When the State Turns the Dead Into Incubators

A woman in my state was declared brain-dead. Her family wanted to let her go. However, she was nine weeks pregnant–and the state refused.

They are keeping her body alive. Not for her. Not because there’s hope she’ll wake up. Not because her family asked her to. They’re keeping her alive for the embryo. She has become a womb with a heartbeat. A vessel. A corpse turned into an incubator.

If this isn’t dystopia, then what is?

I posted about it. I said, “Georgia is keeping a brain-dead woman’s body alive against her family’s wishes because she was nine weeks pregnant. They’ll only pull the plug after they pull out a baby. If using corpses as incubators isn’t dystopia then I don’t know what is.”

Someone replied, “So, you would rather kill an unborn wanted family member rather than have a piece of the woman you have lost? That’s reasonable…”

Let’s be clear: this wasn’t about a grieving mother begging doctors to preserve her baby. It was the state overriding the wishes of the family. Of the people who knew her. Loved her. Watched her slip away. And now they’re forced to watch her body turn into a baby machine.

I responsed, “No, I’d rather respect a person’s dignity in death and not treat their body like a farm tool. If the family wanted a ‘piece’ of her, they could have kept a lock of hair, not forced a fetus to develop inside a corpse. Grief doesn’t justify dystopia.”

When you don’t have a good argument, you fall back on gender. On insults. But gender doesn’t erase the ethical horror here: a government deciding your dead body isn’t yours anymore. That once you’re brain-dead, you’re fair game for state use–if you’re carrying a fetus.

This isn’t compassion. This is forced birth through necromancy. It’s Christian nationalism turning science fiction into state policy.

If a living woman chooses to stay on life support to try to save her pregnancy, I support her. That’s her decision. I may be an anti-natalist who thinks no one should breed, but I also believe in people having freedom of choice. Call it a contradiction if you want. That’s not what’s happening here though.

This was never about life. It’s about control.

And if you don’t think using someone’s dead body as a uterus without consent is grotesque then ask yourself why you think women only matter when they’re carrying something.

The Lazy Argument Against Socialism

Every time someone dares to critique capitalism, someone inevitably lobs the same tired grenade: “What about the 100 million people killed by communism?”

It’s a rhetorical nuke meant to shut down debate. And like most nukes, it leaves behind more smoke than substance.

Let’s unpack it.

First, the death tolls often cited (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.) come from sources like The Black Book of Communism, which bundle together famines, wars, executions, and sometimes even natural disasters under the label of “communist killings.” By that logic, capitalism is responsible for every death under every U.S.-backed dictatorship, every colonial empire, every war for resources, and every child who dies because their parents couldn’t afford insulin.

Want to play that game? Fine. Let’s talk:

Colonialism under capitalism killed tens of millions — India under British rule, Congo under Belgium, the Americas under British conquest.

The Atlantic slave trade was a capitalist enterprise. Tens of millions died or were enslaved for profit.

Modern capitalism kills 8 million people every year from poverty-related causes like hunger, unsafe water, and lack of healthcare. Quietly. Systemically.

If we’re comparing body counts, capitalism is still actively killing.

Authoritarianism is not socialism.

The atrocities committed by Stalin or Mao were products of totalitarian regimes — not the idea of socialism. If we’re blaming socialism for every tyrant who used the label, then we have to blame capitalism for Pinochet, Hitler (who privatized heavily), and every U.S.-armed strongman from Latin America to the Middle East.

It’s not the label that matters — it’s the structure of power.

Socialism, at its core, is about democratic control of the economy. It’s about prioritizing people over profit. When done right, it looks like universal healthcare, strong labor rights, public ownership of essential services, and economic dignity for all.

That’s not a death camp. That’s a lifeline.

There’s the “Freedom” myth of Capitalism.

The defenders of capitalism always fall back on the idea of “freedom” — the freedom to start a business, chase your dreams, and become the next Jeff Bezos.

But for most people, capitalism means the freedom to work 60 hours a week and still not afford rent. The freedom to die if you can’t pay for insulin. The freedom to drown in debt because you got sick or went to college. Capitalism promises opportunity, but mostly delivers exhaustion.

And let’s be real: billionaires don’t get rich by working hard. They get rich by owning things other people work hard to maintain.

Karl Marx didn’t create the Soviet Union. He didn’t build gulags. He sent his life writing about a world where ordinary people could live without being exploited. The fact that authoritarian regimes warped his ideas doesn’t erase the truth of what he fought for anymore than capitalist’s crimes erase the concept of free markets.

The irony? Under capitalism, Marx’s grave now charges admission. Even in death, the system tried to make a profit off of him.

Socialism doesn’t need to be perfect to be better. Capitalism isn’t judged by Stalin. Why should socialism be?

If you’re tired of a system where billionaires fly to space while kids go hungry, maybe it’s time to stop fear the word socialism and start fearing the status quo.

Ban Porn but Not Bullets

America has a strange way of “protecting children.” Politicians foam at the mouth over the dangers of porn: banning it in libraries, restricting it online, and framing it as a national emergency. The moral panic machine runs hot: “Think of the children!” we’re told, as if seeing a naked body is a greater threat than dodging bullets in math class.

Let’s be clear: the same lawmakers pushing to scrub the internet of sex are the ones stuffing their campaign coffers with NRA money. They’ll ban books with LGBTQ characters and call it virtue, but they won’t lift a finger to stop the number one killer of children in America: guns.

That’s not a metaphor. It’s data. Guns kill more kids than cancer, car accidents, or anything else. But somehow, the people screaming about drag queens reading The Very Hungry Caterpillar don’t seem to care when a kid’s blood is mopped off the cafeteria floor.

Why? Because porn doesn’t fund their campaigns. Gun manufacturers do.

Let’s not pretend this is about protecting children. It’s about controlling culture while letting violence flourish. Banning porn is easy–symbolic, moralistic, performative. Addressing school shootings means regulating an industry, challenging power, and admitting that “freedom” without responsibility is a death sentence.

And maybe that’s the point. They don’t want to protect kids. They want to protect themselves–from change, from accountability, from the ugly truth that their priorities are rotten to the core.

So next time someone says they’re banning porn to “save the children,” ask them what they’re doing to stop the next school shooting.

Spoiler alert: probably nothing.

Why Do Republicans Want More Babies but Hate Sex?

There’s a bill that’s been proposed by Republicans that bans pornography. Shocking, I know. They want more babies but less people having sex. Make it make sense. Now, I don’t watch porn anymore. I haven’t in two years. I didn’t have an addiction to it. I just wanted to see how long I could go without watching it. I think this ban is an infringement on freedom of expression though.

Republicans love to lecture us about birthrates. “We’re not having enough kids!” they cry, as if they solution is to just start raw-dogging for America. They panic over “declining family values,” warn about demographic collapse, and push policies to encourage more births. But there’s one little problem: they hate sex.

Not just certain kinds of sex–all of it. They fight against sex education, demonize contraception, and lose their minds over anything outside of straight, married, God-fearing intercourse. They’re not just anti-abortion. They’re anti-sex, anti-pleasure, and anti-autonomy.

So let’s ask the obvious:

If they want more babies, why are they so hostile toward the thing that makes babies?

Because it was never about babies.

It’s about control.

Sex, when divorced from shame and fear becomes power–especially for women, LGBTQ+ people, and anyone outside their rigid moral framework. If people can enjoy sex without “consequences,” the entire structure of conservative power starts to wobble. They lose the ability to use pregnancy as punishment. They lose the ability to gatekeep morality. They lose the leash.

So they push abstinence-only education, attack access to birth control, and slut-shame anyone who dares enjoy themselves, even if it’s masturbation when you’re by yourself, pulling your pud, and just having a good old time by your lonesome. All this while pretending it’s about “protecting life.”

Let’s be real right now:

They don’t want you to make babies. They want you to suffer the consequences.

Their nightmare may not be low birthrates. It may be a liberated population that can’t be guilt-tripped, manipulated, or forced into compliance. That’s why they push forced birth while demonizing the sex that leads to it. It’s not hypocrisy. It’s strategy.

And it’s working–unless we call it what it is and burn their moral scaffolding to the ground.

America Loses Every War it Declares…

… and that’s not an accident.

There’s a pattern no one seems to want to talk about: every time America declares a “”war” on something, it loses. Spectacularly. Repeatedly. Almost like it’s designed to fail–or at least never meat to succeed.

Let’s take a stroll down our hall of shame:

The War on Drugs

Launched in the 1970s and ramped up in the 80s, this war didn’t end drug use. It militarized police, packed prisons, and devastated communities (especially Black and brown ones). Meanwhile, Big Pharma ran its own cartel out in the open with opioids. The result? A multi-decade failure that somehow made drugs more common. But hey, prison stocks are doing great.

The War on Poverty

LBJ declared this one in the 60s. Ambitious? Sure. But instead of ending poverty, we got decades of underfunded programs sabotaged by both parties. Fast forward to now: wages are stagnant, homelessness is rising, and billionaires are joyriding to space. Poverty didn’t lose. It adapted, got a tech job, and learned to live in a car.

The War on Terror

We “won” this one by destabilizing the Middle East, fueling global extremism, and wasting trillions of dollars. Afghanistan? A 20-year disaster with a Taliban victory lap at the end. Iraq? Invaded based on lies. Terrorism didn’t disappear, it diversified and learned to livestream.

The War on Crime

What this really turned into was a war on poor people, especially people of color. Instead of addressing root causes–like inequality, housing, education–we militarized police, filled private prisons, and normalized, a surveillance state. Crime didn’t go away, it just got rebranded. And the police budget? It’s still the only socialist program America will never cut.

Losing is the business model. These “wars” aren’t meant to be won. They’re meant to be permanent. They justify bloated budgets, feed private industries, and generate endless political theatre. You can’t win a war if winning means ending the gift.

It’s not a bug, it’s the point.

Tyranny’s Not So Bad: The NRA’s Quiet Surrender

Remember back in 2020 when the NRA wouldn’t shut up about the Second Amendment being our last line of defense against tyranny? It was their rallying cry–plastered across billboards, email blasts, and breathless Fox News appearances: “We need guns to resist tyranny!” They said it like a gospel truth, a sacred duty passed down by powdered-wig patriots.

Then 2021 rolled around. Same message. Different year. “Tyranny! Resist it! Arm yourself!”

2022? Still chanting it.

2023? Getting louder.

But by 2024, something strange happened.

The tyranny showed up. And the NRA? They suddenly went quiet. Or worse, they started warming up to it.

Turns out their definition of “tyranny” was always pretty selective. It wasn’t about government overreach or authoritarianism in any principled sense. It was about who was in power. If it’s a left-leaning administration? That’s tyranny. If it’s a far-right strongman dismantling democracy brick by brick? That’s “law and order.”

By 2024, with a fascist-leaning movement openly threatening civil liberties, suppressing dissent, and consolidating power? The NRA found itself oddly comfortable. Tyranny, it turns out, was negotiable–if it wore the right party pin.

So now we’re left with this absurd trajectory:

NRA in 2020: “We need guns to resist tyranny!”

NRA in 2021: “We need guns to resist tyranny!”

NRA in 2022: “We need guns to resist tyranny!”

NRA in 2023: “We need guns to resist tyranny!”

NRA in 2024: “Actually, tyranny’s not so bad as long as it votes red.”

Turns out, the guns were never about resisting tyranny. They were about enforcing it.

Capitalism is Exploitation with a Smile

Capitalism sells itself as freedom. The freedom to work, to buy, to compete, to win. But when you strip away the ads and the jargon, capitalism is little more than a global scheme propped up by the suffering of the many for the comfort of the few.

Let’s call it what it is: exploitation dressed up as opportunity. The boss makes money off your time–not theirs.

Under capitalism, labor produces value but workers don’t own the value they create. If you work eight hours a day building houses, flipping burgers, or coding apps, the profit generated doesn’t go to you. It does to the owner. Your wage is just a fraction of the wealth you produce–enough to keep you alive and quiet. That’s not opportunity. That’s theft.

The owner didn’t build the thing. You did. They simply own the means–the tools, the land, the license–and the systems that says that’s enough to justify getting rich off your back.

That’s exploitation.

Who picks your vegetables? Who sews your clothes? Who delivers your packages at 10 PM for minimum wage and no healthcare? Capitalism pushes costs downward and hoards rewards upward. The working class gets debt, burnout, and rent hikes. The ruling class gets yachts, tax loopholes, and bailouts.

A job under capitalism isn’t just a source of income. It’s a hostage situation. You work or you starve. You smile through abuse because your landlord doesn’t take moral victories as rent. The “choice” to work is only free if your survival doesn’t depend on it. Otherwise it’s coercion.

If you’re wondering why billionaires exist while people die from lack of insulin, it’s because capitalism isn’t broken–it’s working exactly as it’s designed.

Try living “off the grid” or refusing to work for a wage. See how long the system lets you survive. You’re either producing for capital or consuming from it. Either way, you’re part of the machine. Capitalism doesn’t need your consent. It just needs your compliance.

Capitalism wraps itself in the flag and calls its critics ungrateful. It tells us the work harder, hustle more, and bootstrap your way out of systemic inequality. But the truth is, no one ever got rich from hard work alone. They got rich from other people’s hard work. That’s the capitalist dream: own more than you do, and extract more than you give.

Capitalism doesn’t just fail to meet our needs, it feeds off of them. It turns basic human rights into business opportunities. Housing, healthcare, food, water are all rationed by who can pay. And if you can’t? Tough.

So no, capitalism doesn’t need reform. It needs to be replaced. With something that puts people over profit. With something that doesn’t see humans as inputs for someone else’s wealth.

Because a system built on exploitation will never deliver justice.

Mandatory Breeding for Billionaires

In a bold new initiative to save humanity from extinction, I propose a simple, elegant solution: every billionaire must be legally required to produce no fewer than fifty biological children. No surrogates. No cloning. Full participation required. If you’re rich enough to buy a planet, you’re rich enough to birth its next fifty caretakers … personally.

Why, you ask?

Because billionaires love growth. They love expansion. They believe the future is built on more: more markets, more people, more productivity. Elon Musk, noted tech daddy and meme necromancer, has warned us of the “population collapse crisis” while fathering a small village. So let’s make it official: if you think birthrates are too low then congratulations, you’ve just volunteered your body for the cause.

But here’s the anti-natalist twist:

We don’t actually want anyone to have any more kids. Especially not people who treat life like a startup–launch it, leave it, let the chaos scale. But if you’re going to promote infinite growth on a finite planet, if you insist the world needs more people to “fix” things, you should be the first to drown in diapers and existential dread.

Let the billionaires change 500,000 diapers, stay up for 3 million sleepless nights, and explain to fifty children why the ocean is on fire and their water tastes like lithium. Let them homeschool fifty screaming avatars of late capitalism and field their therapy bills for the next century. If life is so sacred, let them carry its burden to the absurd conclusion.

Because life isn’t a gift–it’s a gamble. And no one should be forced into existence for the sake of GDP.

Mandatory billionaire breeding is not about justice. It’s satire. It’s vengeance. It’s the logical endpoint of pro-natalist capitalism: turning humans into infinite labor inputs for someone else’s profit margin. We simply say: if you love humanity so much, you go first. You breed the next generation of doomed innovators. We’ll watch.

Anti-natalism doesn’t mean hating life. It means questioning the unthinking worship of it. It means asking whether existence is worth it, especially when it’s engineered by those least affected by its consequences. And sometimes, it means forcing a billionaire to push out fifty kids, just to see the smirk fall off their faces.

Pissing off the Conservatives and the Liberals

Labels are like Molotov cocktails: fun to throw, even better when they cause confusion.

When I say I’m a libertarian socialist, it’s not just because it captures my politics–anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, pro-human dignity–it’s also because it makes certain leftists squirm. The ones who hear “libertarian” and think I’m about to start quoting Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman in a hemp hoodie. They freeze up, like I just talked poorly about Bernie Sanders and AOC.

But there’s history here. Libertarianism didn’t start with capitalist bootlickers hoarding Bitcoin and prepping for the apocalypse. It started with radicals who believed freedom meant freedom from landlords, bosses, and the state. Think Mikhail Bakunin, not Jeff Bezos. So yeah, I’m reclaiming it. And if that irritates some who think socialism only works when it comes with a five-year plan and a side of surveillance? Even better.

Then, when I pivot and say I’m an anarcho-communist, the right melts down like I just canceled Christmas. Suddenly I’m the Antichrist in a Che Guevara shirt. “You want no government and no private property?” they sputter, like I’ve just broken the laws of thermodynamics. “How will you survive without a job and a boss and a sacred chain of command?”

Easy. Mutual aid. Direct action. Horizontal structures. Also spite. Lots of spite.

I say I’m an anarcho-communist to watch their heads spin as they try to square the idea of radical cooperation with their Fox News-induced visions of chaos. To them, communism means gulags and stale bread, and anarchy means Mad Max with gender pronouns. They’ve never read Kropotkin. They’ve never imagined a world without Amazon trucks and landlord parasites. They’ve only learned fear.

So I play the game. Libertarian socialist to make the left clutch their pearls. Anarcho-communist to make the right reach for their ammo. The truth is, I’m both. And neither. I’m here to break binaries, not settle into them.

The goal isn’t to be understood. It’s to force people to think. If they walk away annoyed, confused, or–miracle of miracles–curious? Mission accomplished.

The Empire Needs More Bodies…

… and the bodies are broken.

I don’t normally post more than one blog a day, but I read something today that I had to bring to light. In plain sight on the White House’s official website was this:

“Seventy-seven percent of young adults to not qualify for the military based in large part on their health scores.”.

Let that sink in. Nearly 4 out of 5 young Americans are unfit to serve in the very institution that props up the U.S. empire. The military-industrial complex, for all its propaganda and promises of patriotism, is running up against a brutal biological reality: the bodies it depends on are crumbling under the weight of the society it helped create.

Decades of underfunded healthcare, over-processed food, environmental neglect, poverty wages, and mental health crises have produced a generation the empire can’t use. And instead of asking why so many are unwell, the system sees it as a recruitment problem. They’re scrambling–relaxing enlistment standards, pouring money into ad campaigns, and pushing JROTC deeper into high schools–not to uplift youth, but to harvest what’s left of them for war.

Because let’s be clear: the military doesn’t need healthy citizens–it needs usable soldiers. And when the well runs dry, the machinery starts to panic. That 77% figure isn’t just a number. It’s a red flag. A system built on endless war is discovering its fuel supply is contaminated. The bodies it needs are either too broken to fight or too wise to enlist.

So the question isn’t “How do we get more kids into uniform?” It’s “Why is this system so desperate for cannon fodder in the first place?” And what kind of future are we building if the only path to healthcare, education, or stability still runs through a recruiter’s office?

The empire’s war machine is hungry, but its appetite exceeds its supply. That should terrify everyone.