5 Likes
Collins exibits “nastiness” that some might inadequately characterize as “Daddy Issues”.
One of the primary causes of collapse is the way ersatz civilizations crank out these erstwhile females.
My working diagnosis of these erstwhile females is an evopsychopathology summed up in the rather convoluted cognitive tangle:
“Let’s you and me fight since I can’t get you and he to fight as a way for me decide who has the genes that will sire sons viable in the current environment, and if I can’t even get you to fight me then either castrate yourself and change the diapers of my babies sired with a real Man or tear down this nightmarish Hell of a civilization to the ground. And, no, I don’t have any awareness whatsoever of the Alpha Of State standing behind me as my true Lord and Protector ready to throw your pink ass in a cage to be raped by ethnic gangs. All I see is you cowering in front of me.”
Guys like Trump have gone through a very different neurophysiological development from all but a very tiny minority of men, resulting in a very rare commodity from the standpoint of this evopsychopathological erstwhile female. The audience of that Town Hall knows deep in their gut that if there is any hope of recovering this ersatz civilization, it is in men like Trump.
The problem is, Trump doesn’t really get what it takes to cultivate men like himself. Oh, he’s better in this regard than 99% of what passes as politicians out there – I’ll give him that – but he is far from understanding that if you don’t get boys very early on and focus on them building, by the age of 18, a homestead adequate to responsibly siring at least one child, you are guilty of cranking out things like that erstwhile female.
6 Likes
People don’t understand that the top-down monetary system is the reason their children are being sexually assaulted like this, and Roku does nothing about it after what are probably millions of complaints. Don’t buy the Big Lie that “Go Woke Go Broke”. Oh, sure, it occasionally happens but the way money enters the economy to satisfy the growing demand of the global economy for the world reserve currency guarantees there will be no shortage of sustenance for increasingly monopolistic and abusive corporations. And you can rest assured that with immigration poisoning the electorate on behalf of the Democrats, the government will continue to demand that corporations engage in sexual assault of children in exchange for non-enforcement of antitrust laws.
And because women without* children have the vote, we can’t vote our way out of this.
militia.money
*and increasingly many women with children are more concerned with treating their children as fashion accessories, by castrating them, than they are with raising their children to reproductive viability.
4 Likes
Interesting thought: could antitrust theories be used to curtail controlling positions of investment firms like Blackrock or State Street? The theory being that once any one investor reaches controlling shares then they can exert control sufficient to harm consumer welfare.
3 Likes
I’m not sure how antitrust theories operationally defined protecting “consumer welfare” beyond ensuring what some would call a “level playing field” for competition. The problem is that if the tax base is on economic activity rather than the cost of protecting property, then you have an inherently tilted playing field that you can’t correct anymore than you can correct a control system that confuses a variable with its derivative.
5 Likes
That’s because it’s no longer “fashionable” to be male. They’re looking for a dishrag, not a man.
3 Likes
The whole rationale for antitrust has been largely lost in the way it is applied and enforced today. Originally, antitrust was intended to protect customers and ultimately consumers from cartels which conspired to keep prices high for all members by agreeing not to compete on price, or effective monopolies which could charge artificially high prices because they had killed off competition and could use their control of the market to keep competitors from arising by targeting them by dumping products below a profitable price for the competitors. The term of art was “combination in restraint of trade”.
Somehow, starting in the 1960s (that decade where rivets were popping out all over the over-stressed skin of a free society), antitrust began to be interpreted as blocking combination of businesses in like markets beyond a given size even when the combined firm would still have a number of already-established competitors to restrain its pricing power. Further, antitrust was used to block mergers which would allow firms to increase their vertical integration and efficiency, which tends to reduce prices for customers.
Now, like so many forms of coercive regulation, antitrust has become a weapon companies deploy against competitors or potential competitors to block mergers which threaten them, largely decoupled from consideration of the interests of the customers, which antitrust was created to protect.
8 Likes
So true. On the other hand, we do have to recognize that the competitive process does naturally tend to result in monopolies, or at least oligopolies (as the game of Monopoly demonstrates). Think of the drastic reduction over the last century in the number of auto manufacturers in the West, or of the significant reduction in the number of airlines, or of the substantial decline in the number of oil companies. In the short term, the arguments for combinations (“synergies”, as the management consultants say, while picking up their checks) are strong; unfortunately in the longer term, that generally means less R&D, fewer people making the big decisions, and a tendency to milk the cow today while forgetting about raising calves for tomorrow.
Recognizing that issue does not necessarily justify anti-trust – especially when there is zero trust in the uprightness of the politicians & lawyers running the anti-trust operation. There may be a case for encouraging well-constructed monopolies – think how many calves Bell Labs nurtured while supported by AT&T milking its telephone monopoly.
6 Likes
Here’s the question: can investors monopolize shares of various competitors thereby cartelizing the industries through majority power in an attempt to fix prices?
6 Likes