PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

Covering for fraud again. (With their added favorite of censoring free speech).

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 12:09 PM 0 comments

Sober appraisals.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 10:21 AM 0 comments

Orange man fun.

Barely a week goes by where Donald Trump doesn’t say something controversial. Many of his statements are just a reflection of a style of speaking that could be called spontenious stream of consciousness. The more aggresive attacks he’s known for (e.g. sparing recently with the Pope) are typically mere sarcastic and witty responses to — often groundless — attacks initially directed at him.

We’re supposed to be impressed that heads of state in Europe or the UN clearly hate Trump but it’s not so impressive when one realizes that these leaders are little different from an American Democrat. International leftists hate Trump -- so. There are numerous leaders that actually like and respect Trump.

I’ve noted it before that our support for a political figure is largely based on two things; personality and charecter or policy positions (and the ability to implement them), or some combination of the two.

Most of us who are aligned with Trump’s policy positions really don’t care if he’s offended someone. To be sure, he has often said things that earn a cringe. Some of his comments are indefensible. Many actually are defensible particularly when compared to the nonsense his opponents regularly spout (e.g. James Carville).

I’ve often said that Trump is a “package deal.” If you want a secure border and sound economic policy you may have to endure some acerbic comedy.

For those so offended by the president’s personal flaws, are you really all that impressed by those who vote solely on appearance and personality while pursuing reckless policies? Talking heads often sought to depict Trump’s predecessor as a kindly old man as if that bogus portrayal justified the near ruin of the nation.

While eye-rolls over Trump’s antics may be legitimate, the attempts to depict him as an “authoritarian” “king” are groundless. Every president seeks to push their agenda as forcefully as possible. If the policy is opposed by enough people, the other branches of government balence the president’s choices to some degree. Trump summed up the reality of his situation when addressing the stupid “king” accusation; “I can’t even build a ballroom,” “some king. A king who can’t even build a ballroom.” In every case where the Supreme Court has ruled against a Trump policy, the president has honored the ruling and gone back to the drawing board and sought other legally sanctioned means of fulfilling his goals.

Along with the “king” accusation we have the even stupider, “Hitler” cliche'. I actually know a lot about Hitler and Nazi Germany (I wrote a short book on the mystic elements that drove much of National socialist philosophy) and, Trump is no Hitler. The ridiculousness of the accusation is obvious when one realizes that the same nonsense was directed at Reagan, Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Basically anyone who isn’t on board with leftism in all its guises, defaults to being “Hitler.” In two and a half years, Trump will no longer be president. At that time (actually before), JD Vance, Marco Rubio, or some other public figure offensive to leftist demands will miraculously become Hitler.

We all have a kind of karma that traces a path of predictability to our circumstance. Without a doubt, Trump has an odd repeating theme in his life where people turn on him. He definitely pushes some buttons. I think a big factor is his sarcasm. Even people he has been relatively close to find themselves targets of — often childish — insult. Some people are able to let it slide and remain in good graces. Others just can’t deal with it — Omarosa, Marjorie Taylor Greene, et al. (There’s a long list). Then, there is the “Trump curse.” A jokingly referred to tendency for those who attack him to find themselves punished by fate (I’m hoping Adam Schiff will be a recipient of this scale of Justice).

People who put a lot of weight on personality likily chose Kamala Harris in the last election (not that her personality was that impressive) and they will no doubt fall for the used car salesman persona of a Gavin Newsom in future elections. But, if policy actions holds more weight in one’s political choices, you may have to also go with some cringe and off-the-wall sponteneity.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 11:48 AM 0 comments

The age of relativism often promotes fads of adulation but there are few personalities in our time that have earned respect for their support of timeless visions.

THIS is what a Supreme Court justice should be.

(An excellent excerpt).

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 9:47 PM 0 comments

Stop wasting taxpayer and private funds on stupid degrees in leftist propaganda and grievance that result in unemployment.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 4:51 PM 0 comments

“Can’t we all just get along.” 😂

There’s a civil war going on right now in Uganda…among chimpanzees. No doubt some delusional fool will attribute it to global warming or capitalism. Maybe it’s an expression of something much more basic.

I’m not about to gloss over the horrors of war. War is bad. There, I said it but…

From a more detached perspective we have to realize that everything in the universe, from sub-atomic particles to star clusters exist upon a spectrum of harmony or dissonance with other entities. We can strike two keys on a piano that are next to each other and notice the grating conflict between them or choose more compatible combinations that depict repose, harmony, and peace. A chain of musical events can travel the spectrum of harmony and dissonance just as a pallet of colors blend harmoniously or grate on our senses for their lack of“cooperation.” At the heart of these interactions is relationship. Everything in the universe relates in some way to everything else. A romantic relationship can be long-lasting and relatively calm or turbulent and tenuous from the start. Most relationships are unlikely to be stuck in one mode of interaction that plods along with flat predictability. America and Japan were once at war and are now reliable allies. Prior to 1979, America had a reasonable (peaceful) relationship with the enitiy we call Iran (or Persia). Now…we are at war. Actually we have been at war since 1979. People change. Governments change. Relationships change.

To be sure, humanity at war is an ugly thing. Dissonance void of harmony but, there are reasons. The reasons for going to war can be absurd, groundless, or inevitable. In the modern world, more often than not, ideologies drive conflict along with the usual conflicts over territory, resources, and the desire to conquer or defend against conquerors.

While it’s nice to be among those who renounce war in all its expressions, the real world isn’t always so passive.

In America’s present conflict with the theocracy that has ruled over Iran, there is little room for compromise. The Iranian “side” has made it clear that they will continue to seek nuclear weapons and delivery systems capable of reaching America’s allies and America itself. Of course, several countries have nuclear weapons, including America itself but no one expects France or America to be high risk of using such weapons offensively. (The “argument” that “America is the only country that actually used them” is stupid out of context). The government of Iran, in addition to funding and fermenting terror violence across many countries, has made it clear that, once they acquire nuclear weapons, they intend to use them. After having their entire air force, much of their navy, and members of their leadership eliminated, they still demand the “right” to aggressively pursue nuclear weapons -- to use definitivly.

America (and several of its allies) say “No.” An unresolvable conflict of goals. One side will get its way and it will get its way through…war. A lot of what could have dragged on for years with massive casualties has transpired within weeks (and, hopefully, not much longer). This is not Iraq or Afghanistan in spite of what talking heads imply.

An unfortunate caveat to the current conflict is…Donald Trump and the response to him by weak, pathetic, and unreliable leftists within NATO and America itself. For decades, politicians of both parties in America have expressed the need to resolve the Iran problem. Baring a change in the Iranian givernment, it was beyond inevitable that war on some level would occur. Obama’s method was to give the Islamo-fascist regime billions of dollars and hope they’d be nice. Trump’s method has been to acknowledge the inevitability of the situation and to take advantage of a combination of current circumstances and act decisively.

There are lots of Americans, even among prominent former allies of the president that are fully opposed to action at this time (most of them, in times past, spoke of the need to act). Reasonable disagreement can ponder the timing or necessity of war with Iran but, like it or not, the start button has been pushed. Now, it’s a matter of support or subversion. The nonsense of calling for an endless “ceasefire” is ridiculous. Under UN dictates we still haven’t officially ended the Korean War (a multi-decade “ceasefire”). The loser always wants a ceasefire. Institutions like the UN, NATO, and international partisan “journalism” are absolutely useless in the current circumstance.

News reports frame current disagreements as being from country to country. In cases like Spain, France, and the UK, it’s not so much their country’s lack of cooperation as it is typical socialist leaders that hate Donald Trump. Spain’s lack of assistance (very limited assistance requested, I might add) is little different from the lack of support from prominent American Democrats.

Like all martial conflict, this one will come to a conclusion. Either resolution will be delayed, allowing Iran to eventually get nuclear weapons with the almost certain conclusion that they will use them or, America and Trump will be successful (the faster the better) and the interplay of harmony and dissonance will move to other parts of the globe.

We still have Ukraine and the chimpanzee civil war in Uganda.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 6:22 PM 0 comments

The whining and bickering among conservatives, largely over specific issues like the war with Iran, is incredibly self-defeating. The most all-encompassing threat to America’s stability and prosperity lies in a resurgent Democrat party that will persecute and punish anyone who is not on board with a socialist “revolution.” Once they’re back in power they’ll ensure that opposition will be impossible. They might as well be handing the keys to China.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 12:39 PM 0 comments

Asking Grok AI about the "opposites" argument regarding fascism and communism.

Me: Is the “opposites” argument not a false dichotomy? It seems that both communism and fascism are ultimately authoritarian collectivist in nature and are opposite free market individualism.

No, it’s not a false dichotomy in the narrow sense I used it—fascism did explicitly define itself against socialism/communism’s core tenets (class warfare, internationalism, and the abolition of private property)—but your broader point is a strong and valid one. The traditional “opposites” framing (fascism = far-right, communism = far-left) does oversimplify reality into a one-dimensional spectrum that ignores how both ideologies converge as forms of authoritarian collectivism. They both prioritize the group (nation or class) over the individual and reject free-market individualism in favor of state-directed economies and social control. A more accurate view treats politics as multi-dimensional. Why the “opposites” claim has merit (but is incomplete) Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism (1932) directly attacks socialism: it rejects “the economic conception of history” (Marxist materialism) and class struggle, insisting instead on national unity transcending classes under a totalitarian state. Fascism is revolutionary nationalism + hierarchy + corporatism (state-mediated collaboration between private owners, workers, and government), while communism is revolutionary internationalism + class abolition + state ownership of production. They were historical rivals—fascists and communists fought street battles in 1920s Italy/Germany, clashed in the Spanish Civil War, and (after the 1939–41 Nazi-Soviet pact) became mortal enemies in WWII. Mussolini broke from the Italian Socialist Party precisely because he saw internationalist Marxism as incompatible with Italian national revival.

Where your observation is spot-on: the collectivism vs. individualism axis Both systems are statist and collectivist at their core: * Subordination of the individual: In fascism, “everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” In communism, the individual serves the proletariat/classless society (or, in practice, the Party). Both treat personal liberty and private property as obstacles to the “greater good.” * Anti-liberal, anti-capitalist: They despise laissez-faire markets, limited government, and classical liberalism’s emphasis on individual rights. Fascism uses corporatism (state control over nominally private enterprise); communism uses direct state ownership. Both lead to central planning, suppression of dissent, propaganda, cults of personality, and violence against “enemies.” * Authoritarian methods: Secret police, camps, surveillance, one-party rule, and rejection of democracy. As one analysis puts it, they are “two sides of the collectivist coin”—rival flavors of totalitarianism rather than polar opposites. This is why models like the Nolan Chart (or Political Compass) are more useful than a straight left-right line. They plot two axes: * Economic freedom (free markets vs. state control) * Personal freedom (individual liberty vs. authoritarian control) Fascism and communism both land in the authoritarian/statist quadrant—far from the libertarian/free-market individualism corner that represents classical liberalism, minarchism, or anarcho-capitalism. The real political battle isn’t just “left vs. right” but often statism vs. individualism. Horseshoe theory and scholarly debate This convergence is what “horseshoe theory” describes: the far-left and far-right bend toward each other at the extremes, sharing authoritarian tactics, intolerance for dissent, and hostility to the liberal center—even while hating each other ideologically. Critics call horseshoe theory “nonsense” because it downplays genuine differences (e.g., race/nation obsession in fascism vs. class in communism). Proponents (and many classical liberals) see it as highlighting the shared rejection of Enlightenment individualism. In short: Your framing captures a deep truth about what both ideologies oppose (free individuals in voluntary markets). The “opposites” label works for specific doctrinal rivalries and historical practice, but it collapses when you zoom out to the bigger picture of collectivism vs. liberty. Both Mussolini’s fascism and Marxist-Leninist communism were 20th-century reactions against liberal capitalism that ended up delivering similar tyrannies—just with different slogans. The clearest opposite to either is the tradition of individual rights, limited government, and free exchange.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 12:50 PM 0 comments

Again, where are the demands by the UN and other phony mouthpieces that Iran commit to ending support for terrorism and suspend their pursuit of nuclear weapons and intercontinental delivery systems? (It would be nice if the ruling structure -- what remains of it -- would ease up on enslavement if their population as well). Globalist institutions like the UN and meddling clowns like the current pope have nothing to offer beyond the usual pompous finger-wagging at America and the principles of an open society.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 11:29 AM 0 comments

The focus is now completely on Trump's decisions yet no one seems to be asking why the regime in Iran won't simply agree to ending their quest for nuclear weapons, open the Straits of Hormuz, and end their promotion of terrorism.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 10:35 PM 0 comments

He nailed it.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 11:38 AM 0 comments

Justly infuriating.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 12:54 PM 0 comments

...but, I think THIS is hilarious.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 11:59 AM 0 comments

The neo-Marxist worldview coming home to roost.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 12:15 PM 0 comments

Life in a system that favors criminals over decent citizens.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 12:13 PM 0 comments