppressive system, and there are more of us than there are of them so what the hell are we waiting for?

Or maybe I became a socialist just because I listened to way too much Rage Against the Machine. Who knows?

Why I’m a Libertarian Socialist

I didn’t vote in 2016 because I didn’t like Clinton or Trump. I voted third party in 2020 because I thought Biden and Trump were both too old. I voted for Harris in 2024 because I thought anyone, even a Democrat would be better than Trump. Voting Democrat does not make me a Democrat, though. I’ve always fallen into what is known as Libertarian Socialism (think more Noam Chomsky and Guy Debord.)

Libertarian Socialism is a political philosophy that combines socialist economics with a strong emphasis on individual freedom, direct democracy, and decentralized power. It oppose both state control as seen in authoritarian socialism and capitalist exploitation, advocating for worker self-management, cooperative ownership of resources, and voluntary associations.

I believe true freedom is impossible under capitalism, as economic coercion forces people into exploitative relationships. I’d like to see a society based on voluntary cooperation. I’m looking for ways to disrupt capitalism and push for socialist alternatives. I’m extremely skeptical of relying solely on electoral politics and traditional protests. I’d like for more immediate tactics.

I don’t trust the powers that be in a capitalist society. Capitalism is an inherently exploitative system that prioritizes profit over people. Capitalism concentrates power in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. Capitalism traps people in powerlessness rather than enabling real change; it also exacerbates human selfishness and destruction. It’s a system that rewards the absolute worst people like Trump, Apartheid Clyde, Zuckerberg, and Bezos while crushing everyone else.

The end goal of libertarian socialism is to create a society where economic and political power is decentralized, capitalism is abolished, and people have direct control over their workplace and communities. It seeks to replace hierarchal systems — whether capitalist or authoritarian socialist — with cooperative, voluntary, and democratic structures.

Essentially, libertarian socialism sees a world where power is in the hands of the people, not corporations or the state, and where cooperation replaces exploitation.

I am more than willing to work with Democratic Socialists, which I have started to do by contacting a local Democratic Socialist representative in the government here. I am also willing to work with traditional socialists as well as communists. I want to do what I can to bring down capitalism where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. If there are any other socialists or Marxists out there willing to help me in this fight, please reach out. My email is kafkaphony@gmail.com. I realize by having a gmail account it’s just giving capitalists more power, but it’s a necessary evil at the moment.

Top 5 Favorite Books

I’ve always told people I have a top five list of favorite books. I thought I’d post them here and why I love each of them.

The Stranger by Albert Camus

It’s the perfect mix of existentialism, absurdism, and detachment, which are three things that resonate with me. Mersault’s indifference and refusal to play along with society’s expectations, and his ultimate acceptance of the absurdity of life align with my own views.

The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus

This book gave me a framework to make peace with the absurd. Instead of drowning in nihilism or clinging to false meaning, Camus handed me a third option: defiance. I don’t have to pretend life has inherent meaning, but I also don’t have to collapse under that realization. I can push the boulder up the hill, knowing it’s pointless, and still find joy in the act.

Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace

It’s a chaotic, sprawling, brilliant mess, just like the world it critiques. It takes on capitalism, addiction, entertainment, and the crushing weight of modern existence, all with a mix of absurd humor and gut-wrenching sincerity.

At it’s core, it’s about resistance. Against addiction, against passive entertainment, against the numbness that capitalism and media try to impose.

Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy

Pure, unfiltered chaos — violence, fate, and the raw, indifferent brutality of the universe laid bare. It doesn’t try to comfort you; it forces you to stare into the abyss and see it staring back. It doesn’t just tell a story. It drags you through hell and leaves you to make sense of it yourself.

The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck

One of the most powerful indictments of capitalism and injustice ever written, and it does so with raw emotion and unflinching truth. It isn’t just about suffering; it’s about resistance, solidarity, and the idea that even in the face of crushing exploitation, people can come together and fight back.

Steinbeck’s anger at the system is palpable, but he doesn’t preach; he shows. He makes you feel the desperation, the hunger, the betrayal by a system designed to grind people down, but at the same time there’s that threat of quiet, unwavering defiance.

Elon Musk: Visionary or Villain?

Elon Musk says he cares about humanity–he talks about saving the species through space colonization, AI safety, and sustainable energy. However, his actions often tell a different story. He union-busts, disregards worker safety, spreads misinformation, and makes decisions that prioritize his ego and wealth over real human well-being.

If he truly cared about humanity, he’d prioritize improving conditions on Earth–like supporting labor rights, addressing inequality, and ensuring ethical AI development–rather than pushing grandiose visions that conveniently make him richer and more powerful. His version of “caring” seems more like a billionaire’s self-serving messiah complex than genuine concern.

He claims he wants to go to Mars to ensure humanity’s survival–his whole “multi-planetary species” pitch. He frames it as a backup plan in case Earth becomes uninhabitable due to climate change, nuclear war, or AI gone wrong.

But realistically? It’s a billionaire’s escape plan. Colonizing Mars is wildly impractical. It’s a barren, radiation-soaked wasteland with no breathable air, toxic soil, and temperatures that make Antarctica look tropical. Instead of using his resources to improve life on Earth, he’s selling a sci-fi fantasy where a select few (i.e., the ultra-rich) get to start over while the rest of us deal with the mess they helped create.

At best, his whole colonization of Mars is an ego project. He wants to be remembered as the guy who got humanity to another planet. At worst, it’s a convenient distraction while he hoards wealth and power here on Earth.