A List of My Heroes and Influences

Albert Camus

Camus resonates with me because of his embrace of the absurd. The Myth of Sisyphus especially hit home for me–the idea of imagining Sisyphus happy reframed how I see struggle. Instead of falling into despair, Camus argues for rebellion against the meaningless of life but finding joy in the absurd. He grounds his philosophy in a deep concern for justice and dignity. His resistance to both authoritarianism and passive resignation speaks to my own drive to disrupt capitalism and push people toward action.

Bill Hicks

Hicks has a sharp political critique with dark humor and a deep disdain for bullshit. His attacks on consumerism, corporate control, and political hypocrisy align with my own frustrations with capitalism and the absurdity of American politics Hicks didn’t just argue against the system; he ridiculed it in ways that exposed its ridiculousness. His jokes weren’t just shock humor, they were a brutal deconstruction of how capitalism co-opts everything, even rebellion. His no-holds-bar critique of America and the American system hits home for me.

Emil Cioran

Cioran strips existence down to its raw, unfiltered absurdity, much like how I see the world. His work speaks to my anti-natalism, misanthropy, and skepticism of grand ideological solutions. Cioran embraces despair with a poetic, almost darkly comedic flair I long to fight capitalism and push people into action, but I also find it exhausting. Cioran embodies that paradox. He was fully aware that everything is meaningless, yet he was still compelled to write, express, and dissect existence with a razor sharp wit.

Doug Stanhope

He blends brutal honesty, dark humor, and a deep contempt for societal norms. His raw no-bullshit take on life, politics, and human stupidity aligns with my own misanthropy, especially his disdain for blind patriotism, capitalism, and pro-natalism He doesn’t care about being a hero or inspiring people, he just calls out the bullshit for what it is.

Che Guevara

He wasn’t just a theorist, he was a man of action. He saw capitalism and imperialism as global enemies that needed to be dismantled everywhere. That kind of commitment resonates with my own view that capitalism just isn’t a local problem, but a systemic one that requires radical disruption. His image represents defiance, struggle, and an unrelenting pursuit of justice.

Malcolm X

Malcolm X wasn’t interested in playing nice with the system or begging for incremental change. He wanted radical transformation just like with my own frustration with passive leftism and half-measures. His ability to evolve is also great. He started as a staunch Black nationalist but later expanded his vision to a broader fight against oppression worldwide.

Arthur Schopenhauer

His view that the “will to live” traps people in a cycle of pointless striving  aligns with my belief that bringing new life into the world is ethically indefensible. Unlike other philosophers who try to find meaning in suffering; Schopenhauer just lays it bare: existence is a cruel joke, and the best we can do is minimize suffering. His radical honesty about the bleakness of life, combined with his sharp wit and refusal to engage in false hope makes him a natural fit for my worldview.

Thomas Ligotti

His work embodies a philosophical commitment to cosmic horror and existential dread that mirrors my own views on the futility of existence. Ligotti sees the world as fundamentally indifferent, even hostile to human life. His vision of reality as an empty, uncaring place aligns with my own anti-natalist and absurdist leanings. His writing acknowledges the darkness I find both intellectually and existentially compellling.

Stephen King

This may comes as a shock to you, but Stephen King is a hero of mine because he’s the one who got me to love reading. I started with his books then branched out into others on government, philosophy, other people’s beliefs, etc. His deep cynicism about small-town America and institutions speak to my own skepticism toward power and the status quo. And honestly? He’s just fun to read. His mix of horror, dark humor, and no-nonsense storytelling makes him one of the few mainstream writers who doesn’t feel watered-down, which is something I respect.

Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky is a relentless critic of capitalism and U.S. imperialism and he backs up his arguments with deep historical and political analysis. He doesn’t just complain, he provides historical context, logical arguments, and a roadmap for action. His work exposes how power operates from corporate media manipulation to government-backed atrocities. His views align with my own desire to challenge capitalism and push for real change.

Peter Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin showed me that cooperation — not competition — is what can keep society alive, and that real power comes from the bottom up, not the top down. He helped me unlearn the propaganda of capitalism and see that solidarity is not naive — it’s revolutionary.

Supporting the Military is Socialism

I find it funny that those who are so against socialism are also the ones who shout the loudest about defending our military. Our military is socialized, people. It’s one of the most socialized institutions in the United States. It operates on a system that the government fully funds, controls, and provides for its personnel including:

Universal healthcare: Active duty military members receive free medical and dental care.

Housing and food: The government provides housing and allowances for rent, along with subsidized meals.

Guaranteed employment and pension: Service members have stable jobs, and those who serve long enough receive a pension.

Centralized planning: Resources, production, and logistics are controlled by the government rather than the free market.

I find it ironic that those who oppose socialism support a military system that embodies it.

How a Libertarian Socialist Society Would Work

I’ve already stated my political leanings and they are very far to the left. We’re seeing what the far right can do to a society and it’s horrible. We’re seeing it now. Some people saw it in Nazi Germany. The far right is dangerous and should be destroyed. Capitalism itself should be destroyed.

So, what would a libertarian socialist society look like? I’ve been reading more and more about my political leanings and coming up with how the United States would look under libertarian socialism and here’s what I’ve come up with:

First and foremost, it would prioritize decentralization, have direct democracy, and collective ownership while abolishing capitalist wage labor and hierarchical state power. It would be built on cooperation, bottom-up structures that allow the people, not managers or CEOs to manage their workplaces and communities without coercion from a centralized authority.

How it would affect the economy and community

There would be no private ownership of production. That means factories, farms, and businesses would be collectively owned and managed by workers and communities. Instead of bosses, workers would directly organize production through democratic assemblies and councils. Goods and services would be distributed based on need, contribution, or through participation rather than profit-driven markets. All economic decisions would be made through federated councils of workers and consumers rather than dictated by a federal government or market forces.

How it would affect politics

Instead of a government ruling over people, power would be held in local, self-managed assemblies where absolutely everyone has a say in decisions affect them and their lives. Local communities would coordinate with each other ensuring cooperation without a top-down hierarchy. There would be no politicians. We’re all sick of them anyway, right? Instead, think about it: communities and workplaces would elect temporary, recallable delegates with strict limited power.

Free Association and Mutual Aid

People would contribute to society based on their ability and receive according to their need. For those of us, like me, who are disabled, no one would be forced to work to survive. People would contribute according to their abilities, and those unable to work would still be valued as full members of the society.

Land, housing, and natural resources would be collectively maintained and distributed according to democratic principles. People would form communities and organizations based on voluntary cooperation rather than state enforcement.

Now, some of you may be wondering how justice might work. Will there still be police and prisons? I think we can all agree that for-profit prisons have to go. Prisons will be meant for rehabilitation. That is what the society would look like: conflict resolution, justice focusing on rehabilitation, community accountability, and non-punitive solutions.

Work and Leisure

With production driven by human needs instead of profit, people would work fewer hours and have more time for leisure, education, and creativity. Who wouldn’t want a society like that? There would also be lifelong learning. Decision-making would be central to civic life.

Technological advances would be used to reduce labor, improve well-being, and enhance sustainability.

Healthcare

Healthcare would be free and universally accessible, including specialized care for the disabled, including mental health services. Caregiving would be shared responsibility rather than an individual burden, ensuring that people who need support receive it without being financially or socially isolated.

Leadership

Now, you’re probably wonder who would run such a society. Where there be a president? A leader? A kind? What kind of leadership would there be? If there were a leadership role in a libertarian socialist society, it would be more of a coordinator or spokesperson chosen by democratic means, with limited power and subject to recall at any time. Governance would be more about collective decision-making through councils, federations, or assemblies rather than a single executive figure.

Utopia

Would a libertarian socialist society be a utopia? No. There’s no such thing as a utopia. People aren’t perfect and conflicts will arise. The democratic structures would allow for ongoing problem-solving and adaptation without authoritarian control.

If I’m being honest, it would be messy and experimental at first, with different regions trying different forms of organization. The core principles would remain though: maximizing freedom and equality by ensuring that power is always distributed among the people rather than concentrated in a ruling class.

If you’ve read this far, I thank you. These are just my ideas of what a libertarian socialist society would look like based on my reading of the system and researching it and reading a shit load of Noam Chomsky and Peter Kropotkin. I haven’t read much by Mikhail Bakunin, but he’s on my list and I’m curious about his ideas of what a society should be.

So, what do you think? Would you live in this type of society? I for one am tired of capitalism and would jump at the chance to try something new.

Profit Over People

No one should have to choose between getting medical care and paying rent. The idea that access to healthcare depends on your ability to pay is fundamentally inhumane. A just society ensures that everyone, regardless of income, has the care they need to lead a healthy life.

The U.S. spends more per capita on healthcare than any other country, yet millions remain uninsured or underinsured. A universal system would not only be morally right but also economically efficient: cutting administrative waste, reducing costs, and improving outcomes. It’s time to move beyond the for-profit model and prioritize people over profit.

Why isn’t it a human right? Because the people in power don’t want it to be. Declaring healthcare a human right would mean dismantling the profit-driven system that enriches insurance companies, pharmaceutical giants, and private hospitals. The U.S. treats healthcare as a commodity rather than a necessity because there’s too much money to be made off people getting sick.

The right to healthcare exists in principle–most developed nations recognize it–but in the U.S., it’s deliberately kept out of reach. Politicians take donations (bribes) from the healthcare industry, lobbyists, write policy, and the public is fed propaganda about the “dangers” of universal healthcare: “it will lead to longer wait times!” (the U.S. already has long wait times) ;”it will be too expensive” (the U.S. already spends more per capita on healthcare than countries with universal systems); “it’s socialism!” And? Socialized fire departments, socialized roads, socialized military. Why is healthcare where we draw the line? People accept Medicare, VA healthcare, and public schools without screaming about socialism

Basically, these arguments exist to protect the profits of insurance and pharmaceutical companies, not to help people.

The Final Dividend

(Foreward: A dear friend of mine encouraged me to write this. It took a couple of days to get the ideas down and get me thoughts together. I hope you enjoy it. And thank you to V a.k.a. “the forgottenblog1.)

The world’s last remaining stock market boomed. It was the only one left, because there was no one left to trade but them.

It had started as a whisper in boardrooms, a casual joke among the ultra-rich: “What if we just got rid of everyone else? The poors? The lowest of the low? What if it was just us elite billionaires?” They has always treated the rest of the population as a liability: wages to be cut, benefits to be slashes, lives to be extracted for profit. But then, someone finally asked the real question: Why not eliminate the expense entirely?

At first, they used the usual methods: starving out the poor through manipulated supply chains, forcing millions into homelessness while hoarding resources. Governments, long in their pockets, stood by. Then they accelerated the process. Bioengineered pandemics swept through the slums and working class neighborhoods, perfectly tailored to spare those who had access to the right treatments. Automated drones enforced curfews in the name of “public safety,” but only ever seemed to fire upon protestors. AI-controlled banking systems ensured that those without wealth found themselves unable to access even the most basic necessities.

Then came The Dividend.

It was announced through a simple memo, circulated among only the elite:

“Congratulations, shareholders. Effective immediately, the burden of the lower classes has been liquidated. Your assets will now be divided amongst the survivors.”

And just like that, the last of the workers were gone.

At first, they celebrated. The billionaires threw opulent parties in their isolated compounds, toasting to their genius. The world was finally efficient. No more whining about wages, no more regulations, no more taxes. They had reached the pinnacle of civilization: an Earth owned and operated by the few who truly mattered.

But soon, cracks began to show.

The automated factories still produced goods, but who would innovate, repair, and improve them? The fields of genetically modified crops stretched for miles, but the systems that maintained them required technicians–people who had been deemed expendable. The billionaires, so accustomed to being catered to, found themselves unable to do anything beyond shifting numbers on a screen.

Worse, the infighting began almost immediately. Without an external enemy, they turned on each other. One by one, they disappeared. Eliminated by poisoned wine, rigged self-driving cars, security drones that “malfunctioned.” Each death resulted in a wealth redistribution among the remaining few.

The final survivor sat alone in his penthouse, overlooking a silent, empty city.

The stock market was at an all-time high.

And there was no one left to spend a dime.

Explaining Libertarian Socialism to a Child

Libertarian socialism is the belief that people should be free from both government control and corporate power. It’s about creating a society where workers and communities make decisions together, rather than being ruled by politicians or bosses.

Imagine a workplace where everyone has a say in how things are run instead of a CEO calling all the shots. Or a  neighborhood where people work together to solve problems instead of waiting for the government to step in. Libertarian socialists want a world built on cooperation, fairness, and shared resources without the need for big government or a ruling class.

It’s “socialist” because it opposes capitalism and wealth hoarding , and it’s “libertarian” because it values personal freedom and opposes authoritarian control

It’s about people sharing and making decisions together, instead of having a big boss or a big government telling them what to do.

Imagine if your toys belonged to everyone, and you and your friends decided together how to play with them. Nobody gets to take all the toys for themselves, and nobody gets to be the only boss. Everyone helps, everyone shares, and everyone is free to do what makes them happy without someone being unfairly in charge.

For liberals:

Libertarian socialism is like taking democracy and applying it everywhere, including the workplace. You already believe in democracy for government. But in capitalism, businesses are run like little dictatorships, where the boss has all the power. Libertarian socialism means workers and communities having a say in the decisions that affect them, so workplaces are democratic, wealth is shared more fairly and corporate power doesn’t run everything. It’s about freedom, but also fairness. You get to keep your personal rights, but without billionaires hoarding all the resources and rigging the system.

For conservatives

Libertarian socialism is about real freedom, freedom from both government overreach and corporate control. Right now, big businesses control the economy, and the government props them up while crushing small businesses and workers instead of relying on government handouts or corporate bosses, libertarian socialism means people working together directly to run things, like worker-owned businesses and community-driven solutions. It’s about keeping power in the hands of everyday people instead of elites, whether they’re in Washington or Wall Street.

My Creed

One of my dearest friends told me that I needed a creed, a formal statement of beliefs and principles that guide someone or someones; something to express my core convictions, a declaration of what I fight for and believe in. The following is my creed.

I believe in the chaos of change.

I reject the broken foundation of a broken system.

I stand for the dismantling of power.

The unraveling of greed.

The challenge to those who profit off suffering.

I believe in direct action–

Not in idle words or empty promises.

I refuse to be silent, to be complacent.

I believe in shaking the world awake,

in stirring discomfort,

in fighting for liberation.

I choose disruption over conformity,

Because to be still is to be complicit.

I will use every tool at my disposal–

Words, memes, action, chaos–

To challenge, to disrupt, to overthrow.

I reject the myth of “life” as an inherent gift.

I believe in the right to never be born,

To spare the world more suffering.

I stand against more suffering.

I stand against the perpetuation of pain,

And I refuse to glorify procreation in a broken world

I am not here to appease the powerful.

I am here to tear down their structures,

And build something new, something free.

This is my creed.

This is my fight.

Why I Am Against Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians

I’ve been stating that I am a socialist. I am a member of various groups on Facebook and when I attack Trump, I am called a “socialist Democrat.” I am not a Democrat. Democrats are capitalists just like Republicans, but the public is uneducated and don’t know the distinction. I used to think I was Libertarian, but they’re just extreme Republicans. I thought I’d lay out why I am against the Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians.

Republicans

Republicans are capitalism’s biggest defenders. Their pro-corporate, anti-worker policies directly clash with my goals. As someone who leans toward libertarian socialism, the GOP’s obsession with deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and union-busting infuriates me. Trump, especially is a major problem, and Republicans have embraced him fully. I think they have split off into two factions: Republicans and MAGA. MAGA is just Republicanism pushed to the extreme. MAGA is a natural enemy to what I’m against. On another note, Republicans push policies that promote population growth, and being an anti-natalist I am wholeheartedly against this. It completely goes against my ethics

Democrats

My opposition to Democrats comes from their failure to actually challenge capitalism and make meaningful change. While they talk about fairness, they ultimately uphold the same capitalist system I want to disrupt. They’ll tweak the edges, sure, but won’t challenge the core of the problem. They campaign on progressive ideas but rarely follow through in ways that matter. Medicare for All? Green New Deal? They talk big, but cave to corporate interests. They also take money from the same corporations and billionaires that Republicans do. They talk about progressivism but won’t truly take on the rich. Furthermore, even as Republicans become more extreme, Democrats often respond with weakness instead of fighting back aggressively. Their strategy of “let’s be reasonable” isn’t working.

Libertarians

Libertarians are more defenders of capitalism and they are against collective action. They worship the free market and want fewer regulations which make things worse for the working class and the environment. They reject collective solutions in favor of “personal responsibility,” which is useless when fighting systemic problems like wealth inequality or climate change. While I’m an anti-natalist and don’t give a shit if there are future generations, you’d think they’d give a little more of a shit about their future generations. I’ve said before that I used to worship Ayn Rand, but I learned the error of my ways. I saw through her selfish philosophy, but Libertarians never grew out of it. I especially hate their rejection of solidarity.

In summation: Republicans openly serve the rich, push corporate control, and embrace authoritarianism. Democrats pretend to care about change but protect capitalism and avoid real action. Libertarians worship the free market, reject collective solutions, and would let corporations run wild.

At the core, all three prioritize profit over people and resist the kind of radical change I believe is necessary.

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.