Saturday, December 3, 2016

Fisking Sean Penn's Idiotic Editorial on Castro's Death

Today I was gifted with this astonishing (but not surprising) piece of idiocy from one of America’s foremost lovers of oppressive dictatorships and the men who run them, Comrade Sean Penn! He posted a rambling piece at the Daily Beast full of idiocy and whiney complaints about those MEANIES who were happy that Castro is dead. For good measure he doubled down about Castro: The Defender of The Poor People and the meanies who don’t like him. Those same MEANIES didn't vote for the Anointed Pantsuit either, and so Comrade Penn has a lot on his scrawny little libprog chest that he needs to get off. So let's have some fun!

My comments are in bold, Comrade Penn’s are in italics.

I was an American abroad, working overseas on this recent election night 2016. By midnight I was able to put myself to sleep, confidently, arrogantly, supremely certain that the election would go to Hillary Clinton, if not the Democrats at large.

Comrade Penn is kind enough to actually admit a by-now very evident truth about the privileged liberal elite that he belongs to. They are arrogant. They are so confident (another word he uses) that they know what is best for America that anyone who opposes them must be a knuckle dragging imbecile, probably from one of those intolerable fly-over states.

Comrade Penn is merely one of the most prominent liberals who jet around the world in their private jets and lecture everyone on their need to get with the program like a good little serf and follow the guidance of their betters.  Comrade Penn is especially odious, but his beliefs are shared by the vast majority of Hollywood and the media. And along with them, Comrade Penn never met an authoritarian dictator that he didn't like, just so long as he wore a cool uniform and hated America.

When I woke, I woke to the new norm. Donald Trump, a petty, narcissistic, hate-mongering, reality show star who had spent his entire business life ripping off the less-privileged had prevailed. I went numb, then got up and like many, I suppose, dragged myself through a day of utter bewilderment.

Its actually funny how many of the pejoratives that Comrade Penn hurls at Donald Trump actually describe himself. Its also funny to hear that he “dragged himself through the day in utter bewilderment”, presumably at the fact that those...PEASANTS dared to go against what they were told by their...petty(seen Buzzfeed lately?), narcissistic(This from a man who is almost as bad as EX-President Carter at making everything about himself), hate-mongering(let me see, Black lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters...all movements built on love and embracing one’s fellow man peaceably. Practically Gandhi-like.), reality show(Trump had an actual reality show, Comrade Penn is part of The Traveling SJW Circus of Mentally Disadvantaged Liberals) betters. The latter is admittedly more fun to watch in these Post-November 8th days.


For others, the election of Donald Trump will be an opportunity to bitch about how stupid our “hick” country is. Some may even take the Monday morning opportunity to bitch about Hillary Clinton, a woman who offered her exceptional mind and experience, and bravely took a bashing like no other simply to serve the American people.

The “others” Comrade Penn is referring to here also includes himself. How DARE those ignorant HICKS vote for someone other than The Anointed Pantsuit.
Also “exceptional mind and experience”? Granted, Hillary Clinton is exceptionally clever at getting child molesters off the hook, see her 1975 defense of a man who was as guilty as could be of this heinous act. She got him off on a technicality and then laughed about it. On tape no less. Okay scratch the “exceptional mind” bit, and replace it with “exceptionally compliant and lying media that covers for her”. As for her “experience”, she has absolutely amassed a decades-long resume that is full of...lying, cheating, covering up the victims of sexual abuse and her husband’s predatory attitude towards women. She has absolutely no accomplishments and indeed, got to where she is solely by riding Bill Clinton's coatails.

All Hillary has ever done is “serve” herself and her interests, right down to her and her equally despicable husband using the Clinton Foundation as a pay to play scheme for enriching themselves. In the White House, her opportunities for graft and bribes would have been even larger, and she would have absolutely exploited them to the max. And Bill would have had interns again to boot, something that no doubt he was looking forward to.

“Bravely took a bashing”? You mean like when she was called on the carpet for all of the above, plus for using an unsecured email server that was compromised, plus for trying to hide the evidence, plus for playing dumb for her congressional inquiry where she attempted to evade responsibility for the deaths of Americans at Benghazi - infamously claiming “what difference does it make” regarding the fact that four Americans died thanks to her brainless interference? That poor, misunderstood woman.

A climate change denier is running the EPA transition for the president elect. A White House counsel will come into the new administration so burdened with conflict of interest issues, lawsuits and the fear of depositions, that the only remedy may be to count on the new Attorney General and a right-leaning Supreme Court, to whitewash and bend us away from American principles simply so that this incoming Commander in Chief may politically survive his four years.

What? You mean somebody who doesn’t believe in the High Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming is running the EPA? Somebody who doesn’t swallow the lies, evasions, and charlatanism that fuel the loony environmentalists and their followers? Somebody who might actually reign in the EPA, the rogue agency whose burdensome mandates destroy people’s lives and livelihoods, makes vehicles more expensive for the poor, make heating more expensive for the poor, abrogates ever increasing powers to itself, and sneers at any oversight or accountability? The agency who has added so many job killing regulations and taxes that American businesses are being driven out of the country or out of business entirely? The agency whose apparatchiks constantly seek to enrich themselves and expand their fiefdoms at the expense of the little people their policies hurt? The horror!

Its also hilarious to hear Comrade Penn’s bloviations about “American principles” considering that he is about to lionize and defend Fidel Castro.


What have the 75,000 coalminers—yup, that’s the total they number in the U.S.—won in a world that will die without clean energy? In a competitive job creation scale, in which in California alone there are already 550,000 jobs in renewables?

Die without clean energy? Hyperbole much Comrade Penn? Well let’s see, the cleanest energy is nuclear...which liberals hate and try to shut down wherever possible. So clearly they aren't worried about global warming. Also, nice to see Comrade Penn once again lay bare his hatred and contempt for “little people” such as the hundreds of thousands of people who benefit from the coal mining industry directly and indirectly in states such as West Virginia. Not to mention the benefits resulting from cheaper electricity and a reliable power grid, most of which come from coal plants. Thanks to Comrade Penn’s policies, the poor and the middle in America pay higher utility and transportation costs, a hidden tax that reduces their take-home pay. In the socialist wonderland of California, over a million households live in “energy poverty” which means that more than 10 percent of their income goes to the energy costs of their households.

And about those 550,000 renewable jobs in California...even granting Comrade Penn the benefit of the doubt on that statistic (which is only done for argument's sake, as just like any other Communist/Fascist, any number quoted should be viewed with suspicion), a recent study by the EPA friendly and green energy supporter Mark Jacobsen (of Stanford University) admits that the shift to 100 percent so-called “renewable energy” nation-wide would cost almost four million jobs nation wide. That’s probably conservative too, given how liberals like to soft-pedal numbers that don’t favor themselves. And even Jacobsen’s claimed green jobs from doing the transition results in a total loss of 1.2 million jobs, 221 thousand in California alone.

Also, thanks to the high cost of doing business in California, over 9000 businesses have left that particular socialist “paradise” since 2008. That’s a lot of jobs gone. Eventually the state will be reduced to Starbucks and Tesla, with all other jobs fled. But blithe dismissals of basic math and economics are par for the course for the libprogs, and Comrade Penn’s staggering ignorance/stupidity on the subject(now there’s a hole with no bottom) hasn't been exhausted yet!

I just flipped on CNN. The president-elect is dancing, or tweeting actually, “Fidel is dead!” I can hear him singing it to the tune of “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead.” Cut to an image of…(t)housands dancing in delight. Indeed, dancing at the death of another human being. Of Fidel Castro.

Of course they are dancing. Castro tortured, killed, exiled, and put into camps tens of thousands of Cubans. He was a vicious dictator who brooked no opposition, and retaliated violently against any who were unfortunate enough to speak against him.
Castro executed Battista’s supporters by means of shooting them, some of them in front of stadiums of people. There were no free elections in Cuba under Castro’s dictatorship, no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no right to jury trial, and no freedom to live your life as one saw fit. Armando Valladares spent 22 years in prison for DARING to be a dissident. His crime? Refusing to recant his christian beliefs. For this he spent time in horrible conditions, including eight years naked in a ten by four foot cell. Mind you, to Comrade Penn and his fellow libprogs, anyone who professes Christianity is a backwards xenophobe who deserves to be punished. Castro’s suppression of religion and banning of Christmas from 1969-1998 was viewed as a feature, not a bug by Comrade Penn and his fellow liberals. One of the most infamous incidents came in 1994 when Castro’s thugs opened fire on a group of people trying to escape from their socialist paradise, killing 37 escapees, most of them women and children. Over the decades of Castro’s despotic rule, over a million Cubans attempted to escape the island into exile.

So yes, the Cuban people who escaped from his hellish prison of socialism celebrated his death. Apparently, Comrade Penn feels that the proper response to Hitler’s death should have been some sober reflection about the progress he had made in advancing the German economy and creating the autobahn and the Volkswagon.

CNN centers its reporting on the death of Castro in the bastion of right-wing Cuban conservatism. Not in Cuba, but rather in the United States. Would they have polled the Birmingham Etiquette Society for comment in the aftermath of Martin Luther King’s assassination?

I can’t believe I am defending CNN even mildly here, but it's just faintly possible that they might not have been able to report on Castro’s death from Cuba..you know due to the whole dictatorship thing there preventing any real press coverage, even from the fawning American media. Which is strange, because usually the American press easily gets into Cuba to film, as it is well known that they will do whatever it takes to produce a Triumph of the Will level piece about the superiority of the Cuban system to America. Or it could be that they somehow decided to actually report the real news, instead of whatever the latest Democratic Party talking points were. One way or another I guarantee that they will be back to bashing America like a good little libprog organisation tomorrow.

But if in our compassion we blindly submit to classifications as defined by the broken-hearted or the bitter, then we better d*** well be ready to accept the NRA, too, as a “brutal dictator” when we talk to the mothers and fathers of Newtown.

Ah yes, the NRA , the favorite boogeyman of the liberals (along with Christmas, Christians, Israel, and conservative voters who cling to their guns and religion). Castro may have killed tens of thousand of people and brutally suppressed all forms of dissent...but the NRA is the morally reprehensible one.

Also, “bitter”? According to Comrade Penn, if your parents were tortured and killed by Castro’s thugs and you don’t still support Castro as a “freedom fighter” you are...bitter. Well good, glad we got that out of the way.

I’m reminded of Steven Weinberg’s suggestion, “If you want to make good people do bad things, you’ll need religion.” In this case, that religion is the denunciation of a leader who was far more a profound symbol of revolution than he was a boogeyman or beast.

Yep, the way Fidel Castro would wear two Rolexes at a time to show off his wealth is truly an inspiring “symbol of the revolution.” The way he enriched himself and became a billionaire while his people live in crumbling cities with rolling blackouts and no money? Truly heroic. The way he attempted to provoke thermonuclear war in the Cuban-Missile Crisis? Also inspiring. At least to the idiots, cretins, and other misanthropes of the left. But I repeat myself.


Fidel Castro was many things. His shift from the socialist advocate of democracy to a form of totalitarian communist is one worthy of great study, and has provoked significant debate. (Worthy also of consideration from outposts beyond Miami, Florida.) His enemies today, the rational and the irrational, the knowledgeable and the unknowledgeable, have a podium that is speaking loudly enough for itself.

Shift? Castro simply showed his true colors just as soon as he came to power. And then spent almost sixty years clinging to it, lionized by the adoring American liberals and media, who are always ready to praise anybody who hates America and rules as a brutal authoritarian despot. Kim Jong-un would have the same attitude from American liberals, but his style of wearing clothes that are vaguely reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's pantsuits simply doesn't work for him. Liberals need their totalitarian dictators to look good in some type of vaguely military uniform, one that they always wear. That way the t-shirts are stylish.

No matter their position towards their leader, the basic nature of Cubans is so alive with pride and community that once again, in recollection, I am struck by the arbitrary terminology “brutal dictator” being attributed to Castro.

The reason the “arbitrary terminology of ‘brutal dictator’” is applied to Castro is because both words exactly describe him. I know words are hard Comrade Penn, but you can at least understand these two? One is only two syllables while the other is admittedly three, but they are fairly basic concepts. “Brutal” means “savagely violent”, and “dictator means “a ruler who wields absolute power.according to the dictionary. Castro is perfectly described by both, which is why people who live in the Real World describe him using those epithets, among many, many others.

Cuba is a poor country, but it lives without road rage, and with healthcare. It lives without raging lawlessness and with literacy, a country that exports more doctors worldwide than any other.
We should look very hard at the pride of Cubans who live in Cuba, so much of it built on their own commitment to an ideological revolution and its leader, to its sovereign resilience, as well as those sober critics in search of their greater dreams.

You know, it's funny. I talked to an actual Cuban the other day. I know, crazy right? And she told me about the medical care in Cuba. The filthy hospitals, the dirty walls with blood on them, the lack of medicine. When her sister gave birth and she came to visit her from the States, the hospital was so dirty that she cried. She talked about actual blood smeared on the walls. Others have reported that patients have to bring their own toilet paper and pay for their own medicines if they want any form of care. But hey, other than that it's free!  

Digging more deeply into the Cuban Health care system, there are actually three forms of health care in Cuba. There is the one for rich liberal foreigners who primarily come over for vanity surgeries like Botox and breast enhancements (and to make films claiming that Cuba's healthcare system is amazing and puts America's to shame). They pay in hard currency, something the regime desperately needs. So they get large, clean, well-equipped hospitals and staff. You will notice that money changed hands thus implying that this isn't universal health care. And you would be right. But don't tell Michael Moore that.

The second form of health care in Cuba is for the elite, such as the Communist Party rulers and the other apparatchiks. They also get great health care. But the majority of Cubans only have access to the third system, one of crumbling hospitals with filthy equipment, and no medicine other than what they bring in with them.

I am not dancing at the death of Fidel Castro. Nor am I celebrating him. I’m remembering him. I’m thinking. Trying to protect the clarity of my own thoughts against this fog of pervasive simplification and anger.

Beg to disagree. You clearly loved Fidel Castro and thought of him as the ideal leader, worthy of defense from those who would try to point out his many crimes against the Cuban people. You are a contemptible lying libprog and your idiocies have no better commentary than that well known retort from from Billy Madison: “what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

Thursday, November 24, 2016

Thanksgiving

Thank you God for living in a free country.

Thank you God for a wonderful family and friends.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Thoughts on the Trumpslide


First of all, thank you God that Trump won. Despite Trump's issues, he is not pure evil like Hillary. God could have given us an evil president which we deserve instead, He gave America another chance.

Credit must be given to Mike Cernovich, Scott Adams, and Vox Day. Mike and Scott were the first two to call Trump's rise and eventual victory. At the time it seemed ludicrous that a former reality TV star could beat a crowded republican field and the take out the biggest political machine in US history. However, these three writers used their unique viewpoints to foresee a Trumpslide.

 Mike used his Gorilla mindset prism to predict that Trump as an alpha male would impose his will on the election. Scott Adams used his master persuader filter to see that Trump would persuade enough voters to win. Finally, Vox correctly recognized the rise if white identity politics and how the white working class would vote for Trump. With the benefit of hindsight, Trump's rise by appealing to the middle class seems obvious now, At the time these three made a bold prediction that was mocked by some. Their correct analysis of the election makes each of them worth listening to them in the future.

Trump played the election cycle like a master salesman. First, he differentiated his brand in a very crowded primary field by his tough rhetoric and willingness to go after opponents. Second, he opened the general campaign by laying out big bold proposals like building a wall, banning Muslim immigration and carpet bombing ISIS. Then he carefully softened them with vague statements like "extreme vetting" of Muslims and a "great plan" to defeat ISIS. He also landed a great rhetorical kill shot with "crooked Hillary". Finally, he ended the campaign cycle by staying on message and persuading enough voters that he had the right temperament for the job.

What a glorious day for America.


Sunday, November 6, 2016

Closing Arguments

On Tuesday, America elects a new president. At this point, we know who the candidates are.

Hillary Clinton is a corrupt Washinton insider who will open the immigration floodgates and destroy what is left of the Constitution by packing the Supreme Court with liberal justices. As WikiLeaks has shown us, she has sold influence to both massive corporations and unsavory foreign governments. She also is warmonger who is not content with burning down the Middle East but has also begun pushing for war with Russia through proxies in Syria and even directly. She is completely corrupt and should be in jail, not running for President.

Donald Trump is an egotistical, womanizing Alpha male. He was a liberal Democrat until recently. However, his long-standing views on trade and the economy are essentially the same today as they were decades ago. Unlike most of the elites,Trump's economic outlook favors the American lower
and middle classes, not the 1%. He also recognizes the many problems that illegal immigration poses. Finally, his foreign policy is less focused on being the worlds policeman and more on putting Americ's security first.

The reality is that Trump for all of his flaws is the only sane choice .Hillary promises more of the same economic malaise. ( Yes, we are in one despite the "low" unemployment)  If that sounds boring don't worry her domestic immigration policy of inviting radical Muslims into the US promises plenty of fireworks. Her foreign policy of slapping the Russian bear has the potential to have mushroom cloud fireworks.

On Tuesday, vote Trump for a saner and safer America.

Friday, November 4, 2016

Whatever Happened to Windows Mobile?


Since I have already written well over ten thousand words fisking Corliss Lamont’s SJW idiocy, I decided to take a break and write about another subject that I greatly enjoy, technology. Today we will be taking a brief, high-level look at the rise and fall Windows Mobile, a formerly influential market leader, now fallen on hard times. Along with Blackberry (another good article awaits there), Microsoft’s platform has a long and storied history, but is now essentially irrelevant, a footnote in the current market of smartphones, one that is dominated by the twin titans of Apple and Android.  

As of Q3 2016, Microsoft’s worldwide share of the massive global smartphone market sits at a dismal 0.7 percent. As recently as last year, Microsoft still commanded around 2.5 percent market share, but even that small fraction of the market was greater than could be sustained by Microsoft. All that Microsoft can say these days is that they are selling more phones than the struggling Blackberry corporation is, but beating a rival who only has 0.2 percent of the market is hardly an accomplishment. What happened? Today we will be looking at a brief overview of Microsoft’s two decades plus in the handheld market, and how they went from major player to a rounding error.

The Pre-iPhone Era
Prior to the game-changing introduction of the iPhone in 2007, Microsoft had a significant market share of the nascent smartphone market, reaching a peak of 42 percent of the US market in 2007. Not coincidentally ,this was the year that marked the release of Apple’s game changer, the iPhone. Along with Blackberry, Microsoft never recovered from the launch of the iPhone colossus and its market share steadily dwindled down to the present day, where it sits at less than one percent.

However, up to this point, Microsoft had enjoyed a very successful market position, one that had started back in the pre-smartphone era, the era of the Palm or palmtop computer, depending on whose marketing was being read. The Palm or palmtop computers were portable organizers, the precursors of today’s smartphones. Slow and clumsy by today’s standards, and lacking any sort of wireless data connection, they nonetheless played an important part in switching professionals away from the world of Filofax organizers and other analog ways of organization, and towards a digital world.  Ironically, Apple itself was hugely influential in this new shift in thinking.

In the early 90s, Apple, not for the last time, created an entirely new product niche that, again not for the first time, was exploited by others far more effectively. After pushing Steve Jobs out of the company in the late 80s, Apple was beginning to flounder as its market share continued to erode underneath the constant assault of cheap, “good enough” Windows machines. Looking to start a new category of devices that Apple could then own, then CEO of Apple John Sculley announced that Apple was working on a new, portable computer called the Newton. Inspired by a conceptual Apple internal video about a device called the “Knowledge Navigator”, the Newton was meant to be an on-the-go device that could manage a calendar, send faxes through any available phone line (this was a big thing in the 90s), store and dial contacts (done by holding the Newton’s speaker near a phone’s mouthpiece while it “dialed” by playing the correct key tones into the microphone) and perform a variety of useful computing functions for the mobile businessman.   
John Sculley called the Newton a “Personal Digital Assistant”, or PDA for short, and heavily hyped it up with Apple’s always excellent PR machine. Unfortunately, Apple’s engineers had bit off far more than they could chew, as they struggled to cram everything into the Newton. Finally released in 1993, the Apple Newton was a brilliant achievement in many ways, but was slow, costly, and not terribly portable, being roughly the size of a VHS tape. The product would limp along for a few years, with a number of further improvements made and cost reductions, however just as it seemed the Newton might finally be getting some traction...Jobs came back to Apple and shut the Newton project down in 1998 as part of his refocusing and streamlining Apple.    

In the meantime, there had been a massive rush of companies that all were attempting to get their own PDAs into the marketplace, which was expected to be massive. All of them pretty much failed to gain traction, other than a little company’s product known as the “Palm Pilot.” Focusing on doing one thing well, instead of many things poorly, entrepreneur Jeff Hawkins designed a small, very portable, device that fit into a standard shirt pocket, and allowed the user to do a few tightly focused things very well. Things like calendar tracking, desktop synchronization, contacts, and a few basic extensions of that general idea.

WinCE The Dubious Joys of Windows 95, Now Even Slower
The little Palm Pilot was a huge hit, going on to grab the vast majority of the PDA market. And it is around this time that Microsoft began to make a huge play for the market. Planned to make an appearance in 1997, the new Windows CE palmtops that Microsoft debuted represented the antithesis of the little Palm. Microsoft had decided that Palm’s approach of focusing on simplicity and doing a few things very well was vulnerable to an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to product development. Nevermind the fact that every single previous attempt to create a PDA that took this approach had failed, the highest profile being the ill-fated Apple Newton and the precursor to the Palm, the Zoomer.

As usual, Microsoft stayed out of manufacturing hardware, and just developed the software, licensing it out to manufacturers such as HP, Phillips, and Casio. This strategy had proven very successful with computers and Microsoft saw no reason why it wouldn’t work just as well for PDAs and pocket computers. They were an attempt to shoehorn Windows 95 into a handheld, right down to the start menu. Packed full of features and with a tremendous amount of press support, they suffered much the same fate as the Newton, being slow and overpriced, with a confusing array of features and the usual Microsoft share of bugs. A universally short battery life didn’t help either. Microsoft ended 1997 with a mere 20 percent of the PDA market.

But as usual, Microsoft didn’t let that stop them from continually trying to improve and develop their platform. In 2001, Microsoft launched Pocket PC 2002, a major overhaul of the system and one that found its way onto a few cell phones, where the ability to make and receive calls was grafted onto the main PDA. These early devices were somewhat clunky, although that was par for the course in the early years of PDA/Smartphone integration. For example, Blackberry’s first attempt at that particular hybrid resulted in a device that required the user to plug in a headset before he was able to make and receive calls, as the device had no built in mic.  

The Windows Mobile naming was launched in 2003 when Pocket PC 2002 gave way to Windows Mobile 2003. Over the next few years, Microsoft steadily worked on the system, adding new features such as the ability to tie the device to an Exchange server for push email (launched with Windows Mobile 5, 2005) and cleaning up the system with bug fixes. Throughout the process, some things stayed consistent across all versions, specifically the fact that Windows Mobile devices all used a stylus as the primary input method for the user. Windows Mobile’s scaled down Windows interface (interface was based variously on Windows 95, 98, and XP, although the underlying code was a completely different kernel entirely) was too crowded with icons and scaled down Windows interface features to allow for input using something as relatively imprecise as a finger, which forced the point of a stylus as the only feasible method of interacting with the OS.

The Apple iGorilla
The iPhone launch in 2007 caught Microsoft completely off guard. Along with everyone else of course, Google had been about to release the first Android phone, a boxy looking affair with a keyboard that looked very similar to the then in vogue Blackberrys. After watching the Apple iPhone keynote, they realized that they could no longer release the product, and thus canceled it in favor of an approach far closer to the iPhone. Which resulted in a massive lawsuit of course, but that is another story. Windows Mobile was a very mature product by this time, but it was still extremely clunky and not enjoyable to use. Very feature rich, but with a paucity of user feedback evident in the clunky interface.   

Changes were made with Windows Mobile 6.5, as a result of contending with the new paradigms of touch computing introduced by Apple and rapidly being implemented by the newcomer on the block, Android. This resulted in Windows 6.5 being the victim of a botched plastic software surgery, that attempted to graft a somewhat finger friendly interface onto the aging OS. This Frankenstein approach was unsatisfactory and half-baked, resulting in Microsoft throwing away much of the existing Windows Mobile and starting over.

In 2010, under the increasing twin attacks of the iPhone and the rapidly rising Android, Microsoft made the decision to jettison its existing code base and launch a brand new Windows Mobile version, 7.0. This new system was built on an entirely different underlying architecture, which not only resulted in a cleaner code base moving forward, but allowed for true native touch computing to finally arrive on the Windows platform, as opposed to a crude jerry rig. Unfortunately, Windows Mobile was completely incompatible with the existing Windows Mobile 6.5 devices, the owners of which had no upgrade path whatsoever, outside of buying a new phone outright.  Not for the first time, Microsoft slapped its existing loyal users in the face.

Windows Mobile 7 received several major updates over the course of its lifespan, 7.5 added a number of features such as copy and paste that had been inexplicably absent from the initial release. To all the Apple haters out there, I am fully aware that the iPhone OS lacked copy and paste in its initial release as well. However, there is a vast difference between starting an entirely new product category that one can then grow in and dominate, versus an underdog attempting to make headway into a highly competitive market with multiple players...while lacking a number of basic features that competitors already possess. Such as copy and paste. Windows Mobile 7.0 actually lacked features that the pre-iPhone Windows Mobile possessed. Microsoft entered a brutal arena battle with one hand tied behind its back. Windows Mobile 7’s good ideas (and there were a number of them) were not enough to gain any traction in the marketplace. So Microsoft once again decided to fix this issue by slapping its loyal users in the face.

Windows Phone 8 launched in 2012. A new approach for the struggling platform , it represented a step towards Microsoft’s goal of having its mobile OS and desktop OS be much closer to unified. It also yet again broke compatibility with the existing Windows Mobile codebase, whose users were forced to buy an entirely new phone if they wanted the shiny new OS. Some did. Some kept their existing Windows phones. (Many) others began to look at applier and googlier pastures.  Additionally, Microsoft had gone from having a plethora of hardware partners to build devices for Windows Mobile 7...to having only four show any interest in making Windows Mobile 8 phones. And of these four, only Nokia invested any amount of effort and time into its devices. The less said about Huawei and HTC’s attempts, the better.

Windows Mobile 8 was significant however, in that with it Microsoft finally got completely away from the aging Windows CE kernel that it had used and built on since the start of the PDA era, and switched Windows Mobile 8 to the NT kernel that has been the bedrock of Windows since Windows 2000 (although most people experienced its relative stability  for the first time with Windows XP). That said, Windows Mobile 8 brought very little new to Windows Mobile on the surface, as most of its changes were invisible to the user. This also meant that the platform continued to stagnate and users continued to migrate to Android and Apple. Microsoft could only console itself with the thought that Blackberry wasn't doing any better.

Finally, with the release of Windows 10 Mobile in 2015, Microsoft essentially fully converged its mobile and its desktop OSes, a long time goal of the company. Unfortunately, by this point few people cared at all about a platform that was only a bare fraction of the market. Carriers weren’t particularly interested in spending money to promote the pitiful few new Windows 10 Mobile devices, and Microsoft did itself no favors by making its new Windows 10 phones AT&T exclusives. Yes they were technically available directly through the Microsoft store (both online and in the physical stores), but in practice for most people, the only way to get one was through AT&T. And unlike the iPhone exclusive that AT&T had, the Windows Phone exclusive did nothing for AT&T and as a result got little to no coverage and advertising.

While the new Lumia's are capable of some neat tricks, especially with Continuum enabling them to function as a sort of ersatz Windows 10 laptop (if you buy an expensive dock, and for some reason carry a keyboard and mouse with you everywhere you go), it simply isn't (and wasn't) enough to drive any sort of widespread adoption. In possibly one of the best examples of faint praise for a product, Ars Technica called the Lumia 950 a perfectly adequate phone.

The Nokia Acquisition
Regressing back to 2013, for 7.1 billion dollars Microsoft had bought Nokia’s Devices and Services division (one of the two divisions that Nokia was split into, the other half still operates today as its own entity) and brought phone hardware production theoretically inhouse. Theoretically. At this point, Nokia was the only major manufacturer of Windows phones(controlling about 90 percent of that particular Easy-Bake pie), and had seen some success with its Lumia series, a lineup of brightly colored Windows phones that typically boasted some impressive camera specs, even by today’s standards(40+ megapixels were available on some Lumia’s complete with Carl Zeiss lenses). Sadly, the software support was never very good, but they were the only remaining refuge for the battered Windows phones holdouts.

My personal 0.02 cents on the acquisition is that Microsoft was looking to jump forward in its R&D for its new Windows Mobile 10 phones, as they gained an entire ready to go phone team, with its members used to working with each other and (theoretically) well positioned to close the gap with Android and Apple. It also gave Microsoft in-house control of hardware, something that only Apple (and I guess Blackberry...which by this point was collapsing faster than Microsoft was) was able to do up until this point. Additionally of course, Microsoft gained a valuable treasure trove of patents from its acquisition, as Nokia’s war chest of patents, while undoubtedly not as substantial as Motorola’s, are still very impressive.

Sadly for Microsoft, the acquisition was one of the most disastrous in the history of corporate mergers, with the majority of the 15000 employees that Microsoft cut from 2014 forward coming from Nokia. In 2015, Microsoft was forced to take a write down of 7.6 billion dollars, thanks to the botched merger. Microsoft should have done all the work in-house, rather than through attempting a kludge like merging Nokia's R&D with Microsoft's. While the savings would have been in the billions, I still suspect that the end would have been the same. The Android/Apple giant is simply to large to overcome and the US smartphone market only has room for two major players.

The End Draws Near   
Today Microsoft commands less than one percent of the smartphone market. Its phones are hardly seen, and the shiny new Windows Lumia 950 seems poised to go down the same road as the ill-fated Zune did. Absent a miracle, Microsoft will either limp along like Blackberry does, relying on their few die hard users to keep afloat and maintain at least a toehold in the market. Or they will do as they did with the Zune, and pull the plug completely.

If the latter eventuality happens, I foresee the Lumia line finding a beloved nostalgic niche for some, just as the Zune does today. And it will be lauded for some creative ideas (Continuum for one) that just never proved sufficient enough to attract a large enough crowd of users.

Thanks for reading.






 





Monday, October 24, 2016

(Part 3): SJWs Have Always Lied. A Fisking of Soviet Civilization(1952) by Corliss Lamont

Continuing on with this massive fisking of Corliss Lamont’s 1952 book on the Soviet Union, this week’s installment is going to focus on Comrade Lamont’s explanation as to why Communism is a phenomenal system to live under and is totally different from fascism, which sucks to live under. It's a very nuanced interpretation of the two socialist philosophies and one that will require not only all of Comrade Lamont’s intellectual brainpower but also the complete ignorance and credulity of the reader. Let’s see how he does.


On Page 228, Comrade Lamont identifies ten “fundamental differences” between Soviet socialism and fascism. This is on the second page of the chapter and represents his efforts to set the tone for the remainder of the chapter. Essentially, if he can get the big whoppers swallowed first, the remaining smaller ones will go down easier. So let's take a look at the ten differences that Lamont claims separate the evils of totalitarian fascist socialism from the saintly beneficence of totalitarian soviet socialism(not that Comrade Lamont admits that fascism is socialism, that would be entirely too honest). Going to be a fun ride.


Comrade Lamont’s Ten Key Differences Between Fascist Socialism and Soviet Socialism


  1. Soviet Socialism’s end goal is “full political democracy”, while Fascist Socialism’s end goal is a “permanent dictatorship.”
  2. Soviet Socialism stands for the equality of the races, while Fascist Socialism stands for “racial discrimination and persecution”.
  3. Soviet Socialism stands for the equality of women with men, while Fascist Socialism treats women as the inferiors of men.
  4. Soviet Socialism supports trade unions, while Fascist Socialism seeks to destroy trade unions.
  5. Soviet Socialism has (I have to quote Comrade Lamont here directly, the clauses are just too intellectually arrogant not to appreciate in their full SJW glory) “an unceasing emphasis on the proletariat, the class struggle, and the classless society”, while Fascist Socialism supports and perpetuates the class system.
  6. Soviet Socialism supports (I have to quote Comrade Lamont again) “a planned socialist economy operated for use and abundance” while Fascist Socialism is apparently…”a monopolistic capitalist economy run on behalf of profits and aggression.”
  7. Soviet Socialism supports all sorts of cultural expansion, while Fascist Socialism is debased and drowns puppies. Something to that effect.
  8. Soviet Socialism supports atheism against any form of religious worship(Those Wise, Enlightened Atheists again), while Fascist Socialism has “tribal superstition, conceit, and blood-thirsty war-cries.”  
  9. Soviet Socialism is privileged to be led by “leaders with intellect, social idealism, and international vision” while Fascist Socialism is led by “ignorance, egotism, and savage nationalism.”
  10. Soviet Socialism stands for loving thy fellow man, peace, love, and Woodstock(Woodstock was over a decade away when Comrade Lamont committed these idiocies to paper, but if the shoe fits…it probably wasn’t made by a Soviet factory, but I digress).


Wow! What a lot of solid reasons why Soviet Russia was the most benevolent, wise, tolerant, advanced, and progressive regime on the planet! Other than the fact that out of the ten reasons given...nine and a half are flat out false. And the half is being generous, but any good lie has at least some measure of the truth in it, makes it more believable. So let’s go through these one at a time.


Soviet Socialism’s end goal is “full political democracy”, while Fascist Socialism’s end goal is a “permanent dictatorship.


Comrade Lamont opens with quite the whopper here, baldly stating that the end goal of the group of gangsters who were running the Soviet Union at this point (headed by none other than that noted lover of democracy, freedom, and law, Joseph Stalin), was to reach the point where they were apparently out of a job, as the state withered away and full democracy was established. What a truly selfless and tragically misunderstood group of men.


It is key to understand the fact that SJWs always, invariably, and pathologically lie. They lie by omission, they lie by obfustication, they leave no stone unturned in their attempt to get their message across. There is no element of good in their corrupt ideology, and it should be vigorously resisted by any means necessary. Do not let them in your life, your work, or your church as they will do nothing but cause damage and destruction. Here we have a man who is claiming with a straight face and an assumed facade of detached objectivity, that Joseph Stalin and his precursor Vladimir Lenin, actually were supporters of liberty and democracy, they just were merely victims of circumstance, forced to remain all-powerful despots by factors outside of their control.


Page 230 refers to the Constitution of the Soviet “Republic” and references some nebulous concept known as “the socialist concept of democracy” contained therein. It is instructive to stop here for a moment on Comrade Lamont’s use of the word “Republic”. I doubt it is an accident that Lamont freely mixes the words “republic” and “democracy” throughout the book. He clearly prefers the term “democracy” but uses “Republic” to try to “Americanize” the Soviet Union to his readers. See? It's republic too, just somewhat different! We see the stunted intellectual heirs of Corliss Lamont’s corrupt ideology in today’s realm, insisting that America is a democracy.


So speak ignorant men and women. Criticizing that which they do not know (and do not wish to understand), the concept of a Republic of laws not subject to mob rule, the tyranny of the half plus one that the Founders were very wary of.  We stand on the cusp of mob rule potentially electing a woman to the office of President, a woman who is deeply corrupt, venial, covers up for the grossest of legal and moral violations, and is thoroughly unfit to be the neighborhood dogcatcher, let alone the President. Hillary Clinton is the complete antithesis of what the Founders saw as the person for the office of President, yet mob rule may very likely take her there this November.  


Democracy is a road that historically speaking, has invariably led to dictatorship. The wrecking of the balance and separation of powers in the United States is a topic for another day, but you can easily see the seeds of today’s hysterical liberal bleating about “democracy” and “social justice” in Comrade Lamont’s smooth prose about “cultural, economic, racial, and sex democracy.”(Page 230)


Comrade Lamont then admiringly quotes some good old homespun wisdom from ‘ole Joe Stalin himself, “Leaders come and go, but the people remain. Only the people are immortal. Everything else is transient.”(Page 231). Stalin must have been solely contemplating the Russian people as a whole, given the fact that his ruthless secret police, gulags, assassinations, executions, and planned famines led to the deaths of millions of individual Russians. Or he was just lying through his teeth, similar to Comrade Lamont. A question for ages, clearly.   


Let’s move on to the next alleged difference between Soviet Socialism and Fascism.


Soviet Socialism stands for the equality of the races, while Fascist Socialism stands for “racial discrimination and persecution”.


I am going to score this as a half truth. Soviet Socialism was not so much concerned with people’s race as it was with their occupation/class prior to the Revolution, whereas Nazi Socialism is very well known for the horror of the Holocaust. The death toll under Soviet Socialism is considerably higher than under Nazi Socialism, however, as Stalin’s planned famines, targeted persecution of entire economic classes of people (see: kulaks) and horrific war crimes killed several times as many people as Nazi Fascism ever did. Granted, neither system is anything other than a monstrous blot on society that prioritizes the state over the people, but the overall death toll in Comrade Lamont’s precious socialist wonderland is much higher.


As a side note, I have no doubt that Comrade Lamont was enamored of the economic change that Hitler wrought in Germany, and was a defender of fascism right up until Hitler invaded Russia. Adolf Hitler wasn’t made Time magazine's Man of the Year in 1938 for nothing, fascism has always been very attractive to the creatures of the Left.


As Jonah Goldberg so thoroughly proved in his book Liberal Fascism, the Left has always been fascinated by fascism, easily as much if not more so as they were fascinated with Soviet Socialism. What Comrade Lamont and his ilk desperately try to avoid admitting is the fact that “Nazi” is an acronym, standing for the  “National Socialist German Worker's Party.” The Nazi economic platform is every bit as attractive to SJWs as the Communist Manifesto’s economic program for the attainment of Communism is. Comrade Lamont is merely an influential example of the typical lying SJW today, who rails against capitalism, writing lengthy (usually illiterate) screeds on their iPhone and angrily posting them from Starbucks. While sipping on a soy milk latte of course.


Comrade Lamont also uses his by-now-familiar-tactic of proclaiming the wonders of the equality that the Soviet Constitution supposedly guarantees, and then treating it as an established fact, simply because the Soviet Constitution said it existed, and Lenin and Stalin paid lip service to it.(Page 233). This type of disingenuous behavior is frequently seen in the pages of the Huffington Post(the Pravda of liberals) and any one of the other SJW infiltrated and converged institutions.  As we saw in a previous installment, the Soviet Constitution supposedly promised freedom of religion, but there was no such thing in Comrade Lamont’s good ‘ole utopia.  Admittedly, he undoubtedly considered that a feature, not a bug.


Soviet Socialism stands for the equality of women with men, while Fascist Socialism treats women as the inferiors of men.


Most of this point comes down to making his own definition for “equality” and then using that strawman argument to declare victory. It's a very common SJW tactic, and Comrade Lamont here does it to perfection.


The Soviet Union under Lenin did indeed make long strides towards making Hillary Clinton’s ideal utopia come to fruition, complete with easy divorce and on-demand abortion. Women were fully emancipated from all sorts of burdens and were free to sleep around with whoever they wanted, with the complete freedom to destroy any unfortunate byproducts of such behavior. Thus “equality”. In practice, the rapid dissolution of the family and the societal chaos that erupted in the late 20’s forced strides to be taken back towards at least some restrictions on abortion and divorce.


Mostly what Comrade Lamont is proudly defending here is an atheistic and amoral philosophy of life, the family, and women, where babies are slaughtered as inconveniences, divorce is obtainable at will, and families are shattered and bereft of any sort of state or moral support. Children grow up with no father and mother but the all-powerful State. Even if the children are fortunate enough to have parents, they are powerless to resist the State. Children informed on parents, wives against husbands, husbands against wives for crimes against the social order. These crimes could very simply be the “mental illness” of not agreeing wholeheartedly with the Soviet Union psychologists and harboring dangerous fantasies of self-determination, freedom, and the right to raise one’s children and live one’s life as one chooses. Basically, the Democratic Party Platform of 2016. Ah, but to Comrade Lamont, the Soviet Union was a veritable paradise of equality! Still, weird that he didn’t move there to enjoy all that equality in person...


Soviet Socialism supports trade unions, while Fascist Socialism seeks to destroy trade unions.


While Comrade Lamont has spouted many lies, some laughable, some dangerous, and all contemptible...this one is one of my favorites. Obviously, as a good little SJW, Comrade Lamont loved the unions. It went hand in hand with his hatred for capitalism. And today’s unions are the darlings of the Democratic establishment. Unless their members start wanting to exercise their first amendment rights to freely assemble AND freely disassociate...then the full force of the law must be brought to bear on those reprobates. See also: the ruckus that gets kicked up anytime a state goes right to work.


As far as the Soviet Union went...there was essentially one union. It was mandatory to join.  Yes, there were several trade unions depending on which industry you were in, but they were all essentially run by the Communist Party (along with everything else in the country), and they were not there to fight for even the nebulous concept of workers’ rights. They were there to represent the Communist Party and push for the advancement of its goals. There was no activity on pay, benefits, nothing at all.


Over in the realm of Nazi Socialism...it was pretty much exactly the same. Admittedly here in the good old US of A, the unions are deeply corrupt, hate capitalism, are primarily parasites that would rather kill their host than save it, and perform essentially no useful task. But at least they make a pretense of it. There was hardly even that in Comrade Lamont’s socialist fantasy land. So as usual, Comrade Lamont is bald-facedly lying here and talking out of his rear end.  


On Page 236, Comrade Lamont makes the laughable statement that “very few strikes actually take place for the reason that a workers’ government is in power, that the elimination of the private profit motive eliminates the chief factor in management’s resisting legitimate (emphasis mine) demands on the part of labor...” it’s very kind of him to come right out and admit that to him and his socialist brethren, all labor’s demands are legitimate, and all management is evil. Ironically, the Soviet Union had an abundance of managers and bureaucrats, who all took their share of the meager pie that socialism makes. And the reason there were no strikes) other than a couple highly publicized ones for the sake of looking good in Comrade Lamont’s favorite organ of news, Pravda), was because the Communist Party undoubtedly would have sent to the gulags any troublemakers. Especially during the reign of good ‘ole Stalin, who was still the de-facto Czar of Russia at this time.  


Soviet Socialism has (I have to quote Comrade Lamont here directly, the clauses are just too intellectually arrogant not to appreciate in their full SJW glory) “an unceasing emphasis on the proletariat, the class struggle, and the classless society”, while Fascist Socialism supports and perpetuates the class system.


This is another fun one. With this point, Comrade Lamont let the mask slip a bit and revealed that what he has been doing all along in this book is merely repeating Soviet propaganda.  The clues are all over, the using of pretentious words such as “proletariat”, the references to class and class struggle, and nebulous concept of a “classless society.” These words are parroted by many a hipster Marxist, in his little beret and with a tasteful Che Guevara shirt carefully rumpled over his scrawny chest.


The fact of the matter is that both Fascist Socialism and Soviet Socialism retained strong class societies, they simply switched up the rankers. And the primary culprit in all of this is indeed Comrade Lamont’s favorite utopian society, the Soviets. In the Soviet Union, especially under Stalin (who, I remind you, was still in power when this closet Marxist was writing his little screed) the primary way that class was determined (not in so many words of course) was based on who you were (former aristocrat? No nice job for you), who your parents had been (former Kulak? No school for you. And sometimes no food either), or any number of other things. Membership in the ruling class, the Communist Party, was carefully apportioned and only those with flawless Communist credentials could even think of applying.


Special stores existed in the major Soviet towns, stores that were closed to the average Soviet citizen. These stores stocked western medicines, delicacies, foods, and (later) electronics that only the privileged elite had access to. The ordinary Soviet citizen had to deal with only being able to go to the gloomy state-run stores, with limited stocks of poor quality goods. But for the ruling class? Champagne and caviar! Without exception, every single form of Communism results in a privileged ruling class receiving special treatment and care that no other citizen has access to. Communist China and North Korea(especially the latter) are still great examples of this. These days, the only argument that the Corliss Lamonts and the other SJWs have left in favor of socialism is the No True Scotsman.   


Soviet Socialism supports (I have to quote Comrade Lamont again) “a planned socialist economy operated for use and abundance” while Fascist Socialism is apparently…”a monopolistic capitalist economy run on behalf of profits and aggression.”


Bwa-ha ha hahaha :snort:. Comrade Lamont once again exercises his keen sense of humor and irony...actually no, he is perfectly serious. Let’s turn to the words of the Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Hedrick Smith. Mr. Smith wrote several books on Russia, books written during the Soviet Union’s alleged heydays during the Cold War, and books written from experiences actually obtained by riding throughout Russia with an inquisitive nose and a marked suspicion of official stories. As opposed to Comrade Lamont’s preferred method of reading the headlines in Pravda, and then writing a fable based on what he obtained through such unbiased sources. In The Russians(1976), Mr. Smith says the following about all the “use and abundance” that Comrade Lamont read in Pravda existed. Page 86 ”...the very nature of the Soviet economy and its inefficiencies-shortages, poor quality goods, terrible delays in service...” sounds like quite the paradise. The remainder of the chapter in Mr. Smith’s book deals with the ways Russians got around the terrible inefficiencies and shortages in the socialist system they lived under, ways that all had in common one thing...capitalism and the profit motive.


State grocery stores saved the best products for private, out the back door deals. State drivers of concrete trucks would sell the concrete in their trucks to private individuals, pocketing the money and shorting the job that they were allegedly delivering concrete too. It reached such a height that the Soviets formed a special branch of the Ministry of Internal Security, tasked solely with bringing the widespread theft and plundering of state goods (which is to say, all goods) under control. It failed miserably. Andrei Sakharov, a Nobel Prize winner for economics, estimated the size of the Soviet underground economy as greater than ten percent of the entire Soviet GDP. Capitalism always finds a way, even in the middle of Comrade Lamont’s socialist wonderland. No other system can bring abundance and quality goods to so many people. A good economic rule of thumb is that the closer one gets to capitalism, the better off one’s prosperity becomes.


Ironically, given Comrade Lamont’s attacks against Fascist Socialism, Germany under Hitler had a far better standard of living than the Soviet Union under Stalin did. Fascism is an attempt to find a “third way” between capitalism and communism, which is one of the reasons why it was so popular with liberals in the 1920s and 30s. The actual former (abdicated 1936) King of Britain, Edward VIII was a fascist sympathizer. Germany managed to fight the United States, Britain, and of course the Soviet Union, while not even being on a war footing (defined as a majority of the economy being devoted to war goods) until 1943. That’s right, until 1943, the German economy was still producing large quantities of consumer goods for its population.  


One of the harshest indictments of Comrade Lamont’s favorite form of economics is the fact that under Soviet Socialism, the Soviets managed to perform the impossible and actually keep an entire country full of Germans poor. East Germany’s average income was about one-third of West Germany’s. In deference to Comrade Lamont’s ideology, however, it must be noted that there was quite the equality of poverty in East Germany, and the lack of possessions and abundance was reasonably equitably distributed. Unless you were a high ranking member of the East German Communist Party of course. Then you got a lot more of everything because you, of course, deserved it. Equality!


We hear these pathetic bleatings from SJWs today. They have not found one new thing to say on economics since Lamont began scribbling his incoherent ramblings on the miracles of Soviet Socialism. Today’s Huffington Post reader supports the same economic philosophy that I reiterate kept an entire country of Germans poor. Never give an SJW an inch. Their economic philosophy is as morally bankrupt as their morality. They are a disease on western society, and they are doing their best to destroy it down to the same level of poverty as the Soviet people “enjoyed”. But hey! Free low-quality health care for all!


Soviet Socialism supports all sorts of cultural expansion, while Fascist Socialism is debased and drowns puppies. Something to that effect.


Hmm. This is a tough one. I’m going to call it a tie. The Fascists recognized the great value of many of the finest examples of western culture in art, and thus stole a lot of it from occupied territories to garnish their own abodes. Meanwhile the Wise and Tolerant Soviet Atheists...did exactly the same thing to their occupied territories. As a matter of fact, in 1998, Russia passed a new law that ensured that possessors of cultural treasures stolen from places such as...Germany... were allowed to keep them. I guess that counts as spreading culture? The law is quite a mouthful, by the way, formally known as Federal Law on Cultural Valuables Displaced to the USSR as a Result of the Second World War and Located on the Territory of the Russian Federation.


Just rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?


Soviet Socialism supports atheism against any form of religious worship(Those Wise, Enlightened Atheists again), while Fascist Socialism has “tribal superstition, conceit, and blood-thirsty war-cries.”  


For this one, I am mostly just going to link to my previous article on Corliss Lamont’s idiocies. See the review of Chapter 4 for a look at just how much freedom of religion there was in the USSR.


Regarding Fascism...it's another tie. Both ideologies hate anything that opposes them, and religion is certainly something that falls under that category. Today in Communist China and Communist North Korea there are state “churches” that have official sanction to run as they are just Potemkin(a word that originates from Russia) villages to show how tolerant the atheists are of lesser mortals and their foolish superstitions.


Comrade Lamont’s little piece about “tribal superstition, conceit, and blood-thirsty war-cries” undoubtedly also applied to Christians. A refrain that sounds ripped right out of the pages of any Occupy Wall Street arrogant atheist, proud of his superiority over lesser mortals who hold to primitive superstitions about things like a baby’s right to life and the concepts of good and evil. Strangely, such enlightened atheists are usually against the death penalty, even as they support infanticide. Weird. But then again, Comrade Lamont proves that SJWs have always been marked by a pronounced paucity of gray matter and a lack of self-examination and critical thinking.  


Soviet Socialism is privileged to be led by “leaders with intellect, social idealism, and international vision” while Fascist Socialism is led by “ignorance, egotism, and savage nationalism.”


I see your Hitler and Himmler and raise you, Stalin and Beria. The head of the totalitarian and oppressive Nazi Germany and the head of the brutal SS, against the head of the totalitarian USSR and the head of the brutal KGB. Quite the choice. Basically no matter who you pick, the people lose.


Interesting to see the usual whiny SJW verbiage about nationalism. Even sixty years ago, SJWs were complaining about people loving their country. Today Hillary Clinton and her ilk are busy attempting to tear down national boundaries and bring the dubious benefits of rampant immigration, UN totalitarianism, and Orwellian thought control to the masses. An SJW sneers at anyone who loves America, sneers at anyone who wants to preserve their country and its culture, and virulently attack and disparage any who stand against them. Comrade Lamont would feel right at home reading the Huffington Post right next to his beloved Pravda.


Soviet Socialism stands for loving thy fellow man, peace, love, and Woodstock(Woodstock was over a decade away when Comrade Lamont committed these idiocies to paper, but if the shoe fits…it probably wasn’t made by a Soviet factory, but I digress), whereas Fascist Socialism is a warmonger.


This last point is remarkably stupid. Let’s see, Stalin and Hitler invaded Poland together (after secretly divvying up the country beforehand, with agreed upon boundaries) and erased it from the maps, Stalin then invaded Finland and was only kept from taking over the entire country by the heroic resistance of the Finns, and the complete incompetence of the Soviet military, but still got something like ten percent of the land in Finland. Hitler invaded France and conquered it, while the Soviet Union cemented its hold on large areas of newly conquered territory. At no point was there any provocation to cause any of this, the Finns, the Polish, and the French simply had something that the Fascist Socialists and the Soviet Socialists wanted.  


At this point (massive oversimplification)  Hitler attacked Russia (who was most likely planning to attack Germany, just not prior to 1942) and in the end, Russia prevailed. Then the freedom loving Soviets proceeded to enslave much of Europe for the next fifty years. Complete with a wall put up to prevent people fortunate enough to live in the socialist utopia of Eastern Europe from bizarrely trying to escape to the barren wasteland of the capitalist West, where all was pain and misery. People are weird that way.  


Next week, we will take a look at Chapter VII and Chapter VIII, where we learn that all the problems between the Soviets and the Americans in the post-war era (we would say the Cold War) are all America’s fault and all the Soviets wanted was the freedom to exploit their proletariat in peace., while exporting as much peaceable authoritarianism around the world as possible. Just like today’s Democrats, everything is America’s fault.


Stay tuned.