Why I and People Like Me Hate Trump

People hate Trump for all sorts of reasons and they’re all valid. Why do I hate him? Well, I’ll tell you.

I hate that he represents the worst combination of arrogance, ignorance, cruelty, and power. He’s the embodiment of everything wrong with American politics–corruption, racism, greed, and narcissism–and he’s turned politics into a grotesque reality show. I see him not only as a bad president but a symptom of a much deeper rot in our system: capitalism run amok, cultish nationalism, and the glorification of stupidity.

He brags about things he should be ashamed of. He lies like it’s breathing. He panders to white supremacists, demonizes immigrants, mocks the disabled, and dodges accountability at every turn. And somehow, he became president.

I hate him because he made it clear that cruelty isn’t a bug in the system–it’s a feature. He ripped children from their parents and bragged about it. He treated a pandemic like a PR problem and let hundreds of thousands die while pushing bleach as a cure. He spent years dog-whistling to fascists until the whistles became bullhorns, and then claimed no responsibility when his mob stormed the Capitol.

He doesn’t just represent conservative politics–he represents a cult of personality built on lies, resentment, and fear. He’s not just a symptom of decline, he accelerates it. He made it okay for the worst people to say the quiet part out loud–open racism, misogyny, transphobia, conspiracy theories–he gave it a platform and a suit.

He’s everything people warned us about in history books, except with a golf course and a gold toilet.

And the worst part? Millions cheer him on because of this, not in spite of it. That’s what really makes my blood boil.

Trump didn’t break America. He just held up a mirror, grinned, and asked if we wanted to make it worse.

“All Libertarians Are Scum”? Not So Fast

Recently, I told someone I was a libertarian socialist. Their response? “All libertarians are scum.”

It’s not the first time I’ve heard that sort of reaction. And I get it–libertarian is a poisoned word in the U.S. For most Americans “libertarian” evokes the image of a smug tech bro hoarding Bitcoin, quoting Ayn Rand, and arguing that child labor laws are tyranny. That brand of libertarianism–individualist, capitalist–has dominated the label in the U.S. for decades.

But that’s not what libertarian socialism means.

Libertarian socialism is anti-authoritarian leftist tradition. It’s about dismantling both state and capitalist hierarchies. It stands opposed to top-down government and to concentrated private power. It believes freedom doesn’t mean “I get to exploit people without interference.” It means collective self-determination, mutual aid, and horizontal organization. It’s about organizing society around human needs and not profit.

If you’re familiar with anarchism, council communism, or even some strains of syndicalism, you’ve brushed shoulders with libertarian socialism. It’s the politics of Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky, and the Zapatistas in Mexico–not Ayn Rand and Elon Musk.

The confusion stems from a linguistic hijacking. In much of the world–especially in Latin America and Europe–libertarian has long been associated with the left. The term was originally used by anarchists to distinguish themselves from authoritarian Marxists such as Stalin and Pol Pot. In fact, in 19th century France, libertaire was often a stand-in for anarchist, especially when anarchism was censored of criminalized.

But in the U.S., thanks for Cold War politics, capitalist rebranding, and a lot of Koch brothers’ money, “libertarian” came to mean something closer to “I think poor people should die faster.” The right-wing libertarians here have tried to claim the whole world, but that doesn’t mean they own it.

So when I say I’m a libertarian socialist, I’m not trying to split the difference between Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, I’m saying I want a world without billionaires or bureaucrats. I’m saying we need both freedom and equality, not as competing values, but as inseparable ones.

Here’s the core idea:

You’re not free if you spend your life working for someone else just to survive.

You’re not free if your boss can dictate your every move because they control your livelihood.

You’re not free if the government props up corporations while criminalizing poverty.

Libertarian socialism rejects the false choice between “state control” and “corporate control.” We want neither. We want self-control. We want power in the hands of communities, workers, and individuals, not oligarchs and technocrats.

So no, not all libertarians are scum. Some of us are trying to burn down the same systems you are, just from a different angle.

Why I Choose to Believe in God and Still Support Abortion and Socialism

Some people think believing in God means aligning with the conservative status quo–opposing abortion, defending capitalism, and preaching personal responsibility while ignoring systemic injustice. I don’t. I believe in God, and I support abortion rights. I believe in socialism too. And no, I’m not confused.

This isn’t a contradiction. It’s a deliberate choice.

Faith isn’t a monolith

Religion in America has been hijacked by the right, turned into a weapon of control instead of a source of liberation. But faith isn’t theirs to own. History is full of radical, justice-driven believers–liberation theologians in Latin America, Black churches in the Civil Rights movement, even the early Christians who lived communally and rejected materialism.

My belief in God is rooted in those traditions. The God I believe in doesn’t demand blind obedience to the state or to billionaires. That God doesn’t shrink at questions or doubt. That God isn’t afraid of justice.

I didn’t inherent my faith fully formed–I wrestled with it. I still do. But I choose to believe because I refuse to accept that this world, in all its cruelty and absurdity, is the end of the story. I believe because somewhere inside me, hope refuses to die although it tries to every single fucking day.

I support abortion because I believe in compassion. Because forcing someone to carry a pregnancy they don’t want–especially in a world that is broken–is violence, not virtue. Because I believe in bodily autonomy. Because I’ve seen what happens when that autonomy is stripped away.

The God I believe in gave people free will. That includes the right to make choices about their own bodies. No government or church should have the power to override that. And if you think banning abortion is “pro-life,” but you’re silent about poverty, maternal mortality, and the children already suffering in this world, your morality is hollow.

You can’t claim to care about life and then ignore the lives of women, trans people, and anyone else whose bodies are up for debate.

Jesus wasn’t a capitalist.

Let’s be clear: If Jesus showed up today, a lot of Christians wouldn’t recognize him. He wasn’t a billionaire. He didn’t hang out with the rich and powerful. He called them out. He flipped tables in the temple and told a rich man to give everything away.

Sound like capitalism to you?

Socialism, at its core, is about taking care of each other. Feeding the hungry. Healing the sick. Building systems that value human lives over profits. I support socialism because I believe we have a responsibility to each other–especially to the most vulnerable.

It’s bizarre how many Christians defend billionaires, corporations, and hoarding wealth while ignoring every single thing Jesus actually said about money and power.

The real betrayal of faith isn’t in questioning doctrine, it’s in using God to justify cruelty. It’s in standing by while people suffer, clinging to a theology of control. I won’t do that. I believe in God. I am a Christian. And because of that, I support a world where people are free. Free to live, to choose, to thrive. I support abortion rights. I support socialism. And I believe God is big enough to hold both my faith and my fire for justice.

A Movie Star and Reality Show Star President

What does it say about conservatives that their two idols are Reagan: a polished actor who turned smiling while gutting social programs into an art form. He kicked off the modern era of trickle-down economics, mass incarceration, union busting, and “government is the problem” rhetoric. He was the velvet glove over the iron fist of neoliberalism.

Then there’s Trump: A brash, gold-plated conman who ditched the velvet glove entirely and wrapped the fist in a red hat. He turned politics into a circus, embraced open corruption, and fed white grievance politics with a firehose.

So what does it say that these two are the main idols of conservatives and the Republican party?

It says they worship aesthetics over ethics. Reagan sold the dream while hollowing it out; Trump hawks the nightmare as a feature. Together, they represent the conservative id: nostalgia, hierarchy, wealth worship, and cruelty–first dressed in a cowboy hat, then in a golf cap.

Reagan and Trump are less political figures and more myths–icons of conservative longing. But the values they embody reveal a lot about the psychology of the American right.

Conservatives idolized Reagan for what he symbolized:

A return to tradition after the upheaval of the 60s and 70s–code for putting women, people of color, and the working class back in their place. He was patriotic, optimistic, and deeply hollow. He gutted the social safety net, helped catalyze the AIDS crisis through negligence, and kicked off the war on drugs that became a war on Black communities.

His trickle-down economics, which conservatives still cling to like a religion despite 40+ years of evidence that it doesn’t work was sucked up and hoarded.

Reagan is idolized not because he helped people, but because he helped the right people–corporations, the rich, and white suburbia–feel good about stepping on everyone else.

Then you have Trump. Where Reagan was the polished actor, Trump is the reality TV boss–all ego, rage, and spectacle. His rise didn’t replace Reaganism it revealed what was always beneath it:

Open authoritarianism instead of coded dog whistles.

Grievance politics centered on the loss of white, male, Christian dominance.

Blatant corruption celebrated as “winning” by his followers.

What do these two say about conservatives as a whole? They value dominance over democracy. Both reinforced hierarchies: racial, economic, gendered, and that’s the point. The conservative movement today isn’t about ideas, it’s about keeping their group on top.

They prioritize feelings over facts. Reagan made conservatives feel safe. Trump makes them feel powerful. The results don’t matter. It’s vibes all the way down.

They replace accountability. Reagan dodged responsibility for Iran-Contra. Trump dodges it for everything. In both cases, the base cheers the escape, not the truth.

They long for a mythical past. Reagan promised a return to a golden age that never existed. Trump promised the same only louder, meaner, and with more gold plating. Both feed the same nostalgia machine that keeps people looking backward instead of forward.

Worshiping Reagan and Trump isn’t about policy. It’s about identity, fantasy, and fear. One sold the myth with a smile. The other screamed it into a megaphone. Either way, it’s about clinging to a dying order and pretending it’s salvation.

They’re not ideologically consistent heroes, they’re mascots of the decline.

Official Member of the Democratic Socialists of America

I recently received my membership card from the Democratic Socialists of America. I also donate a few bucks a month to this organization. Now, you may be saying, “But Kafkaphony, you’re a Libertarian Socialist. What’s this about?”

Well, libertarian socialists don’t have a website because they are more decentralized by nature. Libertarian socialists are inherently suspicious of centralized power–even in organizations. So creating a single “official” website or group is contradictory to a lot in the movement. Also, the DSA has membership dues, elected leadership, and is involved in electoral politics. Libertarian socialists reject those kinds of structures, which means they lack the resources to build or maintain polished sites or public campaigns.

So, how can I be a libertarian socialist and donate to the DSA? I like to work within the DSA for strategic reasons. The DSA is a “big tent” and includes: Marxists, social Democrats, Democratic socialists (obviously), libertarian socialists, and even some anarchists and syndicalists.

The DSA is a vehicle, not an identity. It’s a way to build power, influence policy, and meet like-minded people, even if the ultimate goal (like abolishing the state or capitalism entirely) goes beyond what the DSA is currently pushing.

I prefer to use the DSA to push for reforms that improve people’s lives now, even if the long-term goal is revolution or abolition of hierarchies. I use it for organizing opportunities like meeting people who might be down for more radical actions outside of the DSA. It’s also for learning skills, gaining political, experience, and building networks.

There will be disagreements between the two though. The DSA sometimes supports electoral politics, which some libertarian socialists reject. However, it’s the best we’ve got right now. I don’t have to buy into the DSA’s entire platform.

I plan on using the DSA to connect with organizers, practice power building, and to push for transformative demands, but I’m always keeping my eye on the bigger picture: dismantling capitalism, hierarchy, and the state–not just reforming them. I’m looking for shared goals and ways to push the DSA further left by putting theory into action.

What I Learned from Malcolm X

I’ve just finished The Autobiography of Malcolm X today. It took me a week to read it and I loved every page. We weren’t taught much about Malcolm X in school, more about people like Rosa Parks and MLK. So I was interested in reading about him for myself, but I also wondered, “What can I, a white, Southern person learn from a black man from Harlem?” The answer is quite a bit.

The book is a deep exploration of power, transformation, and systemic oppression. As a white person, here are some of my takeaways:

Malcolm X detailed how racism is woven into American institutions, from schools to the legal system. Seeing it from his perspective exposed blind spots I never noticed before. These issues are still going on today and the Civil Rights movement ended decades ago.

The book makes it clear that racism isn’t just about personal prejudice but a system that shapes people’s lives from birth. Malcolm X’s experiences with teachers, the criminal justice system, and media narratives all reinforce this. The criminal justice system is still, in 2025 wrought with prejudice against those of color and the poor.

I always just thought Malcolm X was a racist who hated white people, but I’ve learned he was so much more than that. His rage at white America wasn’t irrational–it was a response to generations of oppression. His story forced me to confront the reasons behind that anger instead of dismissing it.

His transformation from a hustler to a political leader showed me the power of self-education. As I become more politically involved and lean more into libertarian socialism, I’m learning more and more about the power of self-education. It shows that there’s a lesson in there that people can change, including how we perceive race and privilege and politics.

Malcolm X’s views evolved over time, just as mine have. He went from being against white America until his pilgrimage to Mecca. He started with a hard separatist perspective but later saw the potential for solidarity across racial lines. That evolution is crucial–realizing that no single perspective is fixed.

Lastly, while Malcolm X was skeptical of white allies, he also acknowledged that some could play a role in dismantling white supremacy. His challenge to white people was to do the work among other white people rather than expecting praise from black activists.

Ultimately, the book isn’t just about race. It’s about seeing the world as it really is, questioning power, and committing to real change. I think if you read it with an open mind as I did, it can be a transformative experience.

Does Socialism Mean that Everyone Will be Poor?

One of the most common myths about socialism is that it makes everyone equally poor. It’s a talking point used to scare people away from the idea of economic justice, but it’s far from the truth. In reality, socialism isn’t about dragging everyone down. It’s about lifting everyone up.

What is Socialism Really About?

At its core, socialism is about making sure wealth and resources are distributed more fairly. It doesn’t mean no one can be successful or that everyone has to live in the same conditions. Instead, it prioritizes meeting basic human needs–like healthcare, education, and housing–so that no one is left behind while a small elite hoards obscene amounts of wealth.

Under capitalism, wealth tends to concentrate at the top, leaving millions struggling to get by. In contrast, socialist policies aim to level the playing field by ensuring that the economy serves the majority, not just the privileged few.

But Won’t That Lead to Poverty?

This is where the misconception comes in. Critics argue that socialism discourages innovation and hard work, leading to economic stagnation. But history shows otherwise. Many countries that have adopted socialist policies–especially in areas like healthcare, worker protections, and public services–have some of the highest standards of living in the world.

Take the Nordic countries, for example. While they’re not fully socialist, they implement strong socialist policies: universal healthcare, free education, and robust social safety nets, The result? High wages, low poverty, and some of the happiest populations on the planet.

Who Really Stays Rich Under Capitalism?

If you’re worried about socialism making you poor, ask yourself: Is capitalism actually making you rich? For most people, the answer is no. Wages have stagnated while billionaires multiply their fortunes. Basic necessities like housing, education, and healthcare are increasingly out of reach for the average person.

Socialism doesn’t mean equal poverty. It means ensuring that wealth isn’t locked away by a tiny elite while the rest of society struggles. It’s about making sure the economy works for all of us, not just those born into wealth and power.

At the end of the day, the real question isn’t whether socialism will make everyone poor. It’s whether we’re okay with an economic system that keeps most people struggling while a handful live in unimaginable luxury.

Elon Musk’s Breeding Fetish

I’ve always thought Elon Musk has a creepy breeding fetish. Hey, I’m all for fetishes, let that freak flag fly, but not when it comes to bringing more people into the world. Blow your load into someone all you want as long as she’s on birth control or you’ve had a vasectomy. Aside from that? Wear a condom or don’t have sex at all. Contrary to what Apartheid Clyde says, we don’t need more people on this planet.

His obsession with population growth seems to stem from his belief that declining birth rates in developed countries could lead to a societal and economic collapse. He has repeatedly expressed concern that a “collapse” of civilization could occur if the global birth rates continue to fall. I say let the collapse happen. We as a society, we as civilization have failed miserably. This little homo sapien experiment didn’t work. Destroy all of it and either start over or don’t. I’ll be dead and won’t care one way or the other.

Apartheid Clyde’s neediness for wanting others to breed and his own having fourteen kids doesn’t have to do with anything altruistic for the planet or civilization. There are several problems with his obsession with birth rates:

It ignores environmental limits. The planet is already struggling with overpopulation in terms of resource consumption, pollution, and climate change. Pushing for more births ignores the ecological consequences of an ever-growing human footprint.

His stance also aligns with capitalist concerns about shrinking labor forces and economic stagnation rather than a genuine concern for human flourishing. A declining population could be beneficial in terms of resource distribution, quality of life, and sustainability. Also, if Apartheid Clyde truly believes in AI and automation replacing human labor, then a shrinking workforce shouldn’t be a problem. His push for higher birth rates contradicts his own predictions about technological advances reducing the need for human workers.

It’s also easy for a billionaire with immense resources to advocate for having many children. Most people don’t have the luxury to provide for large families in a world where wages stagnate, housing costs soar, and healthcare remains inaccessible.

There’s also an authoritarian aspect to his desire for population growth. His rhetoric could feed into dangerous population policies, where governments or societies pressure people into having children against their will. Historically, state-driven population growth policies have led to human rights abuses, especially against women.

And what about us that are already here? Why not focus on improving conditions for existing people–healthcare, education, workers’ rights, and wealth redistribution–Apartheid Clyde fixates on increasing birth rates as its quantity is more important than the quality of life.

Civilization isn’t doomed, as he seems to think. The whole “civilization collapse” is a myth. Societies can adapt through better resource management, immigration, and restructuring economic models rather than resorting to a blind push for more births.

Ultimately, Apartheid Clyde’s obsession seems less about genuine human well-being and more about maintaining a system that benefits people like him–billionaires who can rely on endless economic expansion, cheap labor, and a future workforce to exploit.

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.

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.