Ending Politics: News & Latest Articles

Our Audit The Fed Article Is On Polymarket's 'The Oracle'

Thu, 27 Feb 2025 17:20:45 GMT

This is the ultimate team-up. Polymarket.com & EndingPolitics.com take on the Federal Reserve together (hopefully with the help of Elon Musk, DOGE, and Ron Paul).

Today, if you want to read our unadulterated anti-establishmentarian content, you'll have to read it on POLYMARKET.COM (we're sorry about that... NOT *in a Borat voice*)

This may be one of the most prolific, thought-provoking, and important articles we've ever, and will ever, write.

In our piece for Polymarket's The Oracle, we cover why the Fed should be audited, the biggest secrets that it may be hiding, and the potential implications if our suspicions are correct.

Read it here: https://news.polymarket.com/p/opinion-audit-the-fed

Elon Musk and DOGE are on board with an audit. Ron Paul is obviously on board with an audit (and potentially about to be onboarded by DOGE to lead the audit). Any American who's paying attention is on board with an audit.

There's no reason this shouldn't happen (except of course to protect the elites and the banking cartel).

Auditing the Federal Reserve and disclosing to the public exactly what they've done to our economy, and how they're doing it, is imperative to the successful operation of a free society. Failure of the Federal Reserve to comply with the will of the people would be wholly inexcusable.

Is Allan Lichtman's Prediction System Obsolete, Or Is Allan Lichtman?

Thu, 28 Nov 2024 05:55:35 GMT

Is Allan Lichtman's '13 Keys To The White House' Obsolete, Or Is It Just Allan Lichtman Himself?

Watching Cenk Uygur tell Allan Lichtman he "need[ed] a tall glass of shut up juice" was probably one of the funniest moments of the post-election meltdowns. Or perhaps, that title belongs to Licthman's most narcissistic moment of all time, when he called Uygur a "blasphemer" for questioning his (false) prophecy.

It's easy to Monday morning quarterback, but it was quite obvious from the moment Allan Lichtman announced his final prediction that he was either misapplying his own prediction system - either that, or his Stage 4 Trump Derangement System turned Stage 5 Fatal.

According to Lichtman himself, there were already 4 keys that were turned against Harris, and many argue that it was far more than 4, hence his major mis-prediction. But it only takes 6 keys to turn against the incumbent party to hand the election over to the challenger. There were two very simple and obvious keys turned that Lichtman misapplied (which of course begs the obvious follow-up question: Is Lichtman's prediction system obsolete, or is it Lichtman himself who is obsolete?).

We're going to ignore all the (perhaps accurate) criticisms of Lichtman from others in the media, who've been questioning quite a few of the keys on this list, claiming in some cases, that actually as many as 10 keys or more that were turned against the 2024 incumbent party.

But we don't need 10.... we only need 6. And there were objectively - by any intellectually honest measurement - 6 keys turned against the incumbent party.

The first one is obvious, and one Lichtman as a "political scientist" (cough-cough) should've easily been able to call, and the fact that he didn't is wholly unacceptable, and deserving of criticism.

Lichtman claims that Key 11, a major foreign/military success, was true, and a key turned in favor of the incumbent party. His justification of this was the Ukraine war. This is an absurd assertion, as no intellectually honest individual can pretend that this was a success. To this day, weeks after the election, no serious person has any idea what part of the Ukraine war he's claiming was successful. This was obviously no success for our own military, because our military isn't fighting in the war (at least according to the mainstream media, despite the Pentagon confirming that there are in fact some soldiers on the ground in Ukraine to "inspect weapons deliveries" ). But even to claim this was a "foreign success" is an absurd claim, as the only thing that was "successful" that came from the U.S.'s intervening in this foreign conflict was the prolonging of violence (which was seemingly the DoD's modus operandi; because of course, how else would their good buddies over at Lockheed Martin and Raytheon be able to score those sweet profits from their new arms deals client, Vladdy Z.?). And as the body count still continues to stack up to this very day, Allan Lichtman, for God only knows what reason, considers the war in Ukraine to be some big success. This was by any objective measure, a key turned against the incumbent party, not in favor of it.

So now, we're already at 5 keys turned against the incumbent party - and 4 big Lichtman's own admission. We only need one more to swing the election, and for Lichtman's prediction system to have accurately done its job.

Now, this next key takes a little more guile to make sense of, but the brilliant political science genius Allan Lichtman, who created this prediction system, should've been able to figure it out. Again, his inability to see the obvious is wholly unacceptable.

The 13th key says not one, but two different things - and theoretically, both parts of the key must be analyzed to apply it properly . For the 13th key to be turned in the incumbent party's favor, the challenging candidate must not be charismatic, measurable according to Allan Lichtman as a 60% or higher approval rating according to polling (another problem with Lichtman's theory, since he claims to hate polling so much, yet requires them to qualify/quantify and turn several of his keys) , as well as not be a national hero. This is, in my opinion, the most glaring problem with Lichtman's application of the 13th key. I'd argue, and I believe a large portion of the American people would argue at this point, that Donald Trump did in fact become a national hero on July 13, 2024, when he survived an assassination attempt, and took a bullet to his right ear for his country. What makes someone a "national hero?" I'd argue fighting in a war would. Certainly, getting injured in a battle during a war would. We already give out prestigious awards to such soldiers called "purple hearts." So how could surviving an assassination attempt while running for president possibly not qualify one as a "national hero?" Allan Lichtman's failure to recognize the historical significance of the assassination attempt against Donald Trump was the second half of his failure to predict the 2024 presidential election. The 13th key was turned in the challenging party's favor, not the incumbent party's.

So, I'll pose the question again: Is Allan Lichtman's prediction system obsolete, or is it Allan Lichtman's who's obsolete? I'd argue that his prediction system did its job, and had it been applied correctly, it would have accurately predicted the 2024 election. It's Allan Lichtman who's obsolete, not The 13 Keys to the White House .

'Smile 2' Is a Terrifyingly Awesome Sequel

Sat, 19 Oct 2024 03:41:23 GMT

Smile 2 absolutely kicks ass. It was delivered in a timely manner, it continued the original story in a practical way, and it's absolutely frightening.

Seems like it was only yesterday when I was sitting here, on this very couch, in front of this very laptop, writing only the second film review I'd ever written on this very blog. I'd just gotten home from seeing a new indie psychological horror film called Smile , which I admittedly loved, despite it receiving relatively mixed reviews from critics and audiences alike. Nonetheless, I raved about the film here on EndingPolitics.com, and I believe I even alluded to the possibility that it may have been the scariest film ever made .

Well, I write this evening, two years later, about Smile 's sequel, and I must say, I'm even more impressed than I thought I'd be. This film was delivered to the big screen in a timely manner, in regards to the timeframe it was released after the original, and that it was released just in time for Halloween... and damn, I cannot think of a better movie to celebrate the season.

Smile 2 combines The Shining -inspired cinematography, stellar performances from its actors, a kick-ass original soundtrack, and a well-written scary story to deliver an absolutely terrifying horror masterpiece.

The story follows Skye Riley, a pop music icon with a chaotic personal life behind-the-scenes. Riley is about to kick off a new tour, after a year of recovering from drug and alcohol abuse, as well as physical and emotional trauma. A year earlier, she'd gotten in an SUV with her boyfriend, actor Paul Hudson, both high as kites on cocaine, and run the car off a snowy road during a tense verbal altercation. Her boyfriend was killed in the accident, and Riley barely makes it out alive. Despite her best efforts to stay sober since then, Riley continues to suffer from intense back pain from the accident, but her doctors refuse to prescribe her anything stronger than 800mg ibuprofen, due to her history of drug abuse, and Riley has to turn to the black market for Vicodin in attempt to control her physical pain (which seems become markedly worse during her choreographed dance routines she has to perform on-stage). Her high school friend, Lewis, regularly supplies her with her "pain medicine," until the night she arrives at his apartment to cop, and Lewis is terrified of... something (that something being the same demon that drove people to insanity and then inevitable suicide in the first film). Lewis is possessed, and horrifically kills himself right in front of her by smashing his face in with one of his own thirty-five-pound barbell weights. The rest of the film is an unpredictable set of twists and turns, in a similar fashion we saw in the first film, but with a fresh set of characters and chilling events, all tailor-made for Skye Riley's own, personal nightmare. Riley drifts further and further into insanity as the film progresses, and her inner circle of friends and family's interactions with her become less and less real as time goes on, until it's nearly impossible to tell what she's seeing, who she's talking to, and what they're telling her is real and what isn't. And the titular "smiles" are somehow even creepier and more unsettling this time around than they were in the original Smile .

Naomi Scott is a brilliant actress, and delivers a terrifyingly-convincing performance as Skye Riley, for which will almost certainly be remembered as potentially the best performance of her career.

The film's soundtrack is excellent, and showcases a combination of modern dance-pop with terrifying 80s-inspired synth-scapes that invoke feelings of tension and fear at the most appropriate moments, and really adds to the psychologically-horrifying atmosphere of the film.

The cinematography in this film is the whipped cream and cherry on top to an artistically-terrifying psychological horror film. Writer and director Parker Finn is clearly heavily influenced by Stanley Kubrick and The Shining and his camera and lighting work in the film reflect that. Everything from the upside down camera angles, to shot-spinning, and even to graphics in the opening credits, instill an unsettling, and almost nauseating feeling of disorientation in the audience. It's Parker Finn's brilliant filmmaking skills that make this film truly horrifying (and artistic).

Today was Smile 2 's opening day, so we have little to no information in regards to current box office figures, but I sat in a pretty packed theater this afternoon, filled with older teens, twenty-somethings, and even some middle-aged and older folks, so it stands to reason that this film is probably destined for huge box office success. It will be well-deserved. This movie makes for great date night out and Halloween-season celebration. Just be sure hire a babysitter for the kids. Don't bring them.

Smile 2 is a horror masterpiece, and we at EndingPolitics.com gives it two thumbs up, and dare we say, this film will be remembered as a psychological horror classic.

100 Articles On EndingPolitics.com

Wed, 07 Aug 2024 01:26:55 GMT

So... Now What?

Dear Reader,

Well, we've done it. We've done it, TOGETHER! You and me. Me and You. US. What shall we do next?

In all seriousness though, we greatly appreciate your support this far. All the utter bullshit and nonsense we've debunked over the past couple years... practically for free! Imagine that! Actually, it's pretty amazing how much truth one is able to tell when he doesn't have some moron with a vested interest paying one to lie!

We've been able to debunk these wars that are killing people. We've been able to debunk these MMT morons' lies about what caused the current bout of inflation. We've been able to debunk Sam Seder... well, I guess he's not even that relevant anymore, anyway.

Anyway, a few changes that will be coming soon:

As we continue to build up our mailing list, we will start sending out notifications via email to those who've signed up whenever we publish a new article on our site. We recommend that you mark these emails as "important" in your email application to ensure that always reach your primary email box.

We will soon be linking - or possibly embedding - our tee shirt store to our website. We'll be selling tee shirts with contrarian and anti-establishmentarian viewpoints on them, not only to economically support us, but also as a conversation-starter for you as you go about your day.

And finally, you may start seeing ads on our site (more on this in a moment).

We do hope you'll consider making donations to us, also. We do currently receive small, one-time donations from many of our readers, but what we've gotten would certainly never be able to keep a large anti-establishmentarian blog running long-term. It has helped with the bill to keep our site running, but has not helped to pay us individually. Outreach, social media, SEO, and of course writing these blogs are all time-consuming tasks, and we hope you'll consider donating to us more regularly if you enjoy reading our content. We know times are tough - hell, we've written extensively about inflation on this blog - far more than the mainstream media ever will. But keep in mind, just one day of brewing your coffee at home instead of buying it at Starbucks (a company that probably hates you, unlike us, we wuv youuuu) and reallocating those funds to our website would be an enormous help to us.

As far as advertising goes, the attempts we've made to convince Google to monetize our website so far has been an exercise in futility. We've attempted on multiple occasions to get them to approve our website for monetization, and every time we've been rejected, despite not having a single fact we've ever posted on our site actually questioned or refuted by anyone (with the exception of perhaps one article we wrote a year or so ago that we received a very angry response from by a vitriolic left-leaning reader *though he didn't actually refute anything we wrote in our article*) as well as writing about mostly non-offensive, pretty milquetoast subjects like the fallout from the pandemic, movies and video games, and the nature of the Federal Reserve. Despite taking anti-establishmentarian views on these subjects, these are still not particularly controversial topics, as there are millions of pages on the web that are currently monetized, and many that share similar opinions on the subjects that we do.

So, now that are website is already a couple years old, and having written 100 articles, we are soon going to make a few more attempts to convince Google to monetize our website. They are a privately-owned company, so they certainly don't have to - but it's certainly the right thing to do, and they can only make money from monetizing our website - they won't be losing any. But, if you do start seeing some of those annoying Google AdSense ads popping up on our website soon - please know this is a good thing. Understand that we work very hard on this blog, and we deserve to, like any other blogger, be paid for the work we put in and the value we create.

In the meantime, we have some absolutely fascinating articles coming down the pipeline in the next few weeks, so stay tuned. If you've been with us for the first couple years, you'll love where we'll be going in the next couple.

Thank you for all your help, dear reader; yours truly,

Turd Ferguson

The Collapse Of The American Economy

Wed, 31 Jul 2024 04:01:32 GMT

The next recession (or more likely, depression) will be the straw that breaks the camel's back...

Since our next article will be a big milestone (our 100th article), I thought long and hard about what I wanted our 99th to be about. I knew whatever topic I decided on had to be a very important one.

I decided to write about the issue that virtually everyone is thinking about to some extent, whether the thought just sort of dwells in the back of one's mind, or it haunts ones thoughts minute by minute, everyone who's paying attention wonders at least from time to time... is the American economy collapsing?

The answer, unfortunately, is.... yes, it is.

We've written before about the coming collapse of the American empire , and despite popular opinion, the real collapse will arise out of bad economic and monetary policy, not civil war as Tim Pool frequently masturbates to. As Caleb Jones has correctly pointed out on in his videos and blog posts many times , Americans (especially men who, not to sound sexist, are usually the ones who fight wars) are way too fat, drug-addicted, out-of-shape, low-testosterone, and beta to actually pick up a gun and shoot other Americans.

As we've predicted (probably correctly) the collapse of the United States will come from a combination of the U.S. dollar being devalued into oblivion (hyperinflation), unchecked corporatism and American politicians climbing into bed with multinational corporations, and socialism (both populist and corporate).

Combine the above with AI replacing large sectors of the economy, a welfare-state driven greatly by modern feminism, and a generation of men in their 20s and 30s who are still virgins , and you have yourself one hell of a dysfunctional, pissed-off populous. In fact, they're so pissed off that many of the men who once produced greatly for society - building up our infrastructure, climbing corporate ladders, starting small businesses, and problem-solving - are completely giving up. Instead of fueling and growing the U.S. economy, many of them have turned to sitting on their asses and smoking reefer all day, playing video games, and when the clock strikes 5PM, dumping copious amounts of booze down their throats (if they had the willpower not to start that the very second they woke up). And what happens when a government prints money, and the men who were tasked with producing and growing an economy all simultaneously decide to stop? Well the laws of economics are pretty clear - you get inflation - and not even the kind of inflation the Fed pretends is good. No! You get economy-destroying inflation. The kind of inflation that causes real, serious pain in society. The kind of inflation that impoverishes and then destroys the middle class. The kind of inflation that topples down nations.

Of course, there's plenty more fueling the inflation problem in this country. Most of the same third and fourth wave feminist women who love the welfare state we spoke of earlier, are (obviously) the same women who were begging the government on social media in 2020 and 2021 to give them free money in the form of stimmy checks. Most of us would probably have a bit more compassion for them if the government had forced them to stop working, but of course that's not what happened. Most of these women (and some very weak men) wanted the government to shut down the economy so they could stop working. Then, when they got what they wanted, they got mad when the government gave money to the small business owners who did not want the government to forcefully shut down their businesses, and many of them are still complaining about it to this day (including the current POTUS, who personally signed into law the third round of PPP and EIDL loans in 2021, amounting to over twenty-two billion dollars)

And as mentally challenged as this Amy Nixon woman below sounds, at least she seems to be able to admit that government spending does in fact cause inflation, which is one step ahead of most of the left these days. She seems to have forgotten that stimulus checks were also passed in these same spending bills, but stipulating that in the tweet would've rendered her entire argument meaningless.

And below is a great example of one of these weak men we spoke of earlier, who almost certainly advocated for lockdown and the forced-shuttering of small businesses, and then got mad about that we gave them PPP money. What the fuck is this shit!?? No! We should forcefully close their businesses and let their families starve! exclaims Wes Morris of the liberal hivemind.

I also couldn't help but to own one of these morons on Twitter, who are still, years later, complaining that the businesses they wanted to forcefully close were given money to stay afloat in the meantime, and the money he voluntarily accepted for a student loan long before 2020 wasn't paid for him by other people who didn't go to college. The entitlements of these people never ceases to amaze.

Anyhoo, even the COVID-19 Scamdemic didn't single-handedly cause inflation. Over half a decade before the scamdemic, even the biggest of the Central Bank cucks were able to admit that the U.S. dollar had already lost 96.4% of its purchasing power due to the Fed's loose monetary policy. Not a great look considering the Fed was only (supposedly) created in the first place to stabilize prices. "Stabilizing prices," in the eyes of the government, is devaluing its own currency into oblivion and impoverishing its citizens. That's the U.S. government for you!

Those of us who follow the economy closely also know that the government has been lying about the unemployment rate for decades. The Ludwig Institute For Shared Economic Prosperity tracks the true unemployment rate against the headline unemployment rate, and the stats currently sit above 24% compared to the government's BS headline of 4%.

On top of all the other bad news, Zerohedge reported last week that the UMich Consumer Sentiment Index hit its lowest level since December of 2022 (in case you've forgotten, that was when the establishmentarians had to change the definition of a recession, since we had objectively seen two consecutive quarters of real negative GDP growth, which was the textbook definition of "recession" for centuries, up until that very moment).

And Zerohedge had already published even worse news just three weeks earlier, when they accurately pointed out that the Sahm Rule had been triggered . The Sahm Rule almost always indicates a recession is imminent, or is already occurring.

And then there's the big pink elephant in the room that no one wants to address: if the economy is actually firing on all cylinders, then why aren't banks lending? If we're headed for this (highly mythical) period of endless economic prosperity, ushered in by the brilliant economic minds of President Joseph R. Biden and Fed Chair Jerome Powell, then why are the banks so afraid to loan money to people? Bankrate.com reported all the way back in Q1 that half of Americans that applied for loans over the past year were turned down, according to a survey they'd conducted.

During an interview with Michelle Makori at Kitco News a few days ago, macroeconomics expert George Gammon made it pretty clear that the banking cartel knows a giant economic collapse is on the horizon , the banking crisis has just begun, and that there is significant pain about to be felt by all of us.

And lastly, there's the most powerful recession indicator of all: the yield curve. We've just experienced the longest yield curve inversion of all time, over two years, and we're about to un-invert . The un-inversion of the yield curve will almost definitely signal the beginning of a long, painful recession, or perhaps even a second Great Depression - the likes of which we've never seen before - and could be significantly more painful than the 1930s.

It goes without saying that the coming economic collapse will usher in a period of unbearable pain and hardship for many. Many will lose their homes, many will see their asset values plummet, many will struggle to afford food - and the Fed is damn near out of tricks. The can-kicking has gone on for so long that there's not much left that could be done to save the economy from complete collapse. This zombie economy has been on life support for so long that it looks like one of the living-dead that's been endlessly experimented on to try to find a cure for the T-virus in the Resident Evil: Extinction movie. It may not be a bad idea to stock up on your emergency food supply - because we're set for one cold economic winter.

Trillion Dollar Coins, Sovereign Debt, And Paul Krugman Is Dumb

Sun, 28 Jul 2024 17:12:34 GMT

Paul Krugman's "pay off the debt with a trillion dollar coin" idea is the stupidest, most idiotic thing anyone has ever proposed.

The debt ceiling suspension is (currently) set to expire January 1, 2025. Inevitably, sometime in late November/early December, a bunch of people who don't understand how the economy works will begin to, once again, propose we "mint the coin" to pay off our national debt.

It never ceases to amaze how many people who are considered to be very smart (by the standards of the masses) propose this idiotic idea, and how many people take it seriously. But rest assured, there's absolutely nothing serious about this idea whatsoever.

"Nobel laureate economist" Paul Krugman, who somehow still has credibility in economic circles despite being wrong about literally everything he's ever predicted, is one of the biggest advocates of minting (what would now be 35) trillion dollar coins to pay off our national debt.

Now, ignoring all the obvious problems this would instantaneously create in the economy, there's actually, despite popular "opinion" (actually, despite popular ignorance would be the better descriptor), not even a legal avenue to even attempt to execute such an idea (thank god).

Allow me to explain: this entire crackpot theory of the government's ability to mint its own set of trillion dollar coins to pay off its own debt (which would in all actuality inherently constitute a de facto default, but that's an article for another day), comes from an obscure law, 31 U.S.C. 5112(k), passed back in 1996 that basically states that the U.S. treasury has the authority to mint commemorative coins in platinum in any denomination it wants to. Perfect! So we can just go ahead and exploit this law to mint trillion dollar platinum coins and use it to pay off our sovereign debt without having any adverse effects on the broader economy whatsoever! Magic!

Uh. No. Despite the fact that this law was passed, it doesn't supersede or render other laws meaningless. What Paul Krugman apparently doesn't know is that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing has to receive a print order from the Fed before it can create any new currency at all, regardless of how the Treasury asks the B.E.P. to print it. So if the Fed were to send a print order over to the B.E.P. for $100, then theoretically, the Treasury could then ask the B.E.P. to print the $100 in 5 $20 newly-minted commemorative coins, or 1 $20 commemorative coin and 4 $20 federal reserve notes, etc.. But what the Treasury cannot do, under any legal circumstance, is just force the B.E.P. to start printing new currency or minting new coins without the involvement of the Fed . Period. The Glass-Owen Federal Reserve Act of 1913 simply prohibits it. End of story.

But that's not even the only problem. Even if the Federal Reserve Act didn't completely prohibit this from happening (which it does, but we'll pretend for the sake of argument that it doesn't) , the Treasury certainly does not have the legal authority to control the money supply in this country. Minting a coin in the denomination of one trillion dollars (this sounds so silly, it even feels weird to type in this article), would certainly legally qualify as a "larger liquid asset" and would therefore be included in the M3 money supply (had it not been arbitrarily discontinued), regardless of whether or not it's just deposited in a big vault in the dark, creepy basement at the D.C. Fed building. And again, the U.S. Treasury has absolutely no legal authority to control the money supply. Period. End of story. So, Paul Krugman is wrong, legally, for a second reason (and again, we're obviously ignoring all the major problems this would create in the broader economy, which Paul Krugman himself probably doesn't even believe would happen).

So anyone who proposes this idea, including "Nobel laureate economist" Paul Krugman, has a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy actually works in this country, and has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. So the next time you hear Paul Krugman, Kyle Kulinski, or Sam Seder claiming the U.S. government can essentially waive a magic wand and make the government debt disappear before your very eyes with a "trillion dollar coin," you'll know that what they're saying is complete bullshit, and you'll know why. And to be clear, anytime Paul Krugman ever says anything at all, you should immediately be skeptical, and the meme we've posted below sums up why.

Keira Lhotan Is Going To Be One Of YouTube's Biggest Stars

Fri, 26 Jul 2024 21:24:15 GMT

YouTube newbie Keira Lhotan is headed for internet stardom for many reasons, and almost none of them have to do with the mere fact that she's pretty.

Aspiring model Keira Lhotan started a side gig (or perhaps even just a new hobby) on YouTube just a few months ago. Since then, she's uploaded 155 videos (at the time of this writing), all simple, usually unedited 5 to 10 minute rants about her thoughts of the day, and has since garnered a whopping 45 thousand followers on YouTube. Not bad for not even taking the time to edit.

Lhotan's down-to-earth personality makes her a naturally likable figure, and her realistic, objective take on the world makes her well-worth ten minutes out of your day to listen to. In a cesspit of wasted cyber space, and shitty videos poisoning the minds of the masses, Lhotan has risen above it all to preach a message of positivity, objectivism (whether she realizes it or not), and hope. She covers a range of interesting, relevant topics on her channel, from relationships, to fitness, to sex, to femininity, to personal growth, and her commentary on the subjects are absolutely fascinating.

Despite Lhotan's youth, she's surprisingly often correct on her analysis of the way the world works. Now she isn't always right, as evidenced by her comment section and the commenters trying to correct her on certain assertions she makes, and the upvote counts to some of these comments - but more often then not, she gives grounded, realistic analysis of the issues she speaks about. And her charisma, authoritative sense of confidence, and commanding presence onscreen actually makes it difficult to question much of what she's saying anyway, even if you hear something she says you know is wrong. She would actually make a great cult leader, if that's a road she ever decided to go down.

Lhotan's channel is growing extremely rapidly, despite her not following the standard YouTube algorithmic rules for channel growth. She's not particularly niched. She doesn't edit her videos or have much production value at all. She doesn't do much search engine optimization to her videos... and yet for some reason, her channel is experiencing growth unlike many others. How is this happening? My belief is that she's just so charismatic, her video topics are so socially and culturally relevant, and her opinions are so raw, real, and unadulterated, that it's attracted a massive audience that find her channel incredibly unique and refreshing when compared to other channels (and influencers).

I wrote this article this afternoon as my own personal way of wishing Lhotan the best of luck with her YouTube channel (as well as make something of a "prediction" which I strongly believe will come true - that Keira Lhotan will become an unlikely major YouTube star). And unlike many others, Lhotan's success as a video creator will actually be well-deserved. Her charisma, her raw, unadulterated ranting, her pro-relationship opinions on dynamics between the sexes, her embraced femininity, and her overall positive outlook on life all make this young woman the diamond in the rough that she is, and she's headed for video creator stardom because of it.

'Deadpool & Wolverine' Is A Hilarious & Fun Finale For The MCU

Fri, 26 Jul 2024 02:14:46 GMT

'Deadpool & Wolverine' delivers on all fronts - hardcore action and violence, hilarious and filthy humor, and a satisfying finale for the MCU. We finally get to see live-action Wolverine in his superhero suit after more than 20 years... and Ryan Reynolds is one of the last movie stars.

I've been waiting for this movie to come out for over half a decade. It was well-worth the wait.

I love Deadpool and Ryan Reynolds. I also love Hugh Jackman and Wolverine. But teaming these two up in a violent and hilarious finale for the MCU was almost too satisfying.

Hugh Jackman reprises his role as Logan (Wolverine) effortlessly. He's played this character for so long, he can slip back into it easier than a pair of stretchy cotton pajamas. But, as you may have guessed, it's Reynolds that steals the show here, and it seems as though he was always sort of destined to play Deadpool - as if Mother Nature created Ryan Reynolds specifically so he could play this badass antihero in one of the biggest live-action comic book movie franchises of all time (similar to Kevin Conroy and his voicing of Batman). We also had the privilege of seeing some great cameos in this movie - Chris Evans reprising his 20-year-old role as the Fantastic Four's Johnny Storm, Channing Tatum's hilarious cameo as Gambit, and an epic appearance from Wesley Snipes as the classic badass vampire hunter Blade, among others..

The plot of this movie pretty heavily satirizes the absurdity of the MCU's multiverse, culminating in a great monologue in the third act from Ryan Reynolds, begging the Marvel studio to knock it off. Reynolds, who almost certainly had some personal input into this particular paragraph of script dialogue, absolutely shreds Marvel and Disney for allowing this conspiracy-theory-string-lines-on-a-chalkboard-style story weaving to have gone on for so long, and how little sense it all makes (it's actually a little shocking that Disney even allowed the writers to keep in this monologue!). The writers of Deadpool & Wolverine though do a pretty good job of keeping this story as simple as possible, so they could allow for the entertainment to flow through the onscreen action and character dialogue and development (which there is surprisingly a good amount of!). The long and short of the plot is: Wade Wilson's world is about to end forever, because an "anchor-being" (or a highly essential person to that specific universe) has died, starting a chain reaction that will eventually lead to the demise of the entire universe. The "anchor-being" in Wade Wilson's world was... Logan. So, Deadpool takes it upon himself to find another Logan in another universe to substitute him, and hopefully save the only 9 people that he cares at all about in his world. From here, Deadpool, and "the worst" Wolverine (as they actually call him in the movie), team up to save Deadpool's home universe from being completely destroyed. From here, we get a buddy comedy and a badass, violent action movie that's mixed better than a chocolate milkshake.

Watching Deadpool and Wolverine fuck each other up on multiple occasions is awesome and hilarious at the same time. And watching them team up to kill 100 other Deadpools from 100 different universes was another highlight of the film. But the most memorable (and hilarious) moment of the film came during the opening credits scene, in which we get to watch Deadpool ruthlessly murder a posse of multiverse time-traveling agents while doing NSYNC's signature choreographed dance to their 2000 single, Bye Bye Bye. On a similar note, this movie has a great soundtrack.

At the time of this writing, Deadpool & Wolverine is scheduled for its big theatrical release tomorrow, Friday, July 26th. Those like me who caught it early apparently love it, and is sitting strong with the audience at an impressive 96%. Surprisingly (or perhaps not so much) the critics have rated it all the way down at 80% (which is still impressive by most standards), and could perhaps be due to Reynolds' absolutely panning wokeism in the film. Ryan Reynolds takes a no holds barred approach in his criticism of woke culture in this movie, and in one scene, flat-out mocks the sensitivity of the wokies by yelling at Professor X's bald sister, "ableism... the woke mob is going to hate that one!" If wokeism in the cinema wasn't dead already... Deadpool & Wolverine is certainly the final nail in the coffin of an era of lecturing, sensitive, and boring cinema that will be quickly forgotten (thank God!).

Deadpool & Wolverine is nearly a masterpiece and is well worth the $25 you'll pay to see it in IMAX 3D if you're able to. A film like this hasn't come around in awhile (though, luckily, it may start to be a lot more often), so don't feel bad about ponying up a little dough to get the full experience - you'll be glad you did. Seeing this legendary team up between Deadpool and Wolverine itself is worth the price of admission anyway... and not to mention, everything Ryan Reynolds touches these days turns to gold... because he's truly one of the last movie stars. EndingPolitics.com gives Deadpool & Wolverine 3 and a half stars and two big, red, swollen thumbs up!

MaXXXine: The Sleazy Neo-Noir Finale Of The 'X' Series

Sat, 13 Jul 2024 06:36:56 GMT

Mia Goth has joined the likes of Jamie Lee Curtis & Neve Campbell as a generational "scream queen."

Ti West and A24 have hit yet another home run with MaXXXine which debuted last week. And this home run was definitely hit in the form of a line drive - smack right into the faces of its target demo.

The X series goes out with a big bang, drawing influences from all over the place - including Halloween , Psycho , and other 80s films, with a very neo-noir (or maybe even neo-neo-noir! ) tone, and possibly even drawing some influence from video games like Outlast 2, L.A. Noire, and Rockstar Games' cult-classic hit Manhunt .

Unlike it's predecessor X , which leaned more toward a 1970s slasher-flick/comedy-combo feel, and served as something of a uniquely original remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre , MaXXXine takes on a much darker, sleazier tone, but still delivers a nice hard punch (or should I say stomp - you'll know what I mean once you see the film) to the balls (in the best way possible). Despite the horrifically gruesome murders not being quite as over the top as in X , we still get to see lots of blood, gore, and a sweet execution-style decapitation with a shotgun at the end of the film(definitely one of the nods to Rockstar's Manhunt or maybe even Capcom's Resident Evil 7 ).

The film follows the morally-ambiguous character titular character Maxine (also the main protagonist of X as well as a reflection character of the titular character Pearl in X 's prequel, Pearl ) six years after the massacre that occurred while she filmed her first porn movie in Texas (the plot of X ). Maxine, at first, seems to have recovered well from the events of X with minimal symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder. But after finding out her friends have been murdered by a perverted deviant known in the film as the "Night Stalker," and then being confronted by a P.I.-turned-criminal (Kevin Bacon) who tells her he knows what she did six years ago , Maxine, in very neo-noir fashion, becomes very paranoid, and begins to remember the gory details of the massacre in Texas, and even hallucinates being attacked by Pearl ( spoiler alert : whom Maxine decapitated by running over her head with a car at the end of X ). West does a good job of making some of these scenes particularly creepy, most notably when Maxine hallucinates being choked to death by Pearl while she's having a wax mold of her head made during pre-production of the Hollywood film she'll be starring in, as well as when she sees Pearl's menacing face in the window of the Bates' house at Universal Studios' Psycho set in the middle of the second act. Although very neo-noir in its story and atmosphere, this film is definitely still a horror/slasher at its core, and does a good job of creeping out its audience.

The soundtrack in this movie is incredible. The vast majority of the music in this film is original, 1980s-inspired heavily-overdriven guitar riffs, synths, and reverberated drums, and turned out to be one of the most memorable characteristics of the film. West recruited veteran film scorer Tyler Bates to compose the film's soundtrack, and he delivered, in spades. The soundtrack to this movie gets a perfect 10/10 and will almost certainly make even Hans Zimmer a bit jealous.

MaXXXine also features an all-star cast including Giancarlo Esposito, Lily Collins, and Halsey. But besides Goth's awesome performance as Maxine, it was actually Kevin Bacon that really stood out. Bacon's been in dozens of blockbuster films in his career, but his portrayal of the villainous P.I. with a very off-putting southern accent "John" in this film will probably be one of his most memorable characters of all time. Spoiler alert : And admittedly, it's quite satisfying seeing his violently gruesome and bloody demise when Maxine, along with her lawyer and agent (Giancarlo Esposito) cleverly devise a plan to trap and then murder him in the beginning of the third act. This ended up being another one of the most memorable moments in the movie, and the over-the-top violence of the scene was much more on the level of MaXXXine 's predecessor, X .

It's also worth noting that Mia Goth seems to be one of the last remaining classically feminine archetypes in Hollywood. We recently wrote about Challengers and how Zendaya really fell back into her femininity for that role (and did it well), and also how Sydney Sweeney and Jenna Ortega seem to be able to actually play sexy, feminine characters without getting upset about it ( OMFG, WHAT IS THIS, THE 1950s?!??! YOU MYSOGYNIST!!! ), unlike many other Hollywood actresses, who will play characters in a major, large-budget productions, whine about being "sexualized" (whatever the hell that means), and then take their big six or seven-figure paychecks anyway and cash out, and still claim their virtue-signal points along with them once those big fat paychecks hit their bank accounts. But Goth has now been added to that short list of women who embrace their femininity, and don't whine about being "sexualized" (assuming that's even actually happening), as well as to our list of generational "scream queens," like Jamie Lee Curtis, Neve Campbell, and even Jenna Ortega, whom history will also almost certainly remember as an archetypal horror-movie-hott-girl.

MaXXXine is highly-entertaining and serves as a great neo-noir finale for the X series. It's also remarkably different than Pearl and X , and doesn't feel like it's recycling old ideas. The whole film feels new and unpredictable, and dare I say, actually scary at times, which is hard to come by in modern cinema, although sometimes Hollywood is still able to pull it off . It also will make for a great date night - your girlfriend is all but guaranteed to love this 3-star, two thumbs up film (as we rate it) just as much as you will.

The Death Of OnlyFans

Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:44:53 GMT

Like many fads, the era of OnlyFans is now but a distant memory.

I've been wanting to write this article for a few weeks now, but unlike many subjects I write about on this blog, I've actually been hesitant to, for a number of reasons. First, I actually generally don't like critiquing the free market, because it's merely the product of hundreds of millions of brilliant minds, and many of whom are far brighter than myself. The second reason is, I in no way want to be associated with the "red pill" community (which I now colloquially refer to as the "black pill" community for a number of reasons) which has a long history of (and has seemingly built an entire culture around) criticizing OnlyFans creators. And the third reason is, I actually feel quite bad for a lot of the women that started OnlyFans accounts, only to find out that the experience resembles nothing at all what they were told it was, and ended up selling photos and videos of the temples that are their bodies for a pittance.

I came across a fascinating article about a month ago by a young woman named Makayla Samountry, who interestingly, has actually made quite a bit more money off the platform than most other young women, but like many others, the skyrocketing amounts of revenue and the dopamine releases many young OnlyFans "content creators" get when see they're getting rich on paper, quickly faded like one of the many Bitcoin bubble bursts we've seen over the past decade.

In her article, she describes how she collectively made almost a quarter million dollars over the past few years selling "content" on the platform. And then, just last month, she couldn't even rake in $1,000 in a month. Not great money, considering you could easily make more than half that just selling your blood in this economy, and not have to talk to any creeps or show them your butthole.

My takeaway from this article is that Samountry, like many other young women, felt duped by the marketing hype - the Instagram pictures of twenty-some year old women buying fancy cars, dream houses, dogs with pedigrees - which seemingly turns out to be just as cheap marketing as Tai Lopez's "here in my garage with my Lamborghini" video is to young men.

The even sadder fact of the matter is, as these women get older, and their faces and bodies start to wrinkle, and OnlyFans' buyer-base continues to shrink while the seller-base continues to expand (another business-crushing effect of the dynamics of supply and demand), even these young beautiful women will learn - and learn much harder and more painfully than most - that all good things must come to an end. Unless these young women paid for their mansions and Porsches in cash, many of them will soon find themselves defaulting on their mortgages and car payments as their monthly residual subscriber fees dry up. Now granted, some of them that already worked as escorts before OnlyFans may be able to (or should I say, "willing to") provide "favors" to the repo-men coming for their cars... but the bankers coming for their homes will, rest assured, not accept such "favors" (especially the very rich ones who already have beautiful wives and who've gotten quite rich off the Fed's loose monetary policy ).

The saddest part is that once these women are out fresh out of that sweet OnlyFans passive income, they have little to no subscribers, and now they need to find real work to support themselves, many managers will be unwilling to hire them. Regardless of whether or not one thinks this is "fair" doesn't matter - the truth is, there's no law prohibiting a manager from not hiring someone because they worked in the porn industry. And even if there was, history has demonstrated that these laws have probably little to no real effect on the hiring practices in the private sector anyway. Still, some of these women may be able to snag up a good, handsome man to marry and be taken care of - maybe start a family, raise kids, and live happily ever after - but for others, it will almost certainly not work out this way. And let's face it, how many men want to put the ring on the finger of a woman whom they perceive to be an "ex-porn star?" My guess is the market for that sort of thing is probably pretty niche, to put it mildly. And let's be honest with ourselves, I haven't heard of a single OnlyFans "content creator" in the entire world , not even a single anecdote , who ended up marrying one of her subscribers (these men aren't exactly what one might call "high value").

Yet another problem with the business model over at OF HQ: they openly admit that the creator count is increasing faster than the subscriber count. Not exactly the sort of supply and demand dynamic one would want in that sort of business.

And one thing you'll never hear about: even before taxes, these women are actually only earning 80 cents on every dollar spent with them, because OnlyFans takes a 20% cut of every single transaction it processes. That's a pretty good scam they've got running over there, considering none of their executives have ever had to show their own buttholes to anyone on the internet. They instead just take a 20% cut of every woman's butthole shown on the site. Classy.

But here's some really interesting data: because there are so many young women that have joined the platform as creators, and buyers have leveled off dramatically, the ratio of fans to creators is now only 75! Now realistically we know that most women on the site will never have 75 fans at one time, because most are probably going to the top 10% of accounts, but let's do a best-case scenario on the math here. According to Scrile, the average OnlyFans monthly subscriber cost is between 10 and 15 dollars (How is the average "between" two numbers by the way?!? That's really not how math works.), but let's take the high end for the best-case scenario in this hypothetical. $15 times 75 fans, for the dead average OnlyFans creator... is only $1,125/mo. You can't even pay a mortgage with that in this economy! No wonder so many young women are deciding this just isn't worth it!

Another new force working against OnlyFans models though - and I know I criticized it in the first paragraph, but it does seem to be an effective force, nonetheless - is the red pill community. Many of these red pill creators are (rightfully and honestly) convincing their audiences to delete their OnlyFans buyer accounts. Some red pill influencers (some have some pretty funny and entertaining names for "OnlyFans" too; for example, one notable red pill influencer named "Better Bachelor" calls it "OnlyFools") tell their primarily-male audiences that men who purchase OnlyFans content are "weak" and "emasculated," and that the women they're giving their hard-earned money to would never in a million years date them in real life (are they actually wrong about any of this?). Some of these red pill influencers have hundreds of thousands of subscribers (and some in the millions) on YouTube and other social media platforms. With that level of influence, it's hard to wonder why the number of men buying OnlyFans subscriptions is declining.

And it's hard not to talk about the economics behind the rise of OnlyFans, since that's what we do here on this blog. As we've said many, many times here on EndingPolitics.com , government stimulus rarely helps to grow a healthy, robust economy. Instead, fiscal stimulus and artificially low interest rates do nothing except get people high on cheap money, which fuels these enormous boom-bust business cycles and price bubbles. And so it was with OnlyFans. The rise of this platform peaked in the early days of the pandemic, when money was being given out like false promises from a politician, which fueled the OnlyFans price bubble. Now that the free money has dried up, and has done nothing except fuel inflationary pressure in this country, OnlyFans creators are left out to dry. It's easy to pay $15 to see the cute young girl that serves you your coffee at Starbucks naked when you were just handed a $1200 stimmy check, but when you're struggling to afford food because the price is hundreds of percents higher than it was just a few short years ago , you're going to have to make a choice: your stomach, or your peepee.

I struggle to put into words just how ridiculous this trend has been over the past few years, as well as how fucked up this entire situation is, and how bad I feel for these young women who were promised the world for the "small" (or perhaps not so much) price of simply showing their naked bodies on the internet. I really don't want to, or even like, saying these women were "taken advantage of," because in truth, they are all adults and therefore are responsible for their own decisions... but...

With all the bullshit marketing hype that fueled the rapid increase in OnlyFans creators (which I'm sure was at least partially, if not mostly, astro-turfed from the OnlyFans executives themselves), I do get the sense that a lot of these young women were sold a bill of goods to enrich a small few corporate fat cats. And now, they've been hung out to dry by the same assholes they used their temples (bodies) to enrich. This will be a tough lesson for society to have learned when it's all said and done, though quite possibly a necessary one - I just feel bad for all the casualties it will have incurred in the process.

***Fin***

-TF

Sam Seder's Dumbest Idea Ever: "Writing Off" The National Debt

Sun, 07 Jul 2024 17:38:20 GMT

This may be the most exemplary display of the Dunning-Kruger Effect ever.

It may be time for Sam Seder to stop "debating" (we use that word very loosely here) libertarians, because he's been saying things that are making him look completely idiotic.

We should preface this article by stating that the video clip we're referring to actually isn't new, yet somehow this shockingly exemplary display of the Dunning-Kruger Effect by Sam Seder on his own show somehow went unnoticed, and is way too absurd to not make fun of. So, here we are.

Economic genius Sam Seder has a plan that's going to rid the United States of its sovereign debt once and for all, without having any adverse effects on the economy whatsoever.

Sound a little too good to be true? Well hang on to your seats ladies and gents. because this is gonna be a crazy ride through the progressive insane asylum!

Libertarian Party Chair Nick Sarwark and Sam Seder began discussing the national debt with Sam Seder on The Majority Report with Sam Seder. Most of us that don' t live in Candyland know that there are essentially three ways for a country to rid itself of sovereign debt: 1) pay it off through tax revenue, 2) print money to pay it off (highly inflationary), or 3) default on it. Well Sam Seder, who is significantly smarter than all of us, clued us in on a fourth option: we can just write it off! Of course! Why didn't anyone ever think of that before?! We can just write it off! We, as the American populous and the owners of the American federal government can just unilaterally declare, "Eh, we actually don't owe you that shit! Now, please, fuck right off! "

For those of you that believe we're being hyperbolic here, we hate to tell you, as much as we love hyperbole, you'd actually be wrong! These are not our words, but the exact words that came out of Sam Seder's own mouth!

Now to be clear, this moment of complete stupidity that will probably be unmatched by any progressive moron until the end of time, comes with one single (yet trivial) caveat. And we're not entirely sure why, but it seems based on the context of the discussion, Sam Seder believed up until the moment that he actually looked at a graph of who actually owns the national debt, that the United States federal government somehow owned all its own debt. Not kidding you - as if Sam Seder had no understanding of the way America's monetary system actually works. Forget about the Federal Reserve and how they actually have 100% of the control over monetary policy in this country, and buys and sells government debt in the open securities markets every single day. No! Sam Seder apparently believed, based on his response to Nick Sarwark, that the United States funded its operations literally by borrowing from itself. How this works without the United States federal government actually owning, operating, and printing the currency, and not the Fed doing all those things, seems impossible (and already pretty stupid and pie-in-sky anyway ), but we digress. "We're a sovereign nation. We can print our own currency," claimed Sam Seder during the debate. No Sam, that's not the way it works. A privately-owned institution called the Federal Reserve gets to print the money that we're forced to use, and they also get to buy and sell debt to influence the broader economy, set interest rates in the "free" market, and do a bunch of other things that I (and it sounds like you too) believe they actually shouldn't be able to do. To be clear Sam, we'd actually love for you to be right. We'd love it if the American people, and not the banking cartel, owned the currency. We'd love for the government to have a fully-transparent process, and the documentation be easily obtainable by the public, as to how much money the government is printing at all times, exactly whom is purchasing our sovereign debt and how much, etc.. But in general, it's actually your side of the political spectrum that wants to keep the Fed in its place of autonomy over our currency, despite the fact that you clearly have no idea how the economy works.

The moment in the debate that Sam Seder's brain kicked into gear and he realized that the federal government actually doesn't own the vast majority of the sovereign debt was quite interesting. "The debt that we owe is really just to ourselves," Sam Seder believed, up until he saw the graph of who actually owns the debt. "We're not going to default on our sovereign debt," claimed Sam Seder. "We owe it to ourselves, we're not going to default." This is the pinnacle of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Before we go on, Sam, we need to explain two things to you briefly (since we know you do in fact read the articles we write about you). 1) We actually don't own the vast majority of our debt (as you seem to figure out yourself shortly after that short bout of idiocy left the hole in your face) and 2) there currently doesn't even exist a legal process that the federal government can just "write off" its debt to anyone , including itself. When debt is purchased, it comes with a contractual obligation that the debt will be paid off. Period. You know, contracts, that thing you studied in law school? Maybe you skipped that class.

"The vast majority [of bonds] are owned by the U.S. government!" Sam Seder exclaims with the utmost confidence imaginable during the segment. Who the fuck told him this shit? We're currently rewatching this segment as we write this article and Sam Seder's dumbfounding level of ignorance on this subject is jaw-dropping.

Seder then orders his producer to bring up a graph of the United States sovereign debt. He seemed confused as he read the graph out lout, stating at the time, the U.S. government only owned 27% of the sovereign debt (he rounded up to thirty to make himself look less stupid; we'll give him a pass there). "Assuming China is the biggest holder of our debt, uhh-err, it's not gonna be more than like 10-15%. So the 30%, the 5.73 trillion held by the U.S. government? Guess what? U.S. government's gonna be fine - we can, uh, we can print our own money so we don't need the money we owe ourselves, we've borrowed," Sam Seder claims with more of his misplaced sense of confidence in his knowledge of economics. As we stated above, there is no legal process whatsoever for the government to just "write off" its own debt - what Sam Seder is actually talking about here is defaulting on it, which if that's what he wants , he should just say, instead of creating fictitious concepts in his imagination like "writing off debt." (On a side note, even if the U.S. government were to miraculously create a law that stated we could just write off only intragovernmental debt and no other debt - which of course it never would - this would obviously still be viewed as a de facto default by private investors, foreign governments and countries, Fitch Ratings, Moody's Investors Service, and S&P Global Ratings, and the IMF)

"We [wouldn't be] inflating our way out of sovereign debt," claims Sam Seder smugly, "we can just write it off!"

The dumbest statement ever made by any political commentator, anywhere, ever .

Sam, let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that everything we've said up until this point isn't true (it is - we're absolutely right and you're embarrassingly wrong on your assessment of this issue, but let's just assume that for the sake of argument). Let's just say we did write off what was 27% of the national debt (and now it's rapidly approaching 20%, if we haven't already passed that). What are we going to do about the other 73% of our national debt? Do you think we can just write that off, too??!! What about all the debt we owe to domestic private investors? Do you just wanna say "fuck 'em" and not pay them back?!? What about the debt we owe to foreign governments, including China, and all the other ones?!?! Methinks you might just be over-estimating the strength of our military, sir.

We'd put off writing this article in hopes that we'd eventually get a response from Seder when we reached out to him over... and over... and over... and over again for comment. We even posted one of our asks right in one of his Twitter threads in which he was talking about, you guessed it, Dave Rubin of course (whom nobody cares about). We suppose diverting his audience's attention from Seder's own ignorance of basic economics to Dave Rubin, he believes, will buy his channel some more time (it's surprising his channel lasted this long, as the view counts on his videos usually don't even crack more than 5% of his entire follower count). But alas, Seder never responded to any of our requests to comment, or elaborate, on even what he actually meant by "writing off" national debt.

As always, we've taken the liberty of time-stamping the clip and embedding it below, so you can jump right to the action. And Sam, if you're reading this, put down your 20 copies of The Deficit Myth by Stephanie Kelton, and go read a real economics book - one that hasn't been deposited in the ten cent bin at your local Goodwill, please.

EndingPolitics.com's Summer 2024 Reading List

Tue, 02 Jul 2024 02:14:53 GMT

Here's your must-read book list for the summer season of 2024.

Ah, yes. As Rivers Cuomo put it on Weezer's 2017 album Pacific Daydream, "yeah, it feels like summer!" And if you live or have visited the east coast U.S. over the past week, you don't need me to tell you that, because you probably noticed the average temperature was around 90 degrees and very humid for most of the week. And if the temperature stays this way for most of the summer, it's our bet you'll probably be spending a good bit of your summer in the comfort of your air-conditioned house or apartment, rather than outside in the east coast humidity. So, we've taken the liberty of putting together a short but fun and informative reading list for you. We've only put three books on here to keep it simple (because we're well-aware most people won't even read three books in their entire lifetimes), as well as one bonus (for the political-left!). Better yet, most of these can be found on used and on-the-cheap on eBay, so there's no reason not to pick up a copy of all of them, and finish them before the end of September.

End The Fed by Dr. Ron Paul

Despite how relevant and necessary this book was when it was written back in 2009, we're willing to bet that even Dr. Paul himself wouldn't have guessed just how much more relevant it would be in 2024. We've written plenty on this blog about the federal reserve, so much so that we're surprised we haven't received a cease-and-desist from the political establishment by now (if you haven't read our newest article on it yet, it's a great place to start , especially if you're a beginner). But Dr. Paul probably has a better understanding of the nature of the Fed than anyone who's ever set foot in the halls of Congress (with the exceptions of perhaps his own son, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)), and thoroughly details in his book the Fed's shady dealings behind closed doors, his own sparring with former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke during the House committee hearings ( a preview of some of these spars can be seen on YouTube ), and the case on why we shouldn't allow the central bank to further devalue our currency and impoverish the American people. If you only read one book on this list this summer, make sure it's this one, because it has never been more relevant.

2. How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World by Harry Browne

In How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World , former presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, Harry Browne, lays out his entire outline on how to take responsibility for ones own life, beat the odds against you, lay out and navigate a direct path to happiness, and find real freedom in a world where real freedom doesn't exist. Browne brilliantly and insightfully lays out the case that, despite the reality that you will live under an authoritarian government anywhere you go in the world, with a little practice and optimism, you can break free of the invisible chains that are trapping you, and start to live a truly free life. Somewhere inside these 400 pages, you're bound to find at least a few actionable tips you can execute right now to better your own situation, regardless of your current status in life.

3. The Real Anthony Fauci by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The title of this book speaks for itself, and if you're one of the few informed people who haven't read this book yet, there's no better time than this summer. This book is eye-opening, shocking, and damning to the bureaucrats and politicians who were in charge of the response to the COVID-19 scamdemic that ushered in a new wave of cronyism, corporatism, power-grabbing, and technocracy in the United States. This is quite possibly one of the most well-researched and heavily-cited books ever written, and the startling facts and incidents outlined in this book will scare even the most paranoid of self-proclaimed "conspiracy theorists." But there's just one problem - there are no "theories" in this book - it's 100% documented, well-researched, provable, cited facts. This is yet another must-read for our summer reading list.

BONUS (For our left-leaning readers)

The Unfair Advantage: How You Already Have What It Takes To Succeed by Ash Ali and Hasan Kubba

We wanted to throw our left-leaning readers a bone on this list. Despite the vibes we may put off on this blog sometimes, there are actually quite a few things we sympathize with, and dare we say, agree with , the left on. Sometimes it does feel like, in the current corporate-socialist economy we live in, that a path to success is damn-near completely unfindable. And if you are clever, hardworking, optimistic, and resourceful enough to find one, well, actually navigating it is an entirely new and difficult problem. Ash Ali and Hasan Kubba clearly understand this, like we do, and they've done all the heavy-lifting for us in their book The Unfair Advantage , and laid out an entire path for those who dream of success but currently feel hopeless with finding it, with what Ali and Kubba call the "MILES Framework," which will guide you down your own unique path to success. You may not even realize it, but you too have some of the same "unfair advantages" that all the people born into wealth had. It may not be all the exact same ones. Some may be variations of them, and some may be completely different ones altogether. But this book does a great job of explaining how anyone, even the people who are seemingly the most down on their luck, can break out of the rat race, and achieve great success. It is particularly the American political left that will love this book, as they will find Ali and Kubba highly relatable, and will quickly realize despite their own great successes, that these two authors greatly sympathize with their readers who might not have had the opportunities or good fortunes to realize their own paths to success yet.

And there you have it, our summer reading list for all you A/C lovers out there! We've made this list quite simple for you - one book a month, for the next three months. As soon as the book arrives at your door step, go to the last page, take that page number, divide it by 30, and read that number of pages every day for the next month. By the end of the summer, you'll have read 3 new books, and you'll have a wealth of knowledge that you'll be able to impress your friends and family with, and perhaps even change your own outlook on life, politics, and the current state of the American economy and the country itself. Have fun reading these, and have a great summer!

MMT Author Stephanie Kelton Won't Let Us Interview Her

Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:43:50 GMT

Prominent Modern Monetary Theory economist, author, and economics professor Stephanie Kelton is apparently too scared to let us interview her.

Prominent Modern Monetary Theory economist, author, and Stony Brook University economics professor-turned-inflation conspiracy theorist Stephanie Kelton is apparently too scared of us non-economist airheads over here at EndingPolitics.com to let us interview her.

Allow us to preface the remainder of this article by noting that this is an article we really didn't want to write. Kelton seems like a genuinely nice person, as well as a thoughtful, compassionate woman, who seems to want what she believes is best for humanity. The problem is, her opinions (and recent conspiracy theories) about economics and the current bout of inflation the U.S. is experiencing are misguided enough that it's worth refuting here on our blog.

This story starts about two months ago, when we began reaching out to Kelton to try to schedule an interview with her, during which (had she accepted) we would have discussed the current state of the American economy, inflation, MMT, and her book (which we've read) The Deficit Myth (which is obviously a highly-ironic title, considering we can go to the national debt clock website right now for a quick reminder that the national debt and budget deficit is very much not a myth). We can't really understate just how hard we tried to get in contact with this person so we could set up an interview with her - we genuinely tried everything under the sun (short of calling her directly at her office at the university she works at, which, even though we very well could have, and we did consider doing, but we felt that might be too invasive). We reached out to her on Twitter, we emailed her directly, we tried tagging her on Facebook (she unfortunately has her tags on Facebook turned off, for reasons that are imaginatively clear, and even tried commenting on multiple threads she'd posted on Twitter. We know she at least as seen us interacting with her posts, because she acknowledged us at one point - by claiming that based on our comments under her thread, that we obviously had not read her book (as we've stated already, we did indeed read her book).

A couple noteworthy things about the tweet embed we posted above.

1) We were disappointed that Kelton chose to start a new subthread directly below the one we refuted the guy commenting directly above her in the tweet embed, which we assume was a passive-aggressive way to not have to acknowledge our existence, and

2) Claiming that printing money will cause inflation only when there's a "shortage of resources" is like claiming that snow only ever piles up on the ground when there's a shortage of weather above 32°F. Neither of which anyone can control, much less the government, which despite having exercised in futility for generations to artificially increase real productive output in this country, the only thing that ever actually works to flatten a giant inflation curve is raising interest rates and engaging in open operations in the securities markets, similar to the only way you can get snow off the ground in freezing weather is to buy a big shovel or snowblower and throw it off the sidewalk.

Anyway, the point is, to claim that printing money only causes inflation when there's a "shortage of resources" is ridiculous, because obviously, using the same exact logic, we can also conclude that printing money will cause inflation when the amount of resources stays the same, as we point out to Mr. Jacinta Nelligan here, who, we guess, simps and mindlessly jerks off to Stephanie Kelton on the regular. We were disappointed to see Mr. Nelligan disengage in the conversation after we pointed out to him this very simple fact (a fact that Stephanie Kelton herself also didn't bother to refute).

Strangely, and this is another thing we almost certainly would've grilled Kelton in during our interview that she never agreed to doing, Kelton actually admits herself in her book The Deficit Myth that government overspending will cause inflation. We kid you not - and she not only admits it once, but several times during her book, and is actually the literal subheading of chapter 2 of her book, right at the top of page #41, which reads:

[Chapter] 2

Think of Inflation

MYTH #2: Deficits are evidence of overspending.

REALITY: For evidence of overspending, look to inflation.

Not only that, but on the page directly preceding this, she writes:

"So why not tell Congress to just keep spending until all our problems are solved? [Great question, Stephanie!] Ah, if only it were that easy. Inflation, the subject of our next chapter, is a real danger. To be clear, MMT is not about removing all limits. It's not a free lunch. It's about replacing our current approach [...] while at the same time recognizing and respecting our economy's real resource restraints."

Mrs. Kelton, and we ask this question with all due respect, did you forget that you wrote this entire passage of your book? Did you even write this yourself at all, or did you hire a ghostwriter to write this book for you?!?!

For you to claim, as you did in our Twitter thread, that we didn't read your book, is brazenly disrespectful, considering we've said nothing that you haven't said yourself in your own book. You clearly acknowledge that inflation is in fact a real thing, and that it's caused by government overspending, and of course, the government can only spend money that it's first created into existence, so... can you please be specific as to what you disagree with us on, exactly??!

Now, it would be disingenuous with us to just make the claim that Kelton actually does in fact believe the shit she wrote in her own book that was published four years ago, because she's actually spent the last two and a half years inherently back-pedaling what she wrote (assuming she did in fact write this stuff herself, and didn't hire a ghostwriter to write it for her, unknowing as to what he/she was writing in Kelton's own book on her behalf ). She seems to have completely forgotten the laws of economics, and has moved on, like many on the left, to go off spouting ridiculous and already-disproven conspiracy theories about inflation and the big bad corporate meanies who are causing it with their unconstrained greed. We won't bother you, once again, with refuting every single one of the modern inflation conspiracy theories under the sun - we know you're probably bored of reading about it at this point. But, if you're new here, you can type 'inflation' into our search bar in the News section of our site, which will propagate probably dozens of articles we've written over the past couple years refuting this nonsense.

Before we conclude this article, we do have to refute one actual myth that has been circulating through the rapidly-disintegrating circles of MMT proponents - and that's this absurd idea that somehow paying off our sovereign debt somehow won't cause inflation. We know to most of you reading this with a fully-functional brain, this sounds absurd (because it absolutely is), but this based around a myth that's frequently spouted by MMT proponents about how maturing securities are paid back. The myth goes something like this: "The money that we use to pay debt-holders doesn't need to be printed, because the debt-holders used money that was already printed to buy them in the first place!"

This is of course ridiculous on many different levels, primarily because no one would buy a security unless they're going to make some return on their investment from it - no one, not even a far-left progressive moron, is that stupid. It will always have a higher numerical cost to pay back debt than it is to buy it, otherwise no one, not even the nicest, most good-samaritan pro-American-prosperity-patriot in the world, would put their money into a security knowing that the dollars he or she would be paid back with will indefinitely be worth less than it was worth when he or she bought it. That would obviously be insane. But there's a second, and arguably even bigger problem. Money that was spent to purchase U.S. debt is not included in the M2 money supply. Money that is then used to paid back the debt holder when the security matures will be included in the M2 money supply (and the correlation between money supply and inflation that economists speak of is most-usually in regards to the M2). So, when a security matures, and the debt holder is paid back, rest assured, it will indeed measurably expand the money supply. So this notion that paying back our sovereign debt will somehow not cause inflation because we don't need to print the money to do it arises out of a complete lack of understanding of how the U.S. economy actually works, Stephanie.

Our invitation to Stephanie Kelton for an in-depth interview remains open. We are genuinely interested to get some more in-depth insight into her theories on the economy, inflation, and the budget deficit and national debt. Until then, we hope that this article somehow reaches the computer on Mrs. Kelton's desk. We'd love to hear her refutations of our writings in this article - if she's able to refute them - via her Twitter account, her Substack op-eds, or anywhere else that we'd be able to read them.

How The Federal Reserve Secretly Impoverishes The American People

Sun, 12 May 2024 01:37:35 GMT

The Federal Reserve operates in secret behind closed doors, with minimal oversight, is privately-owned, and impoverishes the American people through bad monetary policy that enriches a select few at the expense of the rest of us.

We've written in length about the economy, inflation, and the nature of the Fed on this blog (more or less, from a very anti-establishmentarian viewpoint; but let's be honest, we've done little to try to hide our bias). And it seems that the articles we write on economics on this blog seem to get quite a bit of attention, based on our analytics.

Recently, comedian Jimmy Dore invited several high-profile economists on his show to discuss Modern Monetary Theory during a longer-than-usual segment on his afternoon live show (which is actually not in the slightest bit modern, but highly theoretical). To his credit, the economists he invited on his show made some pretty good points (including guys whom we'd normally criticize, like Professor Richard Wolff). The segment, which was chopped up into smaller segments and posted on The Jimmy Dore Show YouTube channel this afternoon, has already been met with a great amount of praise from the audience. And Dore, who is certainly a leftie, but an honest one and is very anti-establishmentarian, as well as his newly-found skepticism of the Federal Reserve's "trustworthiness" and the integrity of the fractional reserve banking system, is what inspired today's article.

The origin of the Federal Reserve is already extraordinarily shady, ignoring all the inflation, bad monetary policy, enriched elites, and impoverished Americans that it's created since then. An entire book has already been an entire book written about it , but the short version is: there was a secret meeting held in Glynn County, Georgia in 1910, three years before the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in December 1913. The men in attendance of this secret meeting were limited (and very exclusive, as you might have guessed) and included elites such as U.S. Senator Nelson Aldrich, J.P. Morgan executive Henry P. Davidson, and financier Paul Warburg, among others. Together, this small group of shady elites, on this fateful day in 1910, would decide the future of America's monetary policy. Sound like something out of a movie? You don't even know the half of it... and it's 100% true!

Fast forward 114 years: the American dollar has been devalued into oblivion - so much so that Americans have been completely impoverished by the very real phenomenon of too many dollars chasing too few goods. The unemployment numbers have been cooked so much to hide the Fed's failings, that the end product looks like a dried-out, over-seasoned NY strip in the pan of a Hell's Kitchen contestant. And somehow, the American people still seem to have no idea why they're so broke .

It's arguably a good thing that this stuff is so complicated though - because some economists (that are actually worth a snot, which aren't too many these days) believe if the American people understood what's actually happening to their money, there would be rioting in the streets .

But, the way the Federal Reserve monetizes U.S. debt is intentionally complicated - it's a feature, not a bug - so that most Americans aren't able to wrap their heads around what a scam it actually is .

Most people don't know that the Federal Reserve Bank actually isn't owned by the American people . Whenever I have this discussion with your typical mouth-breathing, socialism-loving normie, they usually call me a "conspiracy theorist," or something to that effect. The only problem is: it's 100% true. Now, Google has effectively done its best to hide the truth from you on their front page listings, but using a real search engine that doesn't artificially manipulate its search results will turn up all the evidence you'll need . Though, I'd argue that there are many more private investors of the Federal Reserve Bank than we even know about, and a good many of them, I'd bet, are far sketchier than just the members of the banking cartel.

So as you've probably figured out by now, this privately-owned entity we know as the Central Bank is authorized by the U.S. federal government to issue the currency with which American citizens are forced to settle transactions and pay taxes . But it gets far, far shadier than this very surface-level fact. In fact, as you probably also already know (instinctively, but perhaps not logically... yet) we Americans have no right to just have this currency issued by a privately-owned entity. If we "want" this currency (and by "want," I actually mean "forced to use," because let's be honest with ourselves, no one would want this trash we call fiat currency, that by the Fed's own plan, loses 2% of its value every year anyway, unless we were forced to use it at the threat of a gun), then we have to borrow it ... from this privately-owned entity. When you borrow money, the lender almost always wants to make money from his act of loaning money to you - which actually does makes sense, I mean, why should anyone loan you money for free? But so is also the case with the Fed - we're forced to use this currency by threat of a gun, that inherently loses at least 2% of its value every year whether we like it or not , and pay back the money at interest , to the same private-entity that just gets to print the money out of thin air!

Ah yes, it's a beautiful thing, isn't it?!

Once you wrap your head around what a scam this is - that the United States Federal Government has granted the right to a privately-owned entity, to issue a currency that it created itself, to the American people at interest - is when the entire proverbial ball of yarn will unravel. You've got it!

Now that you get the gist of the scam, it's important we detail how the Fed actually does this. When the federal government needs money, whether it be to start illegal wars with tanks it purchases from privately-owned defense contractors (who want the same wars the congresspeople you hire to supposedly make your life better want), or to jail peaceful, innocent people from possessing a chemical substance the government pretends not to like so they can hire a bunch federal cops that we would otherwise not need, or to pay some nerdy, midget bureaucrat at a three-letter agency that starts with "I" to review all your paystubs from the last fiscal year with a fine-tooth comb, it issues a "security" (which is just a fancy word for debt). In other words, the government sells an I.O.U. (in the forms of treasuries, notes, bonds, among others) to "investors," which obviously often include everyday people like yourself. Then the Federal Reserve Bank engages in "open market operations" and purchases this government debt in the open market from the people just like yourself, in the open financial markets (but we here at EndingPolitics.com also believe that very often, the federal government just sells its debt directly to the Federal Reserve so they don't have to engage in free market operations at all; but that's an article for another day) using the currency they print themselves (and keep in mind, as they print this money, the value of all the currency already in circulation decreases via the laws of supply and demand, increasing the cost to you at your local gas station gas pump, or for your food at your local grocery store, or for the relaxing Jägerbomb you'll drink at your local bar this coming weekend, etc.), that we the American people need to pay back - not to the government, but to the privately-owned entity we call the Federal Reserve Bank - with interest. This is, quite possibly, the biggest scam that's ever been concocted in human history.

On a side note, we should also mention that the same elites who are already collecting interest on the debt they're monetizing with money they print themselves, don't really dislike inflation the way the rest of us do. Quite the contrary actually . When inflation hits, it affects everything in the economy , not just the basket of goods in the CPI the Bureau of Economic Analysis pretends it does. Think about it, if you buy an apartment building and rent all rooms out to a bunch of kulaks like us (who won't own anything, and like it, as Klaus Schwab so succinctly puts it) for $10,000,000, and then inflation skyrockets 20% over say, the course of 3 years after a scamdemic, then theoretically, you've just added $2M in value to your asset that was only worth $10M when you bought it. So, your new apartment building that's now valued at $12,000,000 has just added about $2M more net worth to your person. Congratulations, douche bag! But wait, that's not all! Let's say, for the sake of argument, you took out a loan for that apartment building, instead of paying cash for it. Since your debt is denominated in American dollars as all loans made in the U.S. tend to be, the inflation we've seen has also devalued the dollar value of your loan , along with all the other dollars in circulation. So now, not only has the value of your asset artificially skyrocketed from inflation, but now the debt you owe on it is significantly easier for you to pay off, too! Wow, what a magnificent scam you've got running there, you fucking piece of shit, you!

Now at this point, I'm sure your head is probably spinning a little bit. Rest assured, we're just scratching the surface here (and by the way, feel free to fact-check anything we've written in this article via a search engine that isn't controlled by a bunch of establishmentarian hacks *i.e. Google*). You may be asking yourself right now: "But this isn't legitimate! It's a total scam! Can't we just default on such a fraudulent scheme that was clearly designed to enrich a bunch of elites at the expense of the American middle class??!!?"

Well, I'm glad you asked, kulak! Because the answer is... not legally, we can't!

The central bank elites and their chums on the inside already thought of this a long, long time ago, and created a great contingency plan to prevent it. The "Public Debt Clause" in Article VI, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads "all Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."

Interestingly enough, there's absolutely nothing in the constitution whatsoever that actually authorizes the existence of a central bank (I guess not even our politicians here in the U.S.A. are that shitty). There's only a provision that claims we cannot default on our debt. Note: Just like any law or constitutional amendment ever passed, it's open to interpretation, so there may still be some glimmer of hope for the American people, in that maybe we could interpret this provision in some way that would allow us to default on this fraudulent scam we call the national debt.

It's becoming increasingly harder to find truthful articles and blog posts like these on the internet as the years go by. They do exist, primarily through the outlets of intellectuals and anti-establishmentarians, but many are suppressed in the establishment's corporatist internet search algorithms, for obvious reasons. We don't do this often, but for those of you who think we're doing important work here at Ending Politics, especially through articles like this one, please share them on social media. Much like search engines, social media algorithms almost always suppress our articles, especially ones we write about the economy and the Federal Reserve Bank. Help us break through these manipulative algorithmic tricks, so we can free the minds of the American people, and encourage critical thinking.

- T.F.

Zendaya, 'Challengers' & The Renaissance Of Femininity

Wed, 08 May 2024 02:36:30 GMT

'Challengers' is a fun, unpredictable non-romantic romance film in which the story allows Zendaya to embrace her femininity and walk around in her panties... and we're here for it.

It seems like only yesterday (even though it was almost six months ago) I was writing my review about Sydney Sweeney's unlikely box office hit Anyone But You (and I don't mean to toot my own horn, but I did predict that it blow up in the box office before any other bloggers did), quickly (and probably poorly, as I'll be the first to admit I'm a terrible proof-reader and often leave many grammatical errors in my articles) reading over my work, and feeling like I'd missed something. At a glance, my article looked complete: it was a short, simple film review about a fresh, new, feel-good rom-com released right before the holidays. I left the theater quite happy that I'd chosen to see the film, and couldn't wait to tell the world about what an awesome, unlikely box office hit this film may (and deserved to) become. But I couldn't help but feel that I'd left something out of the article - something important - that really should be in it; I just couldn't figure out what it was. But as the months went by, and Sydney Sweeney began to blow up as a small-time-TV-actress-turned-major-movie-star (almost exclusively because of her role as 'Bea' in Anyone But You ) and while I was in the theater this afternoon watching Zendaya's new sports-romance film Challengers, it had become quite clear what I'd left out of my article from back Christmas Eve of last year: Americans are finally ditching modern feminism, and trading it for a renaissance of classic, traditional femininity, and Challengers is a perfect example of this cultural phenomenon.

Now before we all celebrate the hammering of the final nail in the coffin of this extremely-annoying period of 'woke culture' in American history, I should mention that, there was some minor annoying wokeness in this film, which I'll get into later (though, it may actually be merely one of the last remaining artifacts of woke culture, as this movie was written all the way back in 2021, and production had wrapped back in June of 2022). But overall, the film gave Zendaya a great opportunity to embrace her femininity and sexiness, and boy, did she do a good job. You may not have ever even noticed before (because she's frequently filmed wearing copious amounts of clothes), but Zendaya has an absolutely rockin' body ; she has great legs, a great ass, and nice, perky little boobs, and this becomes quite evident during her tennis scenes in which she usually sports sexy tennis outfits (and on a side note, Zendaya fucking rocks the Anna Kournikova single-braid in all her tennis match scenes - very sexy ) , as well as some of her... uh... "spicier" scenes in the film, in which she rocks as little as her bra and panties. But it's these scenes particularly in which the death of modern feminism and the renaissance of classic femininity becomes the most evident - and it's Zendaya's sexiness, confidence and talent as an actress, and willingness to bear it all for a male audience (who, I'm assuming) would love to see her naked, that hit me like a ton of bricks and made me realize everything I spoke about in the previous paragraph in the theater this afternoon. Zendaya and Sydney Sweeney aren't just actresses , they're not just movie stars - they're both modern sex symbols and the movies they're making are leading the renaissance of classic, traditional femininity in the '20s.

All that said, Challengers as a movie is solid. This film has some of the best, most creative cinematography I've seen in modern cinema, and when compared to other films in the same genres (romance or sports films), might be some of the most creative cinematography ever . In fact, it's arguable that the photography in this film borders much more on art than that of modern entertainment. And the relationships between the characters in this film are complex and interesting, and really accentuate the imperfections of friendly relationships and romantic relationships alike. Zendaya's character "Tashi Duncan" is by far the most interesting though (and Zendaya's performance is definitely the standout and most memorable), and really reminded of me (almost uncomfortably so) of Rich Cooper 's philosophy on women - women want to be with kings, but they're certainly not kingmakers . "Women wait at the finish line, and pick the winners," says Rich Cooper. Challengers affirms Rich Cooper's philosophy on femininity to the letter, whether the writers intended to do so or not.

Challengers has some of the best music I've heard in any movie in a long time. The sound of this film consists of very electronic, industrial dark-electro songs with very deep bass drum tracks, and I found myself wondering as the ending credits started to roll if what I was hearing was a Nine Inch Nails song, and sure enough, (it wasn't, but) I found out shortly afterward that the film's soundtrack was composed by Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails and Atticus Ross (and it was Reznor who sings the ending credits tune), the brains behind the soundtrack of The Social Network; so the film score gets an A+.

My only complaint about Challengers is the occasional out-of-place wokeness that seems reminiscent of a bygone era in cinema (because it is ; as I mentioned, this film was written all the way back in 2021) . And maybe this is a good thing, as it marks the end of an era, but the wokeness in cinema seemed to have died down so much in 2023, that seeing it in this film just already seems so out-of-place. Watching two dudes pretending to be post-modern and making out with each other while they simultaneously make out with Zendaya just isn't necessary anymore (on a side note, I wonder exactly whom the writers were trying to pander to anyway with this in the first place, when they were writing the script back in '21). And I'm not quite sure what the fuck the writers were trying to do with the man-lady/lady-man (I don't fucking know - the goatee'd she-male, whatever the fuck this person was supposed to be) chair umpire who called the shots. This person is just so out-of-place and unnecessary in the film, and is so reminiscent of the box-checking in cinema that was customary in '20 and '21. Making this person just a normal, everyday tennis chair umpire would have been fine, and would have detracted from the story far less than whatever-the-fuck that person was supposed to be.

Aside from the out-of-place wokeness reminiscent of a bygone era of cinema, Challengers is a great, artistic film, and worth the two hours of your time and the cost of admission. And it's especially worth it if you're a fan of classic femininity, the death of modern feminism, and the soft, tan skin on Zendaya's freshly-shaven tennis player-legs.

Groundwork Collaborative Is Terrified Of EndingPolitics.com

Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:55:18 GMT

The resident geniuses over at Groundwork Collaborative are absolutely terrified to be interviewed by us here at Ending Politics about their inflation "study."

We've debunked pretty much every inflation myth we've come across on this website over the past few years. Type "inflation" into our website's search bar, and you'll be treated to a litany of article about inflation, the real cause of it, and the modern idiotic (and factually incorrect) takes on the subject.

It's become quite boring for us though, because it seems we're just debunking the same nonsense over and over again.

But a few weeks ago, we stumbled upon a new piece of idiocy, a "study" that a left-wing think tank called Groundwork Collaborative pieced together out of some irrelevant data they probably found on the Bureau of Economic Analysis' website.

As you might expect, this study proves in no way, shape, or form that "corporate profits" are driving inflation, but they resident geniuses over at Groundwork Collaborative decided to publish this propaganda piece on their website anyway. This six-page piece of garbage rambles about the PPI decreasing over the course of 6 months in 2023 (before a sharp increase in the latter half of 2023, long after the pandemic had ended and supply chains had completely returned to normal, but just ignore that part!), how Proctor & Gamble saw, GASP! , a large $800 million dollar windfall in profits (P&G's quarterly revenue is normally around $20B which nets the company around $3.5B, normally only about a 17.5% profit margin), and the diaper market.

Interestingly, in the conclusion of the report, Groundwork Collaborative never explicitly states whether or not they believe corporations raising their prices on consumers is what's actually driving inflation. It is one of the shortest, most vague conclusions we've ever read in almost any garbage think-tank funded political study and nowhere in the short, four-paragraph conclusion does Groundwork Collaborative seem to come to any... well... conclusion. We should mention that they actually do admit business costs have gone up over the past few years (gee... I wonder why), and then they go on to whine that even though business costs have "stabilized" or "in many cases, come down significantly" (they fail to give an estimate on how many is "in many cases" and fail to numerically define "significantly") that businesses haven't yet "stop[ped] gouging consumers." Price gouging is of course illegal in many states, and it seems to us that if Groundwork Collaborative is so convinced they can prove such a thing is actually happening, they should gather some evidence, take said companies to court (we're not even sure which companies they're actually accusing of "gouging" here), and prove to a judge or jury that their allegations of price gouging are true. Instead, they're using their operating revenue (wherever the hell that's coming from) to complain about it on the internet.

So because this entire study seemed absolutely ridiculous to us, and in no way proved that our current bout of inflation is being caused by "corporate profiteering," we reached out to Groundwork Collaborative to set up an interview with them. We really wanted them to elaborate on a lot of the points they made in their study, as well as more thoroughly explain to us what the conclusion of their study actually means . We reached out in every way we could think of, including emailing their press department directly. We emailed them a couple times before Easter weekend, then the following Monday, when we finally got a response from someone named Ashley Woolheater, who we found out later doesn't actually work for Groundwork Collaborative, but apparently has certain communication tasks outsourced to her. She informed us that... Groundwork Collaborative actually takes the week off after Easter for a proverbial "spring break," and that we'd be hearing back from them after their vacation. One week later, we still hadn't heard back from any of their actual employees, so about midway through the work week, we reached out one final time. Finally, we received a response from their communications manager, a man named Finn Storer (whose pronouns are "he/him," for those of you that might give a fuck), who apologized for the delayed response, and informed us, quote: "Unfortunately, we'll be unable to set up an interview."

It's noteworthy that "Doctor" Lindsay Owens, who is the executive director of Groundwork Collaborative and penned this idiotic non-study of how corporations are secretly engaging in a global conspiracy to rip off the American people along with her colleague Elizabeth Pancotti (another D.C. elitist who probably loves the Federal Reserve when it suits her political positions but hates it when it proves her positions are idiotic), went to and graduated from Stanford fucking University . This Stanford University post-graduate Ph.D is too afraid to sit down for an interview over Skype with us airhead bloggers at EndingPolitics.com . God forbid her precious "study" is scrutinized in the slightest possible way by someone who's far less educated than she is .

We'd like to note that the questions we would've asked Dr. Owens are fairly basic, elementary ones that anyone with a fully functional brain probably would've pondered after reading the aforementioned study:

-How do corporate profits actually have an effect on the CPI?

-Is your claim that these "profits" are strictly from marking up prices on their goods far beyond input costs?

-How much of these "profits" are come from cost-cutting, as opposed to price-raising?

-How much of these "record profits" are just from making more sales?

-Are these "profits" you speak of adjusted for inflation? If not, after one would adjust them for inflation, are the even actually record-breaking?

-How do you actually determine if the profit margin on a company's product is too high? Where do you get this infinite wisdom?

...and so on.

We're on a mission here to get to the bottom of this. Maybe we're wrong here. Maybe the laws of economics have truly ceased to exist, that expanding the money supply really hasn't caused the current bout of inflation, and that all this inflation is coming from a global corporate conspiracy to rip off the American people, because the big corporate meanies have figured out that the American people are all stupid because they believe inflation is caused by an expanded money supply that chases the same amount of goods and services. Maybe that's true. But we really aren't able to verify this through any "study" that's been published by a left-leaning think tank over the past couple years because these studies don't actually prove what their publishing think tanks say they do. We're going to reach out to more of these think tanks in the coming weeks to set up interviews with them. Maybe some of them will be less afraid of us than the resident geniuses over at Groundwork Collaborative (fat chance). We'll be ready to publish updates to our blog when one of these left-leaning think tanks offer us some sort of convincing evidence of their claims. In the meantime, our offer for a sit-down with the fellows at Groundwork Collaborative stands.

Casablanca's Rick Blaine: A Loving Man Shrouded In Cynicism

Mon, 15 Apr 2024 23:46:05 GMT

Casablanca 's Rick Blaine is one of the most fascinating characters in cinema... and we'd do well to learn from him.

One of the best finds at my local Goodwill recently was one of my all-time favorite movies on DVD for $3, Casablanca , which is widely considered to be the best Hollywood film ever made, and one of the most unique and heartbreaking, yet uplifting stories ever told.

Those of us who are intellectual and more mature will likely find Casablanca far more enjoyable than your standard, low-IQ mouth breathing dullard American with a short attention span, primarily because of how relatable many of us will find its protagonist, Rick Blaine, an American expat club owner and businessman, living in the desert city of Casablanca, Morocco, which was Vichy France-controlled territory during World War II (during which time period, the film is set).

It was only right that in the greatest movie ever made, that the greatest actor of all time play its protagonist. Humphrey Bogart played Rick Blaine masterfully, in a way that very artfully emphasized Blaine's morally-ambiguous, kind-hearted yet introverted and cynical personality.

Almost immediately after Rick Blaine is introduced in the film, we are even told through the other characters' dialogue that Blaine is a cynical man, who may even border on selfish. Yet as the story unfolds, and we experience Rick Blaine interact with the world around him, we don't just become privy to how unwittingly fucking cool this guy is (yet another reason he's so likable), but also just how difficult it is for this character to balance his instinctual humanitarianism with his intense desire to mind his own business. It will become easily recognizable just by the end of the first act for any political theorist or intellectual to see that, by today's standards at least, Rick Blaine would probably be considered one of the first American libertarians. Any libertarian who indulges him/herself with watching Casablanca will likely fall in love with Rick Blaine's hatred of authoritarianism, his entrepreneurial skills and business acumen accentuated by a true responsibility and care for his employees, and perhaps above all, a propensity to look out for numero uno.

But Rick Blaine's character is inherently much rounder than his seemingly surface-level selfishness, and definitely far more dynamic than we'd expect, if we'd only watch the first act and not the entire film.

Deep down, Rick Blaine is a good-hearted man, with a strongly-weighted moral compass, who deeply desires the betterment of humanity, despite his reluctance to try to accomplish such a goal himself. Blaine's cynicism provides a strong balance against his heart of gold. His wisdom makes him reluctant to stick his neck out for others, as he knows how easily it could get him into trouble. Blaine often wants to help others (and as the film goes on, we see him doing so more and more frequently), but he views the world a certain way - cynically - and knows that no good deed ever seems to go unpunished.

Rick Blaine's dark past also weighs down on his soul - it haunts him, particularly his experience of heartbreak by a woman he was once truly in love with (and likely still is), Ilsa Lund (played by the beautiful Ingrid Bergman, a classic feminine archetype of the time period). Because of this, Blaine is often depicted in the film as being an alcoholic, who uses the drug to self-medicate and kill the pain from his past that he still carries around with him. His alcoholism is something Blaine even willingly acknowledges. When the film's antagonist, Nazi militant Major Strasser, asks Blaine what his nationality is during their first meeting, Blaine humorously replies, "I'm a drunkard."

One of the best things though about Rick Blaine's character is that as the film progresses, we watch him do his best to overcome the cynical side of his personality, and help others when they need it. He does this multiple times in the film, and the best part is, he truly does them out of the kindness of his heart. He doesn't ever have to stick his neck out for anybody - he does it because he knows deep down, it's the right thing to do. This becomes apparent in the beginning of the third act, when he helps a Bulgarian refugee couple escape to America by helping them win enough money at his own casino. The woman walks up to Blaine (while he's drinking alone at a small table in his club, of course), and informs him of their situation. They're broke, they need to make it to America for safety, and their only hope is to win some money at Blaine's casino to buy visas to do so (aside from the possibility of the woman herself providing men who aren't her husband sexual favors, something that would obviously strain the newlywed couple's relationship). Blaine first instinctually tells her to proverbially fuck off, before thinking to himself would could happen to the couple if they're forced to go back to Bulgaria, or what would happen to the newlyweds' relationship if the woman were to perform sexual favors in exchange for visas for her and her husband. Blaine then stands up and walks over to the roulette table at which the woman's husband is gambling (and badly losing). He tells the man right in front of the dealer to bet on 22, then looks at the roulette dealer. Magically (or perhaps not so much), the roulette lands on 22. Blaine tells the man to keep his chips on 22, and miraculously (or perhaps not so much), a 22 is rolled for the second time in a row. Blaine then tells the couple to cash in their chips, go to America and never come back. He didn't have to help this couple. He didn't have to risk his own neck to help a couple of refugees skirt a (perhaps immoral) law they broke and perhaps a severe punishment in an authoritarian country. And he didn't have to sacrifice the profits at his own casino and risk all his patrons noticing that his dealers were able to rig their games if they wanted to. But Rick Blaine did it anyway, and he did it because this cynical, middle-aged man, deep down, has a heart of gold. I won't spoil the ending of the movie, but this act of kindness serves as foreshadowing for a much bigger, selfless sacrifice Blaine makes at the end of the third act.

I really just can't even fully express how amazing this character is in Casablanca . It's something one really needs to experience for his/herself to appreciate. We can all learn something from Rick Blaine. This guy is so relatable and so good-hearted despite all the pain he's suffered, that saying he might the single-most likable character in all of cinema might not actually be an exaggeration. Rich Blaine is a kind-hearted, loving man who unfortunately happened to be shrouded in cynicism, but inspires us to be better ourselves - inspires us to be heroes in our own lives, despite the adversity, suffering, and struggle we may be experiencing ourselves, from our own pain and cynicism.

Brie Joy Gray Spreads Inflation Conspiracy Theories on 'Rising'

Fri, 16 Feb 2024 01:16:31 GMT

Yesterday on The Hill's YouTube show 'Rising,' Brie Joy Gray put on her tin foil hat and spouted conspiracy theories (that have already been proven false) about inflation.

Yesterday on our favorite YouTube news and commentary show, The Hill's 'Rising,' cohost Brie Joy Gray put on her metaphorical tin foil hat, and helped disseminate ridiculous conspiracy theories about inflation that have already been proven false by a myriad of news outlets, including us here at Ending Politics .

We know we're beginning to sound like broken records here, as it seems like we've rewritten this same story over and over again for the past year or so (though perhaps with different characters).

But yesterday on The Hill's Rising YouTube news show, Brie Joy Gray spouted one of the most insane pieces of non-evidence we've heard yet in attempts to legitimize the "corporate greed is causing inflation" conspiracy theory.

Brie Joy Gray's conspiracy theory doozy from yesterday was in regards to a recent lawsuit made (ironically for Ms. Gray) by a myriad of big corporate food distributors (like Kraft Foods, The Kellogg Company, General Mills, Nestle, etc.) against much smaller egg producers, in which a federal jury determined the egg producers conspired to limit egg production twenty years ago . You read that right - Brie Joy Gray's conspiracy theory of our current bout inflation has absolutely nothing to do with any recent activity - something she actually acknowledged during the segment in question . If you're thinking this all sounds like something out of an episode of The Twilight Zone; well, to be honest, we don't necessarily fault you. The whole segment was so ridiculous that even the Heritage Foundation economist that Gray and her cohost Robby Soave were interviewing, E.J. Antoni, seemed flummoxed and perplexed, and seemingly struggled to take her questions seriously.

Gray then went on to mention the usual nonsensical arguments we've debunked here dozens of times before, including "corporate profits" (which have no correlative affect on the actual inflation rate whatsoever), to which Antoni rebutted with a good point we've actually failed to address before - when adjusted for inflation , these "record-breaking" corporate profits actually haven't even materialized the way the left claims; and as a matter of fact, may have even shrunk slightly.

But to be clear, as we've stated many times before, we're no fans of corporate power here at EP, and we're every bit as critical of large multi-national corporations as most lefties are, but to suggest that "corporate profits" are somehow driving the inflation rate in this country is completely ridiculous and unfounded. There's no evidence or data to prove such a claim, and therefore should not be taken seriously until some evidence is provided (and is able to withstand the test of any scrutinization).

As always, we've embedded the segment in question below for you viewing entertainment.

Jessica Burbank's Bizarre Claim About Carjacking And Commodity Futures Trading

Sat, 03 Feb 2024 22:25:00 GMT

HillTV Rising 's resident hot girl Jessica Burbank made an absolutely bizarre claim on Friday's show about carjacking and commodity futures trading.

Here at EndingPolitics.com , we're pretty big fans of The Hill's daily show Rising on YouTube. Admittedly, it's nice to not have to hear establishmentarian shit-lib propaganda every single time you turn on the television these days.

But on yesterday's edition of the show during a segment about a D.C. carjacking spree, Rising 's resident hot girl and Friday cohost Jessica Burbank made a completely bizarre comment about commodities future trading ( we know , just keep reading because it gets interesting... and weirder too) that shocked not only her cohost Amber Duke, but also us and the rest of their audience on YouTube (as evidenced by her roasting in the video's comment section).

After reporting the facts of the spree committed by the D.C. carjacker, and briefly commenting on one of the carjacking victims, Mike Gill who happened to serve as the chief operating officer of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission during the last Trump administration (and who as of the time of this writing is still in the hospital in critical condition), Burbank blamed Gill's "dangerous" occupation as the motivation for the crime, in an effort to seemingly make excuses for the car thief, who was later killed by police shortly after murdering another male during a separate carjacking.

Burbank claimed (incorrectly) that the motive of the man's crimes were unknown and that the Trump administration official could have been shot because "commodities futures trading is a dangerous business." To be certain that we weren't going completely nuts, we scrounged the internet looking for any data or any sort of evidence at all to suggest that commodity futures trading was in any way whatsoever a "dangerous business" (we obviously couldn't find any). We should note that Burbank also clearly misunderstood a pretty important detail - Gill didn't work in the commodity futures trading business anyway; he merely worked for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission , the government agency that is tasked with regulating it .

How such a seemingly intelligent young lady could imagine such a ridiculous theory of why a crime was committed is lost on us - but as we've reported before , those on the far-left will make all sorts of insane excuses for violent criminals these days. To be clear though, we can (and probably should) show compassion for those who commit crimes of poverty and desperation, but to make excuses for such a cold-blooded criminal who not only violently stole people's cars but also attempted (and in one case, succeeded) to murder the owners for no reason seems a tad unnecessary.

It's also worth noting that - and this may be a bit hard to believe - Jessica Burbank went to and graduated from Brown fucking University . We're not kidding you.

We reached out to Burbank for comment on Twitter, and to her credit, she actually did respond, unlike the vast majority of others we reach out to for comment (cowards like Sam Seder and Mehdi Hasan). Though, her comment seemed a bit insincere. We embedded the thread below for your amusement.

And as always, we've taken the liberty of time-stamping the moment in the video below, for your viewing pleasure.

'Anyone But You': The Triumphant Return Of The '00s Rom-Com

Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:00:48 GMT

Sydney Sweeney, Glenn Powell, and a hilarious, solid script make this movie a must-see before the year's end.

Yesterday, December 22nd, 2023, will forever be known historically as the day rom-coms made their triumphant return to the cinema. For almost a decade, we all believed rom-coms to be a thing of the past, a phenomenon that dominated box offices in the '00s. But yesterday, Sony Pictures defied the odds and brought rom-coms back to the big screen. And so far, the audiences love it.

At the time of this writing, Anyone But You sits strong on Rotten Tomatoes with the audience at 86%. And as you might expect with any great movie that the audiences love - you guessed it - the critics seem to despise it; or well, some of them do anyway.

Anyone But You was bound to appeal to at least the '00s rom-com lovers, as it followed the traditional rom-com formula to the T. Rookie film writer Ilana Wolpert - taking a page from all the old rom-coms like 10 Things I Hate About You starring Julia Stiles (based on Taming of the Shrew ), Get Over It starring Kirsten Dunst (based on A Midsummer Night's Dream ) and She's The Man starring Amanda Bynes (based on Twelfth Night ) - based Anyone But You on the Shakespearian play Much Ado About Nothing, so the story was already built on a solid foundation, but modernizing it makes for much greater fun. The story centers around Bea (played by Sydney Sweeney, and based on the Shakespearian character Beatrice) and Ben (played by Glen Powell, and based on the character Benedick), and their weekend stay in Australia for Bea's sister Halle and Ben's friend Claudia's same-sex wedding, two years after Ben and Bea's one and only date, which ended with the two practically hating each other. But when Ben realizes his beautiful ex-girlfriend has been invited to the wedding also, and Bea's ex-boyfriend has also been invited, the two devise a plan to pretend to be a very new couple for the weekend, in order to make Ben's ex-girlfriend jealous, and signal to Bea's ex-boyfriend to back off, because she's no longer interested. All seemingly goes according to plan for awhile, until the two accidentally begin to fall in love with each other...

Wolpert obviously didn't feel the need to hold back one bit writing her script despite choosing to pen a rom-com genre film, as she clearly knew her newly-adulting target demographic - teenagers during the aughts - aren't teens anymore. They're now in their late-20s to mid-30s, and would these days much prefer to see a funnier, more entertaining R-rated movie than a PG-13 one that has to reign in the suggestive themes.

The many twists in the plot and crude sexual humor, along with Sweeney's shapely bikini-clad body, make for a highly entertaining hour and forty-five minutes. The time flies by though, since the story paces so excellently and keeps you laughing hysterically throughout the duration.

Glen Powell really brings his character to life. But it's Sweeney that really steals the show here, and brilliantly plays a slightly awkward law school graduate student who's only dated one guy in her entire life. Powell and Sweeney have amazing onscreen chemistry, and it makes for a very believable pair that can't quite figure out exactly how they feel about each other.

As of the time of this writing, we have no box office data on this movie whatsoever, as we're not even through the first weekend yet. But this movie deserves to blow up big, because it's hilarious, entertaining, and well-written. And, I was especially impressed with the unique and original marketing campaign that was created for this film. The trailers are interesting, and seeing Powell and Sweeney on pre-roll YouTube ads doing sexually-suggestive ASMR is hilarious, and cleverly hints at their excellent onscreen chemistry in the actual film. It seems the marketing was well-targeted for this film, and theoretically should draw crowds at the box office the weekend before Christmas and leading up to the New Year.

Anyone But You is arguably one of the best films of 2023. The fact that a rom-com is able to land that title in the '20s is up to you to determine whether or not that's a good or bad thing - but it's well-deserved nonetheless. This film is heartwarming and fun, and by the end of the movie, you really want these two characters to be together. For my fellow cinematic pessimists out there - please go see this film, and watch your cynicism get cut through like a hot blade through butter, because Anyone But You is all but guaranteed to leave you feeling great as the credits start to roll - and it doesn't even feel the need to rub wokeness in your face. It's just good, old-fashion storytelling, stellar acting, and crude, raunchy humor - and that's why the moronic critics hate it so much, while all us movie-goers are truly loving it. And for that, we here at EndingPolitics.com wholly recommend Anyone But You , and give it two big thumbs up, and a solid three and a half stars, and in our opinion, is in the running for what may be the single-greatest rom-com of all time .

Emma Vigeland Understands Inflation Even Less Than Sam Seder

Sun, 15 Oct 2023 15:24:45 GMT

If it's even possible, Emma Vigeland and her Thursday afternoon Majority Report cohosts seem to understand inflation even less than Sam Seder.

In a shockingly exemplary display of the Dunning Kruger Effect last week, Emma Vigeland and her fellow Thursday afternoon cohosts on The Majority Report with Sam Seder attempted to discuss their (lack of) understanding of what's causing the current bout of inflation we've seen over the last two and a half years. And if it's even possible, she seems to have an even poorer understanding of the way the economy works than her boss.

We've written before about Sam Seder's ignorance on inflation , and also about the current inflation conspiracy theories being shared around far-left progressive circles , but on last Thursday's episode of The Majority Report with Sam Seder, we heard the single-most ridiculous claims yet in regards to what the left believes about inflation and the economy.

Grab a hot cup of coffee and sit back in your recliner. This is going to be a long (but fun) one.

Emma Vigeland's shocking ignorance of inflation, as well as how the broader economy works, is bad enough, but adding two other economically-ignorant stooges into the equation makes it even more entertaining, yet time-consuming, to debunk all the ridiculous and provably false claims they made in only a 12 minute timespan. So, we'll start at the beginning, and try to work our way through this video chronologically, as best we can.

The video (which can as of the time of this writing still be found on The Majority Report with Sam Seder YouTube channel so make sure to go watch it before their staff takes it down and flushes down the Orwellian memory hole) begins with a man calling their show, and asking them if they believe that "corporate profits" are driving the current inflationary period. Matt Binder (who's quite possibly the most economically-ill-informed person on their show) nods his head in absolute certainty that a large corporate conspiracy theory is what's been raping the American people's pocketbooks for the past couple years, while the voice-off-camera (whose name is Matt Lech, aka "The Disembodied Voice" according to Sitch & Adam) says so eloquently "pretty much, yeah." He also claimed that "COVID" and "war-related shocks to the supply chain" were to also to blame, as if an inanimate virus had any authority on monetary policy in the United States at all, or the big-bad-meanie Vladimir Putin, half the world away. "Even Wall Street Journal writers are coming around to it, despite denying it for awhile," he says, as if that was evidence of anything at all (and we're not entirely sure what he's talking about anyway, as the Wall Street Journal recently published an article claiming the opposite ). He also claims "there's new reports about an algorithm Amazon is using to raise prices," which is of course just another anecdote that, once again, doesn't actually prove anything anyway. Then he claims "it's definitely not UAW workers." Again, we're not quite sure what he's talking about - we're not even sure if any serious economist in the world has claimed UAW workers are causing inflation. Vigeland then cuts in and claims that it's not just "corporate profits," but "price-gouging" (which is illegal in many states, so even if this nonsensical claim was true, we're not sure how any company would actually be able to get away with it) that's causing inflation specifically. All of these claims are quite easily debunked through a simple Google search (if not already through an elementary-level understanding of basic economics), but to be as thorough as possible, we'll take them all one at a time.

To begin, we'll debunk the nonsensical claim that somehow Vladimir Putin and his war on Ukraine has any effect whatsoever on inflation in the United States, because it's the quickest and easiest to debunk, and quite possibly even more nonsensical than the notion that corporate billionaire meanies are causing the inflation. Vigeland claims it was primarily supply chains of wheat that were disrupted by the way that contributed to Russia's share of inflation. This is probably the most easily falsifiable sentiment mentioned in the entire segment. First of all, America has not only never been a major importer of Russian or Ukrainian grain, but we can't even find evidence anywhere on the internet that America has ever imported any grain ever from Russian and Ukraine. Not only that, but the vast majority of America's wheat supply is made domestically, right in Kansas, but the wheat that is imported comes primarily from Canada and Mexico. But to debunk this claim even further even the small amount of grain we import from other countries also aren't importers of Russian or Ukrainian wheat. As proof, we've attached an infographic from Al-Jazeera below to show specifically what countries import most of Russia and Ukraine's wheat.

That said, even if all this weren't true, the entire food supply of the USA only makes up about 14% of the CPI anyway, and wheat even less so.

Even though it wasn't mentioned during this segment, we'll debunk another Eastern European war inflation myth, since we're already on the subject, and that's the price of gas. This was another nonsensical claim spouted in particular by President Biden (though not so much by the mainstream media; even those talking heads were pretty skeptical of this claim) in June 2022. Before we go on, it's noteworthy that gas prices were already well on the rise before Putin invaded Ukraine .

Anyhoo, despite gas accounting for only about 4% of the entire CPI anyway (as Pew Research correctly points out), obviously not all gas is made from Russian-imported oil, and more obviously, not all oil is made into gas. In fact, only about 45% of your typical barrel of oil is made into gas , and only 8% of America's oil was imported from Russia pre-invasion . Russia's actual calculable impact on the CPI is so minuscule that it's almost not even worth trying to estimate, and we're no mathematicians, but we'll do our best to try to calculate the actual impact on the CPI. .45 (45% of a barrel of oil converted to gas) times .08 (8 percent of all oil pre-invasion imported from Russia) equals .036 (about 3.6% of actual gasoline in the United States), times .04 (4% of the CPI) equals - by our estimation - about .14% of the entire CPI is represented by consumer gas that was converted from Russian oil pre-invasion. By our estimates, losing Russia's share of America's gas barely had an effect at all on the actual inflation rate.

And if that wasn't enough, we really should also mention a pretty convincing piece of evidence the caller actually presented during the segment. Indeed, the CPI data trends prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the affect the Eastern European war had on American inflation was virtually nil. The caller's logic is correct. If the war had any significant effect on inflation whatsoever, the data would show it - we'd see a significant jump in inflation immediately after the invasion began. Unfortunately for Vigeland and the voice-off-camera's theory, the upward trend in inflation remained steady after the invasion began, and all the way through its peak in the summer of 2022. And in fact, there was actually a brief but measurable deceleration in inflation shortly after the war in Eastern Europe began, as pictured below, compliments of Statista.org .

Now that we've debunked that myth in its entirety, back to the segment in question. Vigeland then claimed that "CEO bonuses" (CEOs of corporations which we don't even think she knows, as she didn't even name any specifics) is evidence of "price-gouging" (the activity that's illegal in many states, that somehow these unnamed corporations are seemingly getting away with). This is such a ridiculous claim that we're not even sure if it's worth debunking, but we will just for the sake of being thorough. First of all, CEOs are bonused every single year, in a variety of ways. But to completely debunk Vigeland's claim, in 2022, when inflation was peaking, CEO pay actually declined , even according to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute . Emma, if you're reading this, you really need to check your facts before you go spewing patently false information on your show. This information is easily findable through a simple Google search.

Continuing down our checklist, we now come to the voice-off-camera's Axios article, which in and of itself offers literally no more proof than anything else they've claimed so far into this video, but let's debunk the one piece of actual evidence in the entire article anyway, from Lael Brainard, from whom the exact same quote Matt Lech read from his Axios article, we've actually already debunked in our last article about Sam Seder's ignorance on inflation. But to make things more interesting , the caller actually cited the exact same evidence we did in our last article to prove Lael Brainard's quote false. We turn again (along with the caller in the segment) to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, whose report from late-2021 seems to be the only piece of actual data-driven evidence the left can ever refer to when pressed about their conspiratorial claims of corporate profits driving inflation (on a brief side note, even in your run-of-the-mill journalistic pieces we've read on the issue, there really aren't very many that claim "price-gouging" is causing the inflation - most that we've seen quote the EPI study directly and say "corporate profits" and not "price gouging" - the difference we'll touch on yet again in this article, for the third or fourth time in the past year).

Anyway, the voice-off-camera (pardon us for using that term, we're big fans of the punk rock band Rise Against, and "Voices Off Camera" was by far the best track off their second studio album, Revolutions Per Minute, and had an awesome electric guitar line, hence us thoroughly enjoying using the term) cites one small passage in an article titled "Once a fringe theory, "greedflation" gets its due" by Emily Peck. In it, the voice-off-camera mentions the same Lael Brainard quote Sam Seder once cited, which we proved false a couple months ago in our article about Seder's own conspiracy theories about inflation and the big corporate meanies . To refresh your memory, the quote goes like this:

" It will be important for corporations to continue to bring their markups back down after having raised them to unusually elevated levels over the past 2 years, which would help in reducing inflation. The markups associated with price-price spirals– with final goods prices going up by more than input prices – should unwind if customers become more price-sensitive and firms compete more intensely for customers."

As we mentioned last time (and as the caller accurately mentions during the segment, using the exact same data from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute that we did), what Lael Brainard said here is provably untrue. If corporations were conspiring to run up prices through "price-price spirals," as Brainard claimed in January of this year, then how are their own input prices going up as well? The answer(s) is (are), a) that isn't what's happening; the inflation we're seeing isn't caused by "corporate profits" and b) if it was, their own input prices wouldn't go up; they would stay the same, or perhaps even decrease. As you'll see in the chart below (which is taken directly from the EPI's study on the matter), the caller is indeed correct. Input costs for the "corporations" in question (and we still have no idea which corporations are in question here, or which ones were used in the study - we only know this data came from somewhere inside the non-financial corporate sector) did in fact increase 12 points on the dollar during the first six fiscal quarters of the pandemic, which does equate to about a 45% increase in unit production input costs.

But that's not all. As we mentioned in our last few articles on the topic, nowhere in this study does the EPI actually allege that these profit increases were from "price markups." In fact, the only time the word "markup" is ever even mentioned in the study at all, is when describing a profit markup - which as we've mentioned before, in previous articles - can be attained through dozens of different strategies. Profit markups can be created through spending cuts, contract renegotiations, vendor changes, selling stock buybacks, laying off workers, and a myriad of other ways. Thus, to claim that "marking up prices more than rising input costs" is what's causing our current bout of inflation is entirely unfounded, and much-less-so "price-gouging" (and again, we don't even have any idea whatsoever which "corporations" Vigeland or any other progressive is alleging is engaging in illegal price-gouging, and they probably don't either ).

On a funnier note, after the caller shared this data with Vigeland and her cohosts, Majority Report resident-genius Matt Binder (who as we mentioned earlier, knows probably less about economics than anyone sitting in the room at the time), near the very end of the segment chimes in with his own sentiment using his complete lack-of-understanding of basic economics, claiming "if there was inflation, and they were forced to raise prices to keep up, there wouldn't be these record profits because their expenses would be up as well [...] but none of that's happening."

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

Matt Binder, if you're reading this right now, just 90 seconds before you said that, the caller read out to you verbatim, in layman's terms, the empirical data that proved that corporate expenses are up (from a left-wing biased source, we might add; but we do appreciate you shitting all over your own argument so we don't have to - but we will anyway because it's just too much fun). We're not sure if you just weren't listening, or if you have no idea what you're talking about (or some combination of the two), but either way, it makes you look awfully stupid, and that's putting it nicely, quite frankly. We don't mean to insult you, but the fact that you could come in with such a misguided, false statement after being provided empirical data to the contrary is utterly shocking . The voice-off-camera then chimes in with "Exactly!" presumably because he, like Matt Binder, has no idea what he's talking about.

But back to the Axios article. The voice-off-camera reads yet another small passage, this one from a source even less credible than Lael Brainard (who also, unlike us, predicted we would see no inflation back in mid-2020 when all the Nobel laureate economists said words regarding inflation they now are being forced to eat). The source from this cited quote, Paul Donovan of UBS Wealth Management (which is based out of Switzerland, not the US), who doesn't live in the United States, but in Britain, and through our brief research seems to be of the Malthusian cult school of thought, citing the same sort of bullshit Thomas Robert Malthus blew out his asshole in the late 1700s . That said, based on the quote in question, it's not even clear he's talking about American companies - or even American inflation. Not to mention, he specifies in the quote he's talking about 2022, which again, according to our favorite left-leaning biased source, the Economic Policy Institute, the data shows that as inflation was on the rise and approaching its peak, corporate profits actually were dropping . You'll see that reflected in the graph depicted below, and you'll also see that these "corporate profits" really weren't that much higher than they were on average in the years leading up the pandemic, even at their highest peak in 2021, which was around 16%, profits were only about 3% higher than they were in the years leading up to the pandemic (and notice the graph title says "profit markups" and not "price markups" or "price-gouging", as Emma Vigeland and her cohosts wish it would say). But even if you use the margins bottoming-out around 12%, and round-up the peak to 17%, we're still only at a 5% difference , and only for the first year of inflation . Whereas, according to the CPI, not even 3 full years in above target inflation, we're 17% higher than we were 2 and a half years ago (and we hope it won't hit too much higher, but unfortunately, the CPI's inflation rate did start to accelerate again two months ago after a few months of deceleration; hopefully that won't continue).

On a side note, big thanks to the Economic Policy Institute for consistently proving our argument for us.

But back to resident-genius Matt Binder for a second, who also made quite a stupid argument in the middle of the segment, reading aloud a piece from the Los Angeles Times , anecdotally citing Tyson Foods, after the caller challenged the voice-off-camera, asking specifically for data, and not anecdotes , to show how much corporations were actually raising their prices. During Matt Binder's turn to talk - in between the adults talking - he stipulates that Tyson Foods raised their beef operating margins... gasp! ... 5.9%! Then - and we kid you not - Matt Binder complained that Tyson Foods stopped losing money on their products, and turned their negative 7.6% profit margin into... dear God! ... a positive 3.6% profit margin!!! Head for the hills!!! Run for your lives!!! Tyson Foods is making nearly four fucking percent profit on their products!!!!

---------------

Now that we've debunked virtually every single word said by the hosts during this segment, we'd actually like to mention that, at the very end of the call, before Emma Vigeland hung up on him without refuting what he said (and just as the call was getting really interesting, we might add), the caller actually offered Vigeland and her cohosts irrefutable proof that it is in fact the expansion of the money supply that caused the inflation. And unlike the conspiracy theories, anecdotes, and fundamental lack of understanding of basic economics from the cohosts at The Majority Report with Sam Seder , we can actually use empirical math to prove it.

Emma, if you're reading this, you're going to want to pay attention here. We're about to give you a 200-level Keynesian economics lesson. And we're going to lay this out for you in really simple, easy-to-understand terminology, and take you through the math step-by-step. This way, by the end of this article, you too will actually believe the truth - that expanding the money supply does in fact cause inflation.

The caller accurately mentions at the end of the call that based on the equation of exchange , we know irrefutably that expanding the money supply will cause inflation in the economy. For Emma Vigeland, her cohosts, and anyone else that doesn't know what that is, it's actually quite simple. The equation of exchange, originally formulated by Irving Fisher of the Keynesian school of economic thought, accurately describes the relationship between money supply, velocity, GDP, and inflation through a simple mathematical formula. This formula has actually been used by the Federal Reserve for the last 60 years to accurately predict what the inflation rate will be (and so accurately, it's almost always within 1/10th of a point or so , we might add). How do we know this? Because the Fed, as well as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and even the Bureau of Economic Analysis, all publish the same data year after year, using the same equation, using the same graph, which shows predicted inflation vs. actual inflation. And guess what... the predicted inflation lines and the actual inflation lines on the graph match up . Always.

The equation goes like this: M * V = P * y

If those letters don't make sense to you, don't worry; we're going to explain it to you right now.

M represents the money supply in a given economy. In America's case, the number we'll use for the money supply variable is going to be what the M2 says it is, as the M2 is more or less our best indicator of how many dollars is actually sitting in our economy at any given time. V is money velocity (and not the Maroon 5 album), and "velocity" in this case isn't a physics term - it's the number of times a federal reserve note changes hands in a given fiscal year. In other words, it can be thought of as how many transactions a federal reserve note is used in in a given year. P represents price level, or inflation, which is the variable we'll be solving for (keep in mind, this formula is a basic algebraic equation, so you can solve for more than one variable, given you have the other variables to use - more on this in a moment). And finally, y just represents the real GDP.

Good, simple so far. Now let's dig a little deeper. M will always be the easiest variable to figure out, because the M2 will give you the number. Velocity ( V ) and GDP ( y ) are also pretty easy to figure out, because they stay relatively constant. These numbers change at an extraordinarily slow rate, so we can use the current numbers we have right now to estimate what the inflation rate will be, and because they change so slowly, the estimate will still be pretty damn accurate.

Continuing, since we're solving for inflation ( P ), the exact version of the equation we'll use will look like this:

M * V / y = P

From there, it's as simple as plugging in the numbers. Below, we can see how accurate this equation actually is at predicting inflation.

See how perfectly they line up? In fact, the only time in the history of using this equation that the prediction was off , was right in March 2020 when the federal government locked down the economy. But, as soon as we were able to adjust the equation for the new GDP and velocity numbers (around Q3 2020), the predicted vs. actual inflation numbers locked up again.

Now Emma, if you've made it this far, sit down and think for a second, and ask yourself this question: how could this equation possibly work if the money supply didn't affect inflation ? The answer is: it wouldn't. The fact that the equation of exchange is able to predict the inflation rate so accurately is because the money supply does in fact affect the inflation rate. That's true for the American economy. That's true for the Japanese economy. That's true for the Australian economy, and the Mexican economy, and the Chinese economy, and every single economy on the planet. Are you starting to understand?

So when you decided not to refute what the caller actually said, and just hung up on him, you missed an important lesson in economics you could have easily learned had you asked him to elaborate. And to be clear, it's not just us here at Ending Politics , or the caller to your show, or the Federal Reserve, or the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or the Bureau of Economic Analysis that knows this equation irrefutably proves that money supply affects inflation. It's also every other serious economist on the face of the earth. We're not the only ones that have written an article just like this, this year. In fact, many economists all over the United States have written more or less exactly what we've written above. This goes for J ohn Hopkins University economists , to Oxford University economists , to even your run-of-the-mill finance bloggers .

And, since you love the federal reserve so much, if you don't take our word for it, or any of the economists' words for it whom we've linked here, then we'll also link you to this video to the St. Louis Fed's website , which will tell you the same thing, and they'll probably be able to explain it even better than we have.

Now Emma, we know that the fact that the equation of exchange works , and is therefore virtually irrefutable proof that expansions of the money supply do in fact cause inflation , probably sends your boss Sam Seder into a fit of rage . We can only imagine him seeing this data, then turning green, and ripping his shirt off like The Incredible Hulk, due also in part because his precious Modern Monetary Theory has been completely disproven through the sequence of monetary events and the following inflationary period over the past few years, and any remaining credibility MMT ever had being crumpled up and thrown right into the proverbial trash can. But just because your boss is an ideological zealot and a partisan hack that will never accept empirical, mathematical economic fact, doesn't mean you also have to be like that . By the way, this actually doesn't mean that we can't have medicare for all in this country, or some basic welfare programs, or social safety nets, or any of that shit that we know you love - it just means it'll take some serious, grounded economic planning to do so (as well as not voting for people who explicitly tell you they're not going to give you what you want such as medicare for all, like Joe Biden, for example - that's just never going to work, and we have not much sympathy for such levels of stupidity). But your cohosts on the other hand - we're sorry - but unlike you, they just might be too stupid to ever take the hint. That's definitely the case for Matt Binder.

Emma Vigeland, if you're still reading this, please understand that the evidence of what caused the inflation that has pinched the American people over the last few years is one-sided . Those of us (including us here at EndingPolitics.com) who predicted all this inflation right as the first round of stimulus was being passed by Congress in late March 2020, knew that not only would our country be hit with at least a brief inflationary period at best, and an economy-crippling period of inflation lasting several years at worst (if Congress kept passing large stimulus packages, which is exactly what they ended up doing), but we also knew when we made the prediction exactly why it would happen . If productive output doesn't grow fast enough to offset any additional expansion of monetary supply, rest-assured, you will see inflation . This is economic law , and has been since governments began issuing their own currencies, around the middle of the dominance of the Mesopotamian empire. And after all of us economics nerds accurately predicting the current inflationary period, and were told that we had no idea what we were talking about by people on your side of the political aisle was annoying enough as it was; but then after your progressive brethren were proven wrong six ways 'til next Sunday after our inflationary predictions came to fruition, and your progressive comrades then began claiming that even though we were right in our predictions, we were actually wrong about why it was happening , it became far more than just annoying - it became offensive . With all do respect, don't try to tell those of us who accurately predicted the current economic goings-on that we're wrong about any of this - it only makes the progressive community look more foolish, and also makes it all the more difficult to take the YouTube show you cohost seriously. And by the way, don't ever try to blame the rising prices on consumer goods we all have to deal with right now on "corporate profits" or Eastern European land disputes half a world away ever again - because it's quite clear that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

**drops mic**

FIN

-TF & Friends

Sam Seder Never Actually Debates Anyone

Thu, 03 Aug 2023 04:37:24 GMT

Sam Seder had a great opportunity to debate criminal justice on Wednesday. Instead, he did what everyone thought he would do: Asked questions for two hours, and didn't actually refute anything his opponent said.

Sam Seder's only "debate" tactic has gotten quite old over the years. His debate style consists of asking his opponent questions until he might get lucky enough to catch his opponent in a question him/her might not be able to answer. He (unsuccessfully) tried his usual tactic again today (because it seems this is the only way he knows how to debate), and wasn't able to successfully pin down his opponent with any sort of "gotcha" question, but even more embarrassingly, he never actually refuted anything his opponent said, or even presented an argument to the contrary.

Seder's debate against Sean Fitzgerald (Actual Justice Warrior on YouTube) turned out to be so boring though that I had trouble staying focused for the duration. In between daydreams, I occasionally would muster up enough energy to re-focus my attention back to the conversation streaming from the Roku unit connected to the cheap-o Vizio flatscreen television in my den, and almost every single time I was able to focus on the screen without my eyes crossing, I watched Sam Seder attempt to bring Fitzgerald far out into the metaphorical weeds with dumb, disingenuous questions; and at one point, Seder actually tried to compare the fluctuation of the temperature of his office in Brooklyn, NY to crime rates (and yes, I do know that sounds incredibly fucking stupid, and trust me, it most likely felt even stupider for me to type out on this blog a moment ago then it is for you to read it; but please just click the timestamped link above to watch this for yourself because there's just absolutely no way I can describe this moment in literary format in any sort of intelligible or coherent fashion).

Sam Seder did eventually claim that his counter argument to Fitzgerald's argument was that it was the pandemic that caused the uptick in crime rates. That said, I do need to stipulate that Seder never actually described how the "desperation" people may have felt during the pandemic would cause the New York City murder rate to rise , and much less how murdering people out of mere economic "desperation" makes the act in and of itself less bad, but I digress...

Seder then goes on to list off all the societal damage the government caused during 2020, 2021, and 2022 (with which I agree, by the way; even though Seder pretends it was the virus the caused all the damage to our country, as if the coronavirus was passing legislation and issuing edicts from its golden viral throne, and not federal, state, and local governments), including "learning deficiencies in kids" ( which Sam Seder seemingly had no problem with up until that very moment, as he's spent a good time advocating that schools shouldn't be open during the pandemic , even during the "omicron surge," which statistically had significant lower mortality rates than the other variants ), " increase in pedestrian deaths" ( which, I'm assuming he's talking about the 2022 numbers specifically, because I investigated this claim briefly while writing this article, and it turns out that "pedestrian deaths" had actually already been on the rise anyway from 2010 to 2021 according to the data, from 4,302 to 7,628 respectively, according to the New York Times article I believe he was referring to; but the problem is, they actually went down in 2022, to 7,508 (and even though this is a small drop, that actually doesn't matter according to Sam Seder's own logic, and he proves this during his entire debate with Fitzgerald with his argument about the very small drop in crime last year , on which his entire counterargument relies); so Sam, if you're reading this right now, you're a fucking idiot, dude ), "increase in inflation" ( which Sam Seder probably would have told you wouldn't materialize back in 2020, as we approached the moment when the central bank decided to print well over 25% of the dollars currently in circulation , because it's not clear as of the time of this writing whether or not he even believes printing money creates inflation at all ) and an "increase of destruction of uh... uh... of... sort of... all levels of society" (Seder's own words). Again, Seder never actually outlines at all during the entire debate specifically how "desperation" from a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" actually causes one person to go out and murder a fellow human being - but maybe he thinks it was just the "pandemic-induced stress."

But, as I stated earlier, Seder never really even refuted anything Fitzgerald actually said anyway, so the whole "debate" (if that's what you call Sam Seder asking his opponent a bunch of insincere questions to try to catch him in a moment of ambiguity (if he actually could, and he couldn't in this particular case), as if that would somehow disprove everything else his opponent says during the discussion) is a bit boring. But if you'd like, we've embedded the 2-hour long discussion below for you to watch for yourself, if you so choose (and if you do, you truly have my sympathy).

Sam Seder Either Doesn't Understand Inflation Or He's Lying About It

Sat, 15 Jul 2023 19:47:27 GMT

Sam Seder continues to deny inflation was caused by money printing without providing any evidence for his claims. Does he just not understand inflation, or is he blatantly lying??

Sam Seder, cohost Emma Vigeland, and random guest-host douche made complete fools of themselves on The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder yesterday.

We’ve written before about the left’s constant copium-blowing after suddenly discovering inflation is in fact a real thing (because the mere fact that it exists in and of itself effectively disproves everything the left believes about economics). But yesterday, Sam Seder & Co. took their inflation conspiracy theories to entirely new levels of complete fucking stupidity.

Sam Seder again today, tried to blame inflation on “rising corporate profits” (a theory that’s already been debunked multiple times by a variety of news sources and economists, as well as us here at Ending Politics ), without citing any evidence whatsoever. In fact, during the entire segment, he was only able to cite a single speech given by a Biden-appointed bureaucrat to prove his argument. And, in a seeming effort to embarrass himself further, Seder only cites one short quote within the speech (of course, accompanied by no evidence to prove his claim whatsoever); and even in the original speech, the single sentence Seder cites, Lael Brainard (the NEC Director who gave the speech) herself also doesn’t actually offer any evidence to support her claim. The quote reads:

“It will be important for corporations to continue to bring their markups back down after having raised them to unusually elevated levels over the past 2 years, which would help in reducing inflation. The markups associated with price-price spirals– with final goods prices going up by more than input prices – should unwind if customers become more price-sensitive and firms compete more intensely for customers.”

And if it's even possible - it gets even more embarrassing for Seder when one realizes that Brainard actually blatantly lies in the quote cited by Seder. In fact, even from the perspective of a left-leaning bias , the prices of non-labor input costs actually exceed (in percentage points) the CPI’s peak inflation numbers at 9.1% (as we’ve reported many times before). As evidence, we’ll cite the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute’s study from mid-2022 that explicitly states in their study that the average nonlabor input costs in the corporate sector between Q2 2020 and Q4 2021 was 38.3% - nearly 12 percentage points higher (and to prove Seder's "corporate greed" theory completely bunk - nearly three percentage points higher than the peak inflation numbers according to the CPI) than it was from the previous forty years (during which the average was 26.8%) .

Check your facts before you go running your mouth on your show, Seder.

You’re getting really fucking sloppy.

But that’s not all; there are significantly more problems with Seder’s theory. The first problem (and quite possibly the biggest) is that almost all credible economists acknowledge that corporate profits have absolutely no effect on inflation; and in fact, if there’s any correlation between the two at all, it’s the opposite, as it is possible for inflation to boost the profits of business - especially big business.

But if that wasn’t enough to completely prove Seder’s argument bunk - there’s yet another major issue with his theory : Price markups aren’t the only way a company can raise its profit margins . A company can raise profit margins by finding new and more competitively priced material suppliers, cutting labor expenses and laying off employees, finding more competitive contractors, cutting marketing expenses (or any expense it considers unnecessary for that matter), re-negotiating contracts with current distributors and suppliers, and a myriad of other ways. In fact, there are so many different ways a company can raise its profit margins, it would be impossible to list them all in this article. And unfortunately for Seder (and every other leftie that's ever made this argument), none of them have provided any evidence whatsoever to prove that the current higher corporate profit margins come specifically from hiking their prices much higher than input costs. And in fact, as we've proven above (with a left-leaning study), there's actually evidence of the opposite .

Sam Seder’s humiliation fetish knows no bounds. But we are indeed grateful that Seder continues to make himself look like a complete fucking moron on his own show, as it provides us with endless amounts of material with which we can use to create content to mock and laugh at him.

Sam Seder frequently uses his platform to mock the stupidity of many on the conservative-right, while ironically not realizing how stupid he and his cohosts are.

As always, we’ll update this article if/when Seder offers any comment. He hasn’t commented on any of our critical articles of him before, so we doubt we’ll hear from him this time either. After all, we’re sure he’s pretty embarrassed.

And, as always, for your viewing entertainment, we've embedded this ridiculous segment below for you to watch, and see for yourself just how idiotic Seder and his cohosts are.

Ana Kasparian Goes SCORCHED EARTH On Former Progressive Friendlies

Sat, 08 Jul 2023 02:41:25 GMT

I swear I'm not fan-boying over sexy Ana Kasparian.

I'm extraordinarily straight, and there's something extremely sexy about a kind, feminine, compassionate woman who isn't afraid to speak the truth when she feels she needs to.

And Ana Kasparian has been BLOWING UP lately - but in a very good way.

In case you're not particularly active on Twitter, over the past five days or so, Ana Kasparian has been going scorched earth on her former progressive allies who've stabbed her in the back. They picked the wrong badass chick to mess with. Kasparian is smart, sexy, and strong-willed. And she's totally owning these morons in the reply sections.

Before I give ya the deets though, I need to back up a bit. Ana Kasparian, over the past year or so, has slowly been exiting the partisan bubble she seemed to lock herself into around the year 2016 - a.k.a. the Trump era.

Before the last twelve months, it seems Kasparian had consistently sided with the establishment-left on literally everything . You would've been hard-pressed to find any opinion from The Young Turks and Kasparian that differentiated in almost any way from what MSNBC was shitting out on the daily.

Something has since clicked in Kasparian's head. She now seems to see through the lies the establishment media, neo-leftists, and neo-progressives are putting out. It appeared as though the flood gates opened - and opened wide - when Kasparian apologized for getting her facts wrong on the Kyle Rittenhouse case. Since then, she's seemingly questioning a good bit of what the establishment-left is shilling out, including giving puberty blockers (that are inherently being used off-label) to children, late-term abortions that aren't for health purposes, and calling your political opponents "racists" just for disagreeing with you.

And of course, from the radical neo-post-modernist-left, the second you disagree with a single thing they say, you're cast out, no matter how much with them you agree (and in Kasparian's case, it's probably an upwards of 95%). I've said for years that the "out-woking game" the left plays with each other, in which the rules are whoever can say the most outlandish far-left nonsense wins, can only end with about seven morons on Twitter who do nothing except harass in the Twitter reply sections their fellow former progressive "friends" for refusing to test the bounds of the fringes of neo-post-modernist thought.

And just as I predicted, that's exactly what the radical neo-leftists and neo-progressives are doing as I write this - to poor Ana Kasparian, who is significantly smarter than most of the former humans in her movement, and therefore she's among the first to be honest about what she sees inside it, and is in the midst of being cast out by most of morons who haven't yet been able to smell their own bullshit.

But the good news is, of course, this all comes with a barrage of Twitter entertainment for all of us "normies" (that feels extremely weird to call ourselves, considering we're so antiestablishment on this blog, but compared to these guys ....).

There are hundreds of takes about this very subject being tweeted every hour right now - so much so that it would be impossible to cover them all, but we'll highlight a few of the funny ones for your literary entertainment.

The first is from radical post-modern turd burglar David Doel, who is mad at Kasparian because she thinks using the word "bonus hole" to replace the word "vagina" is just a little bit absurd.

Now of course, Kasparian is mostly correct here, but it's actually every earth-dwelling human being that's turned off by it , not just the right; and they're not even just turned off - they think it's absolutely fucking ridiculous - because it in fact is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

The next two Twitter embeds are pretty funny too - these are of Kasparian absolutely destroying another one of the nut-jobs in her movement, even going as far as calling him/her batshit crazy! Hilarious!

Ana Kasparian - 2

Random Twitter Douche - 0

Here's a hilarious tweet reply from Ana Kasparian to another random Twitter douche who's trying to use some anecdotal incident of "violence" from the civil rights era (which from the text in the passage, doesn't actually sound like violence was used but that's beside the point), and she tries to convince them that non-violence is actually the best course of action for their movement to promote its ideologies... and they actually disagree with her dude! LOL!

And here's a funny one of Kasparian verbally bitch-slapping another Twitter mouth-breather for intentionally misrepresenting her argument on "bonus holes...."

And here's one of another forgettable no-name Twitter user, not even addressing Kasparian's argument. You can almost hear inside your head the neo-post-modern NPC's shouting "YASSSSS QUEEEEEEN" in front of their iPhone 14 Max screens (while claiming to love communism), after claiming Kasparian is friends with someone she'd never even heard of.

And another...

There are so many more; it would just take way too long to embed them all. If you need a good laugh though, I highly recommend creating a Twitter account if you don't have one already, head on over to Kasparian's Twitter account and read through the Tweets. Highly entertaining!

The most insane part of all this is, Kasparian agrees with the vast majority of everything all her current haters believe. But the <5% of things they disagree on has inspired all these maniacs to cast her out - as I predicted the left would do, and will continue to do as the radical neo-post-modern-leftist movement continues to self-immolate. I'll leave you though with a great take from YouTube centrist PSA Sitch, which Kasparian retweeted herself. Happy trails!

Turd Ferguson's Open Letter To Ana Kasparian (NOT A Love Letter)

Thu, 06 Jul 2023 00:02:25 GMT

Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to read this letter, Ana.

Dear Ana,

Good evening (or morning, or afternoon, whenever you've come across this link). I hope this letter finds you well.

I wanted to reach out to you to give you some advice in how to deal with the current predicament you mentioned experiencing during your recent appearance on the Sitch & Adam Show . You suggested early on in the interview that you're questioning a good bit of everything you've ever thought (in regards to social issues and politics, it sounded like).

To be completely honest with you, I know the feeling. I experienced something very similar to what you're experiencing right now a very long time ago, when I was a young man (well, younger than I am now, at least).

It was a tough time for me. Looking back, I now consider some of these feelings and thoughts I experienced at the time as a bit nuts; but at the time, I recall taking the thoughts and feelings I was experiencing very seriously. I recall having thoughts along the lines of:

"Am I stupid? Why didn't I see this before?"

"Has everything I've been brought up to believe so far been a complete lie?"

"Am I a bad person for feeling this way? Do these feelings somehow make me selfish or uncaring?"

My bet is that you might be able to relate to the above questions. Maybe you've recently asked yourself these exact same questions.

I want you to know that I can sympathize with how you're feeling. And don't worry, these feelings, and these strange questions you're asking yourself, will pass in time.

In the meantime, don't feel bad or selfish. You don't owe anyone anything. The only thing you owe anyone is honesty, and it's to yourself, not anyone externally.

I want to mention that I think you're correct on a good bit of the issues you've been pondering lately. I personally think you've come to the correct conclusion on the Kyle Rittenhouse incident (and I think you're now probably on the same page as the vast majority of the American people are). I think you're right to question whether or not we should be giving children experimental hormone therapies (personally, I don't know what the correct answer is on this issue; I'm not a doctor, and will never claim to be); I think this is a nuanced issue that should be questioned, and should always be, even as data continues to be collected on the subject. And I wholly agree that we don't need to collectively lose our minds on every single injustice in the world - because there are just far too many. I hear about injustices every single day. I hear about the bad things cops do. I hear about oppressed people on the opposite side of the world. I hear about large multinational corporations lobbying the government to pass legislation that directly conflicts with the interest of the rest of us. Like you, it pisses me off too. But we can't dedicate our entire lives to fighting every single injustice we ever hear about (unless you find true life purpose in such things). If we do, we'll never have time to live our own lives, and experience things that make us happy, not pissed off. Things like your husband, your family, and your dog (just to name a few examples) don't necessarily need to take a backseat to things that you might not ever be able to change anyway, even if you dedicate years and years of your life trying to fix them.

One thing you said during your interview on Sitch & Adam really stood out to me: it was that you currently consider yourself "politically homeless." Boy, do I know how that feels! For a long time, I considered myself a libertarian. I don't anymore, mainly because, like yourself, a lot of the people I considered political allies acted like fucking complete fools and maniacs, and drove me away with (what I thought were) my own political ideologies. I still sympathize with a lot of libertarian values, just like I'm sure you still sympathize with a lot of progressive values. But we don't need to include ourselves in the "maximalist" contest (I'm glad you used the word maximalist; I think it's a good descriptor of what's going on there). A lot of these Twitter lefties, especially the ones who host internet TV shows and podcasts, seem like they're participating in some sort of nonexistent content, in which everyone tries to "out-left" each other and "out-woke" each other, up until the point where they're saying absolutely fucking ridiculous nonsense. For instance, Lance from The Serfs claiming he's okay with a woman whose life isn't in danger having an abortion 5 seconds before she's actually about to give birth for no reason other than: "her body, her choice!"

I've said for years that this out-woking game the online-left is playing will only have one outcome: when it's all said and done, there will come a point for everyone involved at which they just won't be far enough left, they won't be "woke" enough; and when that day finally comes, they will be cast out by the same people whom they once considered their friends and allies. This game will continue up until the point where the only people who are still considered "lefties" will be 7 morons on Twitter harassing all the people they used to consider their friends in their tweet replies. Unfortunately, you happened to be one of the people who early on realized that this "game" was completely absurd, so you're becoming the victim of these morons who are harassing you in your tweet replies. Ignore them, they're idiots, and most of them are disingenuous anyway and don't deserve your time (right now, I'm thinking about those two idiots who host The Vanguard, and Lance).

Anyway, I wish you the best in your ideological journey. You don't need to subscribe to the mad crowd's ideology. It's perfectly fine to have your own ideology. You can be an economic progressive. You can be a social democrat. You can be a civil libertarian. You can even be nothing at all . After all, you don't owe anyone an explanation, and especially not a label.

Or, you can be a thousand labels. You can be an anti-neoconservative, an anti-establishmentarian, an American exceptionalist, a civil libertarian, an anti-Lance-from-The-Serfsian, an anti-The-Vanguardian, and so on (who knows, maybe we're all those things over here.... ��).

And lastly, I'd like to say, it takes guts to admit when you're wrong, and even more guts to correct the record afterwards. I personally still can't admit I'm wrong about a lot of things I in fact know that I'm wrong about (haha). You have some seriously large metaphorical balls, and you should be proud - of your big, hairy, metaphorical testicles.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, I know you're busy. Wherever your ideological journey leads you, I hope you find peace in it. Namaste. And please, say hello to your adorably cute dog for me.

Sincerely yours,

Turd Ferguson

EndingPolitics.com

'Sound Of Freedom' Is An Incredible Film

Wed, 05 Jul 2023 01:50:19 GMT

'Sound Of Freedom' is a heart-breaking film that leaves you with a strong sense of hope.

Sound Of Freedom arrived in theaters today, Independence Day. This article comes before any box office data on it has been released.

This movie is eye-opening, heart-breaking, and hope-bringing. Based on a true story, it revolves around Dept. of Homeland Security agent Tim Ballard, who goes deep undercover in the Colombian underworld to save a young Honduran girl from sex slavery. Along his journey, he forms an alliance with former Colombian cartel boss, known as "Vampiro," who eventually reveals to Ballard that he joined the fight against sex slavery because he had once, after being released from a long stint in prison, unknowingly had sex with a 14-year-old sex slave, believing her to be an adult. After orchestrating a plan to bust several pedophiles at one time and save more than fifty children on a deserted Colombian island (and hopeful that in those 50, they'd find the missing Honduran girl, but without avail), they then venture deep into dangerous Colombian separatist territory posing as U.N. doctors, after interrogating one of the captured pedophiles who gives them information on the girl's most probable whereabouts.

As I sat in my front row seat in a packed theater, I could faintly hear the sounds of subtle crying all around me from my fellow audience members. Despite my empty heart of black, I too had a difficult time keeping my composure during the film. The acting in this movie is fantastic, and is instrumental in immersing you in the story, and almost seems horrifically real while watching it. Jim Caviezel stars in the film as Tim Ballard, and is co-starred by Bill Camp, who gives the other memorable stand-out performance. His monologue aforementioned in the previous paragraph in the middle of the film is probably the single most-memorable scene in the film, and is emotionally fraught.

The film's original soundtrack, composed by veteran film score composer Javier Navarrete , is incredible, and just seconds into the film, immediately instills a sense of fear, darkness and innocence-lost into the audience.

This movie carries some pretty heavy themes, the most interesting of which happens to be faith and religion. The different characters' belief in God is referenced noticeably often throughout the film, in a particularly thought-provoking fashion. One of the most memorable lines in the film is in the first act when Tim Ballard first meets Vampiro, and Vampiro asks him why he's risking his life venturing into the Colombian underworld to set these children free. Ballard responds soberingly, "because God's children are not for sale."

Emotional, intense, and thrilling, Sound Of Freedom may very well be the best film of 2023. It also may be the most important, because of its themes of child abuse in the criminal underworld, and it a must-see for any parent, person-of-faith, and movie buff. There is a unique video message during the credits from Tim Caviezel himself, in which he recognizes that the film probably emotionalized a good portion of the audience. He mentions during his brief video message that this was an independent film, and that there was not a large budget to market the film the way Hollywood films are typically marketed. He kindly asks the audience to help him spread the message for the film through word-of-mouth, and even offers a way via an onscreen QR code to "pay it forward," by purchasing a ticket for other people who may be strapped-for-cash and cannot afford to see it right now. Writing this article is our way of paying it forward, and marketing through word-of-mouth. Go see this film, and bring your tissue box.

On a brief side note, we're pretty shocked by some of our colleagues in the bloggersphere, who have some pretty absurd complaints about this movie. Over on the far-left leaning editorial website "Jezebel," whiny child Rich Juzwiak complains about this movie becoming a film for Q-Anon followers to get their right-wing heebie-jeebies from. Absolutely ridiculous, Rich! What a whiny little prick, you are!!!

Emma Vigeland Is Running Damage Control After Timcast Appearance

Fri, 30 Jun 2023 23:26:52 GMT

The internet has been absolutely lambasting Emma Vigeland since her appearance on Tim Pool's "Culture War" podcast.

We wrote an article a few days ago about Emma Vigeland's humiliating appearance on Tim Pool's "The Culture War" podcast , in which we criticized her for her disingenuousness, specifically on the issue of trans teen desistance, which she never actually addressed despite being pressed on the issue.

Since then, the internet has exploded on Vigeland's disingenuousness, in a strikingly similar fashion to when it lambasted her boss, Sam Seder, when he went on Patrick Bet-David's podcast , as well as when he debated Destiny on the Kyle Rittenhouse incident .

Because Vigeland was unable to present a valid argument for much of what she was pressed on during the debate, she's taken to running damage control in a particularly interesting way, including clipping the fraction-of-a-second moment during the debate when Tim Pool said "whoopsie," as he was criticizing Vigeland and her show for (allegedly) manipulating the audio in one of Pool's music videos, and then making fun of it on an edition of The Majority Report with Sam Seder .

This is already pretty ridiculous in and of itself - the fact that Emma has barely any material to work with, and therefore resorts to using fraction-of-a-second clips of single words Pool said during the debate to run damage control for her appearance is arguably pretty pathetic. But to make things worse, Vigeland had to clip up the segment in a strange, Quentin Tarantino-like style while discussing the incident the next day on her show (interestingly, the staff cut the initial accusation she waived at Pool from the clip they played on their show), and makes the whole segment even more cringe-wort hy when hearing The Majority Report with Sam Seder 's entire staff's forced, fake laughter while discussing the shooting and playing the "whoopsie" soundbite. We've embedded the extremely cringey segment from Vigeland's show below for your viewing entertainment. Try not to cringe so hard you end up breaking your neck.

Since Vigeland doesn't have much to work with in regards to actual substance, she's relying on her "Pool" (pun intended) of leftist friends on Twitter to assist her in running damage control. One of the most dishonest takes comes from @zekegonzalez22, who clipped a short 30 seconds of video out of context to attempt to make Pool look bad. Hilariously though, he uses a 30 second clip of the single segment in which Vigeland's disingenuous takes were dismantled the most . If you read our previous article on the matter , this clip may look familiar to you, because it came immediately after Vigeland was presented with the data on trans teen desistance rates - which she never actually refuted - but the 30 second out-of-context-clip @zekegonzalez22 posted on his Twitter account doesn't include anything leading up to the moment when Vigeland starts reading a completely irrelevant-to-the-topic list of medical associations. Luckily, we saw this tweet ourselves on our own Twitter timeline , and took the liberty of correcting @zekegonzalez22, and calling him out for being dishonest, disingenuous, and taking clips out of context to help his friend run damage control. We've embedded the tweet below for your entertainment.

If one good thing did come out of Emma Vigeland's poor attempts to run damage control though, it's that Sam Seder (after being heavily encouraged by Actual Justice Warrior's audience) actually did agree to debate Sean Fitzgerald (Actual Justice Warrior on YouTube) on criminal justice and crime in America. Our personal prediction here at Ending Politics is that the debate will be quite interesting, Sam Seder will maintain his normal disingenuous debate style and get visibly frustrated when it becomes apparent to him that he's not doing well, and Actual Justice Warrior will win the debate (and Sam Seder's audience and friends will be assisting him in desperately running damage control afterwards, in the same fashion they're doing now for Emma Vigeland).

We'll leave you with a highly entertaining (yet cringey) clip of the The Majority Report with Sam Seder from Emma Vigeland's Instagram account , of Seder, Vigeland, and Seder's staff's forced, fake-hysterical laughter of the idiotic "whoopsie" soundbite we wrote above, after being edited together with some audio of a female vocalist yodeling. Yes, we know; it sounds absurdly stupid - but that's why we've clipped it below - to give you an idea of just how pathetically boring and stupid they are over on that YouTube channel.

Emma Vigeland Is Disingenuous But Not Nearly As Much As Sam Seder

Sat, 24 Jun 2023 03:41:27 GMT

Emma Vigeland did have some pretty disingenuous moments on Timcast's show earlier today, but not as much as Lance, and she's never been as disingenuous as Sam Seder is on the regular.

Earlier today, Emma Vigeland went on Tim Pool's new podcast called "The Culture War," along with Sean Fitzgerald (also known as "Actual Justice Warrior" on YouTube), both as guests.

As you might expect if you're a viewer of Sam Seder's show The Majority Report , she had a few pretty disingenuous moments during the debate, in which she made herself look pretty bad.

On a side note, I personally really don't dislike Emma Vigeland - certainly not nearly as much as Lance from The Serfs or Sam Seder. After having watched Vigeland for years on The Young Turks and The Majority Report, I can honestly say that, I think she truly believes the vast majority of what she says, and I think it comes from a genuine maternal instinct she has for humanity, which is very admirable.

That said, having hung around Sam Seder for as long as she has, some of his disingenuousness was bound to rub off on her eventually, and she proved that it has during her appearance on Pool's show today.

There are way too many to list all of them here, but there was one particularly egregious incident that occurred about halfway through the show, when Pool showed Vigeland data regarding trans teens and desistance rates if not giving hormone replacement therapy during puberty . The data shows that up to 98% of trans teens will desist from transitioning to the opposite sex if not given hormones. But hilariously, Vigeland, instead of addressing the data and presenting an argument against it, or even presenting other studies that might refute it, she seemingly just became upset about it!

Vigeland completely ignored the data on teen desistance rates and attempted to strawman Pool's argument by presenting studies that had absolutely nothing to do with desistance. Then, when Pool and Fitzgerald slowed the conversation down, and thoroughly explained to Vigeland that the data they showed her was in regards to teen desistance and not to post-teenage transsexual detransition , Vigeland then became more visibly frustrated, and then even attempted to completely change the topic to "moralism," claiming that she "wasn't a moralist." Hilariously though, after Pool allowed her to pivot away from the topic at hand and over to "moralism," Vigeland then claimed she believes is in fact "more moral" than others. Oh, the sanctimony from the establishmentarian lefties!

At one point, Vigeland even insisted that what Pool was talking about was a "hypothetical," which is of course an absurd argument, because he had the actual data of teen transexual desistance right in front of her face in that moment. Absolutely dumbfounding!!!

We generally don't have an opinion here on transsexualization here at EndingPolitics.com , we're not doctors, and we'll never claim to be. But to cherry-pick data points just to justify your argument on a medical issue isn't science - it's quackery. One also doesn't need a medical degree to look at data, obviously. Vigeland should've steelmanned Pool's argument instead of strawmanning a very clear data set regarding teen transsexual desistance when not given HRT. It would've made her look far less like a partisan hack in the moment, and more like an objective, level-headed individual that looks at all available evidence before developing an opinion on a very important public health issue.

This was probably the highlight of the show, so we've taken the liberty of time-stamping the discussion for your viewing pleasure below. It comes right from Tim Pool's channel, so feel free to start it from the beginning if you wish... because it was actually a pretty interesting debate, overall!

Maryland's Weed Legalization Regulations Are Entirely Authoritarian

Tue, 13 Jun 2023 01:08:34 GMT

Maryland's new marijuana regulations are entirely authoritarian and corporatist, and couldn't get much worse.

At the end of last month, the Maryland Cannabis Administration emailed out to all medical marijuana patients their newly developed regulations that will (poorly) govern the state's adult-use cannabis program. The regulations are absolutely absurd.

It starts with the semi-reasonable mandate that cannabis will only be purchasable by adults 21 or older. The rest of the regulations then break down into completely arbitrary nonsense.

Amongst some of the absurd regulations, one of the most absurd is "creating a single supply chain for all products grown or produced in the state." Why?! Why do Marylander's only need one supply chain? And why is the state mandating such a thing? What company will be awarded the license to operate such a supply chain? And how much will this company charge its clients? Why isn't competition allowed in the cannabis supply chain market? And shouldn't the marketplace be determining how many supply chains are required to efficiently transport cannabis products across the state of Maryland? How did the Maryland government even determine that one single supply chain will be able to adequately execute such a task? This regulation is only in the first couple lines of the newly-developed regulations and it absolutely reeks of corruption.

There's also a stipulation in their email that claims they will be "establishing" the application and licensing process for new cannabis businesses, but don't mention how, when, or even what the process will look like. It also doesn't stipulate what the requirements, criteria, or prerequisites will be to even apply for such a license, but in many states, it often requires a great deal of on-hand capital (and often millions of dollars) to even begin the licensing process. Gee, it's not like these sorts of regulations won't ensure the limited number of licenses Maryland will give out will end up in the hands of a bunch of already-wealthy established businessmen and elites.

Some other idiotic regulations on their "list" include "reserving patient hours for medical-only dispensing." But why do Marylanders need that? Do medical marijuana patients have more of a right to cannabis than anyone else? And what if there are no medical patients that happen to come in during those hours one day? Is a dispensary just supposed to lock any other customers out of the store during that time and be forced into a net loss of profit for their store during that portion of the day? It's a ridiculous, idiotic rule that doesn't make sense.

And then we come to the single stupidest provisions in the entire email, which deal with something called "social equity." This is especially interesting, because there's nothing equitable (or even fair) about the existing licensing process to open a medical cannabis dispensary in Maryland, but the state government has decided to ignore the social (and economic) inequality this licensing process creates, and go straight to virtue-signaling, which does nothing but give the Maryland's Democratic Party some political virtue points.

One of the first idiotic provisions of this clause includes "implementing the Social Equity Partnership Grant Program." What does that mean exactly? Does this mean you're just going to give money to certain demographics of people to open cannabis businesses, while leaving other demographics out to dry? And how will the government determine who gets the grant? What if these "grants" end up going to, once again, already-wealthy established businessmen instead of a young entrepreneur who actually might require extra capital in order to start a business? How could that possibly be equitable?!!

But that's not all. There's also a provision that claims the government will "establish[] reduced licensing and renewal fees for social equity businesses." What?! What is a "social equity business"?!? What's the legal definition of that?!? How does the Maryland government determine what is and what isn't a "social equity business"?!? Is this entirely determined by the color of an entrepreneur's skin?!?? Is that even legal?!??! This is perhaps the most ethically-questionable of all their new "regulations."

And finally, we have another one of the single-most absurd provisions on their list, which reads: "requiring existing businesses to distribute to, or reserve distribution space for social equity businesses."

This is completely absurd and idiotic for a multitude of reasons. First, and most obviously, it reads as though the state will literally mandate existing businesses distribute to "social equity businesses," but under what circumstances? What if a "social equity business" won't agree to the costs and terms associated with such distribution services? Do these distributors have to distribute to them anyway? What happens if such a business would suffer an economic loss to distribute to such a business? And what does "reserve distribution space" mean? Does that mean a cannabis dispensary has to buy products from a "socially equitable" distributor?!?? What if they products are of poor quality?!? What if they don't sell?!?? Does a dispensary have to continue to buy these products from a "socially equitable" distributor even if its customers don't like the product and refuse to purchase it?!? There aren't even any guidelines that stipulate this.

And if all this wasn't ridiculous enough, we still have yet to discuss the most-angering of regulation yet: their regulations on home-growing. Despite Maryland distributors being able to grow hundreds of thousands of marijuana plants in a single operation, the thugs working for the state of Maryland are only allowing Marylanders to grow two plants in their homes. JUST TWO . And we've been unable to find any guidelines beyond this. What if one of these plants happens to be a male plant?!! What if both of them happen to be male plants?!?! There's nothing we can find in the regulations that stipulate Marylanders can have more than two plants until they find out exactly what sexes their plants are. So, according to the state, you can spend a bunch of your time nurturing a grand total of two plants to grow in your home, but if neither of them are actually able to produce flower... TOO BAD!! Now, go spend more of your hard-earned money at one of our exclusively-licensed dispensaries near you! It's an absolutely despicable form of corporatism. Appalling!

The State of Maryland has really dropped the ball on this one. These are some of the most despicably authoritarian and corporatist marijuana legalization regulations we've ever laid eyes on. It'll be interesting to find out whether or not Marylanders actually know how authoritarian these regulations are, and how many innocent people end up getting kidnapped and thrown in a cage because - God forbid - they happen to have more than two marijuana plants growing in their home in a state where it's supposedly legal.

'The Little Mermaid' Is Based, Red-Pilled, And Hypergamous

Sun, 28 May 2023 02:45:46 GMT

Cuckservatives couldn't be any more wrong about this film.

Dare I say, The Little Mermaid which has only been in theaters for a few days now, may be one of the great anti-feminist films of our generation.

Arielle is not a strong, powerful whamman. NO. As a matter of fact, Arielle's character in this live-action remake of the animated classic is petite, feminine, sexy, and very, very hypergamous. And for these reasons, cuckservatives are dead wrong about this film.

While middle-aged cuckservatives are sobbing while reminiscing about their first boners looking at a pale, red-headed, animated Arielle and angry that their second-favorite cartoon romantic interest (next to Jessica Rabbit) has been "race swapped" in the new live-action adaptation, they should instead be praising Disney for ditching wokeism in favor of anti-feminism and red-pilling a generation of young people very early on.

This film is about a sexy, petite little mermaid that wants nothing more than to walk amongst the humans. She's fascinated by them, and yet is forbidden from associating with them by her very "old-fashioned" father. But when she disregards her father's wishes, and heads to the surface of the water for the first time, she quickly finds a ship carrying a group of explorers, and while she discreetly watches them in fascination, she lays her eyes on a young, strong & handsome, natural-born leader whom she is immediately attracted to, and even more so once she sees the young leader take charge in a fiery accident, and even risk his life to save his dog. After all, what woman isn't immediately attracted to a man that would do anything for his dog, right?

Classic hypergamy in a box for you.

Arielle also has an extraordinarily sexy voice (and listening to her sing her was definitely a highlight of the film) , a typical trait of a mermaid, and her "siren song" is partially what Prince Eric (the object of Arielle's affection) finds so attractive about her in the first place. But when the evil witch of the sea takes away Arielle's beautiful voice as a price to cast a magical spell on her that allows her to be human for three days, Arielle needs to find other ways to step up her femininity in order to win Prince Eric's heart - which if she doesn't do in her given three day timespan, she will become a mermaid again and have to spend the rest of her days under the "ownership" of the sea witch.

The whole film is actually pretty based and red-pilled. It's also perhaps the first film we've seen in a generation that doesn't attempt to brainwash young women and young girls alike into believing that they "don't need no man." As a matter of fact, the message is quite the opposite. The message is: it's wholly acceptable for a beautiful young woman to be attracted to a strong alpha male with higher-than-average testosterone levels, who also happens to be higher up in the social hierarchy than herself. Hypergamous and red-pilled AF, my dudes.

Traditional, feminine physical beauty is another clear & obvious theme in the film. The Little Mermaid sends a clear message to young women that they should try to be as beautiful as they can. Halle Bailey is hott in this movie. Her body just oozes feminine sexuality, and unapologetically so. She has a thin, fit body, a sexy little tummy, a gorgeous head of hair (that's been appropriately dyed for her character), and the makeup crew did a great job making her, ahem, "upper body" appear very flattering and perky.

All and all, this film was actually really enjoyable and entertaining, surprisingly. Anyone who even loosely follows the manosphere and red-pill corner of the internet will probably find it enjoyable also. And to all the cuckservatives crying while they read this article: get over it, ya pansy.

Tim Pool Really Needs MORE Data To Prove Ivermectin's Efficacy?

Thu, 25 May 2023 00:46:04 GMT

Even if we only had strictly anecdotal evidence of Ivermectin preventing COVID deaths, why would Tim Pool want more evidence? This medicine is very safe and very cheap.

Tim Pool, who is a self-proclaimed "milquetoast fence-sitter," for some reason seems to take issue with Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID.

During his debate with Lance of The Serfs , Tim Pool said he's asked conservatives repeatedly for "a peer reviewed, double-blind, placebo-controlled study" that Ivermectin was effective in treating COVID. Of course, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that shows it does, and plenty of reliable data that shows it does also. So why exactly does Tim Pool need a peer-reviewed, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to prove that Ivermectin is effective in treating COVID? The data he's asking for isn't necessary, considering Merck's patent on the drug has been expired since 1996, so the medicine is now dirt-cheap to buy, and it's extraordinarily safe for human consumption.

Nobody refutes that there are mountains of anecdotal evidence showing ivermectin is effective in treating COVID (as well as preventing deaths), so let's just take a look at some of the available data. Before we talk about COVID though, we should mention that there already exists mountains of data of ivermectin's antiviral properties, and it's all been well documented (and never refuted). Even on the NIH's own website, they admit that ivermectin has already been proven to have antiviral effects on a myriad of RNA viruses including Zika, dengue, yellow fever, West Nile, Hendra, Newcastle, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, and chikungunya, amongst many, many others .

And as far as COVID treatment, Dr. John Campbell has done extensive reviews on a vast myriad of studies, evidence, and even at least one meta-analysis (for Lance from the Serfs, if he's reading this right now) proving ivermectin's efficacy in treating COVID and preventing deat h. But I guess either Tim Pool, MD hasn't watched much of the content on Dr. Campbell's YouTube channel, or he's still not convinced, for God only knows what reason (and we won't bother linking all the different studies and analysis' of the evidence Dr. Campbell has gone through on his channel, because it's all easily findable with the YouTube search bar, and it would probably take us several hours to link all the different videos he's done on the subject here).

Here's another problem for Tim Pool: we do have studies that prove that ivermectin is an effective treatment against COVID. They may not be "peer reviewed, double-blind, placebo-controlled" studies, but as far as we can gather, there's only one single study on ivermectin that meets that standard. It indeed found that "ivermectin did not work" (to quote Tim Pool himself), but it only had about 500 patients participate in it. It also was published all the way back in 2021 , back when vaccine propaganda was running amuck. This same study has been cited and referenced possibly millions of times on the internet, based on our research, so we're not sure if Tim Pool knows of more studies like this one, or if he just thinks the millions of citations on the internet to this study are actually different studies. We do have many, many studies though proving the opposite. For example, we've had since June 2020, a peer-reviewed study that proves beyond any doubt that ivermectin actually inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro . If we can already prove that ivermectin actually inhibits replication of the coronavirus itself in vitro, then what more evidence do you need, Tim?!?? The drug is safe. The drug is cheap. What's your issue with giving it to people? And let's pretend for a second we didn't have all the data we currently have that proves it works. Why do you have such an issue with giving someone a safe, cheap, and anecdotally effective drug even only in hopes that it will prevent serious illness or death?? There's absolutely no evidence anecdotally or otherwise that shows it makes things worse . So what's your deal, Tim?!??

We wrote this article this evening because we're completely stumped as to why Tim Pool takes such an issue with ivermectin. There's really no reason whatsoever to not take it , considering its safety and highly inexpensive cost (not to mention, all the data we proving its efficacy against COVID ). Why is Tim Pool sounding like Sam Seder all of a sudden? Are you looking for a job on MSNBC, Tim?? Are you taking kickbacks from Big Pharma?!?!? What's your deal?!?!

'Fast X' Is A Brainless, Testosterone-Fueled Good Time

Wed, 24 May 2023 00:25:27 GMT

Turn your brains off for a couple hours and have a good time. Welcome back to the '00s, baby.

There's nothing like turning off your brain for a couple hours, kicking back in a cool, dark movie theater and enjoying a good '00s-style, brainless action film.

And that's what Fast X is. Brainless, action-packed, testosterone-fueled good fun. This movie is everything we've missed about the '00s. Violence and explosions, fast cars, cool music, and beautiful, sexy women.

Now, compliments of Universal Pictures, that's exactly what you'll get. Sometimes, there are just timeless features of a given medium of media that guarantees a good time. Why change the formula? If you work in Hollywood, sometimes it's best to just give the people what they want, sit back, and watch the money roll in. Do you really need a particularly good story here? No ya don't. You know what you're getting yourself into when you see another Fast & Furious movie, and there won't be anything unexpected.

There are so many beautiful, sexy women in this movie, and it's so satisfying. It's great to just be able to kick back and see beautiful bodies and faces all over the place, without being labeled a "disgusting sexist" by some blue-haired fat woman whom nobody wants around. And Michelle Rodriguez still looks like a million bucks in my opinion, despite being in her mid-40s. I love her tan hispanic skin. And she still has a really sexy body too.

The action sequences in this film will make the hairs on your arm stand up. Lots of explosions, car accidents, and even some great shootouts, all without a care in the world just how many people the hero is violently killing... because your brain is turned off and you already know they're one of the bad guys. Bliss .

Vin Diesel is still a macho badass. He does a great job in this film. And his large, muscular physique just commands your attention whenever he's on the screen. Vin Diesel and his character "Dom" has almost become something that could be described as "legendary" at this point. Diesel's presence on the screen is something that's reminiscent of the golden era of modern cinema, and he's become one of the archetypes of modern action heroes in Hollywood. But the real standout performance in this film was actually from Jason Momoa, who gives a super melodramatic, almost over-the-top performance as a strangely metrosexual sociopath, but does it quite well and his acting in this film almost gives off a sense of bravado, as if he's now well-aware that he's one of the kings of Hollywood. And while we're on the subject, I should give props to Brie Larson too, who also did a good job with her character, even though she didn't get as much screen time as I think she may have deserved. Not only did she pull off her character well in this movie, but she also looks really good. Brie Larson is hott in my opinion; she has a fantastic body, a gorgeous face, and beautiful blonde hair, and I thought that look worked really well for her role here as a sexy secret agent badass. I actually hope I get to see Larson strutting her stuff and looking as sexy as she did this afternoon in more films in the future... just not necessarily... well, you know... **cough, Captain Marvel, cough**

Great hip-hop heavy soundtrack too. Loved the music, especially the ending credits song. Great stuff.

This movie is awesome. It's everything we loved about the cinema in the '00s. No wokeness. No post-modern lessons to be learned. No bullshit. Just action-packed, testosterone-fueled fun. Thank fucking God.

Krystal Ball's Attacks On Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Were Appalling

Tue, 23 May 2023 00:42:27 GMT

Krystal Ball doesn't want to debate RFK Jr.; oh wait, now she does... oh wait, she doesn't again...

Last week, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made an appearance on YouTube news & commentary show Breaking Points , with Saagar Enjeti and Krystal Ball, and I don't think I've ever witnessed a more childish interview conducted by Krystal Ball, who self-defines as an "anti-establishment populist," but really sounds consistently more like an establishmentarian elitist.

And so was the case when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. went on their show to talk about his presidential campaign, and not vaccines, but Krystal Ball took the opportunity to play establishmentarian big-pharma shill, and accused RFK Jr. of being wrong about vaccines, but wouldn't let him defend himself against her accusations. The whole segment was pretty disgusting, and Ball acted completely journalistically unbecoming.

In the moments Ball actually did let RFK talk, he totally wiped the floor with her and her ignorance, as RFK Jr. has written several books on the subject and is demonstrably far more informed on the issue than Ball is.

During the entire discussion, Saagar Enjeti kept his mouth shut, probably because he was either humiliated by Ball's behavior, knows absolutely nothing about what the non-establishment-approved studies actually say on the subject, or he was just too afraid to debate a man on a subject he's clearly outmatched on, or perhaps some combination of the three.

But I digress, during the "debate" (if you can call it that, because Krystal Ball consistently went back and forth on whether or not she actually wanted to debate him on the subject... during the segment ), Ball falsely claimed there was only one study that ever proved that there's a correlation between vaccines and autism. On a side note, this is inherently and provably false, as there is a very clear correlation between the rise of vaccine use and autism; what's questioned is whether or not there's a causation. Ball continued to attack him after Kennedy Jr. mentioned his book about Thimerosal, without actually refuting anything in his book at all - which of course, she'd be unable to even if she tried, because she hasn't actually read it. Then, Ball had the gall to claim that the COVID vaccine was actually helping people survive COVID - something that's actually already provably untrue - as the data shows that the vaccinated are more likely to die of COVID than those who are unvaccinated .

Ball also passive-aggressively attacked him by asking him if he would endorse Donald Trump for the presidency if he wasn't nominated in the Democratic Primary... just because he happens to be against the Ukraine War . Oh God forbid! There's some minor overlap between Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s views on foreign policy and the big bad orange man! GASP!!!!

Thankfully, the real anti-establishmentarians on the internet lambasted Krystal Ball for her childish behavior during the segment, including Jimmy Dore on his own YouTube show , whom we admire, and who's been on the front line attacking the establishment for years - along with, dare we mention - us. ��

Krystal, if you end up reading this, we just have a quick message for you. Firstly, stop calling yourself anti-establishmentarian. You're clearly not. In fact, in your interview with RFK Jr., you proved yourself to be one of the biggest establishment-shills on the internet. Secondly, stick to what you're good at - putting on cute sundresses, painting your face, and looking sexy - because your journalistic skills are clearly lacking. And by the way, your smug face in the thumbnail of this article could be the subject of an entire Ending Politics article itself, but we'll leave it there.

David Sirota And Andrew Perez Don't Understand Inflation At All

Sat, 20 May 2023 04:04:43 GMT

You'd think two highly educated journalists would be able to figure this sort of thing out.

David Sirota is extremely confused on how inflation works, what causes it, and even what it actually is.

He published an article recently that proves just how ignorant he is on the subject, which was also parroted by Brie Joy Gray on The Hill's YouTube show Rising .

Sirota's "article" (which reads far more like an editorial than a well-researched article) was published in Jacobin Magazine (because apparently the writers over at Jacobin are experts in the field of economics now) and spends an upwards of forty paragraphs attempting to blame inflation on "corporate profits," which of course, anyone who's studied economics for more than five seconds knows that the profits a private company makes has absolutely no affect on inflation whatsoever.

On a side note, another problem David Sirota has is that he seems to think that inflation is just merely the rising of prices. This is incorrect. Inflation is simply the act of expanding an economy through printing money - quite literally making it bigger - which is unsurprisingly what the word inflation actually means. Consumer price inflation, on the other hand, is simply an aftereffect of inflating an economy. Sirota doesn't seem to know anything about economics whatsoever, which may explain his ignorance on the subject.

Anyhoo, those of us who actually predicted all the inflation we're seeing right now years in advance , during a time when everyone on Sirota's side of the political fence told us there would be no inflation post-pandemic and that we had no idea what we were talking about, will happily mansplain to David Sirota how all this actually works (and I say "mansplain" because he probably has similar testosterone levels to a woman).

So right away, in only the second paragraph of Sirota's article, he cites a study done by the Economic Policy Institute which can be entirely debunked just by looking at the graph in their own article, in which the EPI itself admits that nonlabor input costs have increased for companies at an even higher rate than the CPI has hit year over year at the time of this writing. But don't just take our word for it! Please, look at the EPI's graph yourself, which we've taken the liberty of embedding below.

But of course, the dramatic increase of nonlabor input costs for companies isn't the only problem with the EPI's data here.

You'll also notice that the EPI, in order to get the data that they were looking for, had to average out their comparative data from 2019 all the way back to 1979, another pretty big problem when you consider they're comparing it only to 7 quarters in between 2020 and 2021, especially when it comes to unit labor costs, which with automation and computers, would and have obviously dramatically decreased naturally from all the way back in the late '70s .

But that's not all! We have yet another problem with this data, in the comparison between the "corporate profits" of seven fiscal quarters from Q2 2020 through Q4 2021 to one hundred and sixty fiscal quarters between 1979 and 2019 . Most of our readers are pretty intelligent anyway, so we don't even need to begin to explain why that's an issue.

It would've been far more becoming of the Economic Policy Institute to compare the "corporate profits" of the few years (at most) leading up to 2020 if they really wanted to make a solid argument here - but we're guessing that data wouldn't have been as exciting to read for an individual with a David Sirota-level IQ.

But we're almost certain none of this ever caught David Sirota's attention at all - not that he would even know what to do with any of this data anyway - because he doesn't understand any of it, and probably didn't even read any of it to begin with. Our guess is he just saw the headline about "corporate profits" causing inflation on the EPI's website, and then ejaculated in his pants. We did reach out to David Sirota on Twitter to ask him what he thought about all this. He never responded. Imagine that!!!!

And yet we have another problem (there seems to be no end to the problem's with the EPI's study here): no where in the EPI's study do they correlate the price markups we've seen on consumer goods in the past couple years and "corporate profits" at all. But even if they had, we're not sure how or why the EPI would get to decide what a corporation's profits should be post-pandemic, in an era where their nonlabor input costs have increased even more than the CPI has per their own numbers. And while we're on the subject, a corporation has no idea how their market will react to price increases on their goods. Whenever you raise a price - be it warranted or not - you take a risk. There's no guarantee a consumer will continue to buy a product they've been paying a flat price for for a long time now that it's being sold at a higher price. What if they decide switch to a comparable and less expensive, off-brand product? What if they decide the value of the product just isn't worth the higher price? What if they just can't afford to buy it anymore? A corporation takes a big risk here, and they can either take an enormous loss if any of these things happen, or they can accordingly adjust their prices to mitigate some of the new risk involved, and make more money off the consumers that are still buying their product to offset some of their losses. This is of course something the Economic Policy Institute doesn't take into consideration at all (as you might've guessed).

David Sirota continues to try to blindside his readers by claiming that even the Wall Street Journal believes it! Even Rupert Murdoch says it's corporate greed! Gee!! I wonder why Wall Street and Rupert Murdoch would want the Fed to reverse course on its interest rate hikes!! What do you think, David Sirota!? Hmm.... ��

And then we come to the single biggest problem of all with the study Sirota cites: Corporations can increase profits in a myriad of different ways, not just price increases. Corporations can cut wasteful spending (something a bunch of highly-educated economists apparently don't understand at all) like in their marketing departments or positions they don't need. They can lay off secretaries or marketing directors. They can cut down on advertising. They can also cut maintenance costs on their company vehicles. They can cancel contracts with their business consultants. There are so many different ways a corporation can increase profits, there's no possible way we can list them all here. Any time a company doesn't spend operating income and instead pockets the difference (represented on the bottom line of the company's bank account), it's inherently increasing its profits. This is so obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about business that it's actually embarrassing (or at least it should be ) for the economists over at the Economic Policy Institute to not account for in their study (which they don't at all, as far as we can tell). And especially in a situation where almost everyone who's been paying attention the last few years believes a terrible recession is looming, it shouldn't surprise anyone (especially a bunch of highly-educated economists) that companies are looking at their balance sheets and cutting unnecessary expenses, in an effort to get ready for tough times ahead.

On another note, Brie Joy Gray also gushed in her pants when she read Sirota's article, and brought one of Sirota's article's co-authors, one Andrew Perez, on The Hill TV's Rising to discuss the issue. Perez failed not in parroting all the talking points, but couldn't actually offer any real evidence whatsoever to prove that it's "corporate profits" that are driving inflation, besides the very vague claim that, well, profits are going up, and inflation is rising, so it must be increasing corporate profits causing inflation!!!!

Hilariously, early on in the segment, Perez actually makes the claim that EPI's study showed that "corporate profits were making up a disproportionate share of the price hikes" consumers have been seeing, which as we've already proven, is actually not what the study shows at all.

Throughout the segment, Perez continues to hammer home his point without any evidence to prove it, that "corporate profits are causing the inflation" we're experiencing in the economy right now, never once actually detailing why or how, or explains how "corporate profits" have any affect on inflation whatsoever (our guess is the reason why he never elaborates on this is because he actually has no idea what he's talking about).

And interestingly enough, while throwing him what she thought were softball questions, Brie Joy Gray actually asked Perez the $64,000 question: "Andrew, what kind of evidence do you think, you know, voters - consumers are pointing to to kind of come to this realization, despite the fact that as you've mentioned, these mainstream outlets have not really been reporting this out until recently."

And this was the moment that this moron exposed just how ignorant he was on the subject. He claimed that voters just "instinctively kind of understand" that corporations are ripping them off just because the things they're buying at the store are "more expensive."

What. The. Fuck.

This moron, without any evidence, claimed that voters (a large minority of them, only 35%; according to a poll from the Morning Consult ), just know that they're being ripped off, because the things that they're buying are... more expensive . I have to wonder how stupid the "35% of voters" this Morning Consult poll is citing, and whether or not its more or less so than David Sirota and Andrew Perez.

This Rising segment is so ridiculous and laughable that it would be wrong of us to not embed it at the bottom of this article for your viewing entertainment. Notice in the thumbnail the smug look on Brie Joy Gray's face, as if she's smarter and knows far more about economics than you do.

'Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret.' Is Surprisingly Good

Tue, 16 May 2023 04:06:43 GMT

'Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret." is getting close to zero traction at the box office... but it deserves sold-out shows.

I have to admit, as I walked into the movie theater this evening, I didn't have high hopes here. The only thing I had to go on (and the only hope I had) were the reviews from the audience members on Rotten Tomatoes, who were seemingly praising the film (I never care what the RT critics say about films, as they're seldom correct about anything these days). I also admittedly had no idea what this movie was going to be about, who was in it (besides Goddess Rachel McAdams, who I found out tonight is still a very attractive woman in her mid-40s)

But as I sat down in the completely empty 7th theater tonight for the only showtime at all today for Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret., I began to quickly lose hope. "Why is there only one showing today?" I thought to myself. "This movie's only been out for a couple weeks... and there's no one here! "

The opening scene didn't instill much more confidence in me, as I found the very first scene to be boring and almost cliché. "Okay, here we have an average, close-knit family in the early 1970s that obviously love each other very much. But how is this compelling? Why should I care about this?" I thought.

Some of the earliest scenes in this film consisted of Margaret meeting her new group of friends in a suburb of New Jersey; and I couldn't help but think that this group of Margaret's new friends just seemed like a younger knockoff of the clique in the film Mean Girls (and it certainly didn't help my suspicions that Rachel McAdams had one of the starring roles in the film).

But as the first act gained some traction, I started to realize why exactly I should care about the characters I was seeing and the interactions and experiences they were sharing in the world around them, and that this film was actually going to be quite different than the standard, post-modern trash coming out of Hollywood that I'm used to.

And as the movie progressed, I found myself not only liking, but feeling for this character Margaret, who's clearly trying her hardest to navigate this new chapter in her life, cope with her pre-adolescent awkwardness, fit in, and find some relative semblance of meaning in her life.

And the more I got to know this character Margaret, the more interesting, funny, and even relatable I found her to be. She reminded me quite a bit of my own pre-adolescent awkwardness - even as a guy - and in retrospect, I can only imagine how much more any woman would be able to relate to her.

This film is really funny. A lot of the humor arrises out of the ignorance, curiosity, and even at times, the precociousness of these pre-adolescent girls, who seem to be sort of afraid, but also fascinated with the opposite sex and their looming adolescence. Watching this group of pre-teen girls ogle at the centerfold of one of Margaret's father's Playboy magazines she snatched from underneath his bed is hilarious and one of the most memorable scenes in the film, and listening to them actually read the articles out-loud to each other instead of just looking at the pictures makes for great characterization and insight into the minds of these characters, and how badly they all want to skip adolescence and go straight to their womanhoods. This also happens to be one of the biggest themes of the movie, as the secondary plot specifically revolves around these young girls dying to get their periods, and almost competing with each other to become more feminine earlier than the rest of girls in their circle. In another hilariously memorable scene, Margaret says a prayer after she finds out her friend has gotten her period before she does, and confesses to God that she hates the level of jealousy she feels for her friend at that moment, and begs Him to "let her" get her period as soon as possible. The whole scene is laugh-out-loud funny.

Philosophy and religion play a huge role in this film, in a very clever and artistic fashion. Margaret's character spends a good portion of the film trying to figure out what she personally believes on a religious level, because her parents intentionally raised her without it. Her father was raised Jewish and her mother was raised Christian, and her mother's parents (being strict Christians) didn't approve of her marrying a Jewish man, so they disowned her for making that decision. But now that Margaret is approaching adolescence, she realizes it may be time for her to start considering what she believes philosophically, and begins her journey to discover what that is, without her parent's approval. This plot cleverly ties the entire film together, as Margaret's character probably spends more time narratively talking to God than probably any other character in the film. Coincidentally though, it's this primary plot that gets the least amount of resolution by the end of the movie; but it's this lack of resolution for the philosophical plot line that actually turns out to be the most satisfying in the end.

I imagine by the time you read this review, it may be too late to see the film. My guess is that something went wrong with on the marketing-end here. Maybe the marketing budget was too small, maybe they didn't hit the right demographic, maybe the hit too many demographics with not enough focus - I really don't know. But what I do know is that Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret. deserves the good reviews its receiving online. It's not just getting these high reviews but it's woke or because it has a strong, powerful whamman main character. It truly is a great movie with an interesting story, and it doesn't deserve to bomb in the box office like it is right now. I found out this evening that this movie was actually based on a Judy Blume novel of the same name that I've never heard of until now. It made for a good film, but maybe it needed a catchier title to transfer this story to the silver screen. I'm really not sure, but if you're able to catch the day's single-showing of Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret . at 7:40 PM in an empty theater tomorrow night, take the opportunity. You won't regret it, because it's a very entertaining film.

Trump Shocks Kaitlan Collins With Sensible Stance On Ukraine War

Fri, 12 May 2023 01:48:18 GMT

Whatever you think of Donald Trump's bombastic performance on CNN, he made at least one very good point about the war in Ukraine.

Trump's performance on CNN Wednesday night was over-the-top and inflated, but regardless of what you think about the man, he made one very solid argument regarding the war in Ukraine.

Based on Trump's answer to Collins' question during the town hall, it's quite clear that The Donald wants this war to end ASAP.

Kaitlan Collins, whom I actually like, tried her hardest to make Trump look bad in this moment, but despite her best efforts, Collins gave Trump a grand opportunity to rail against the military industrial complex, and he was happy to oblige, and it ended up being the single-most memorable moment of the evening.

The moment began when a young woman in the audience asked him if we should continue to provide military equipment to Ukraine, and asked him how he would deal with the "increasing threat, Vladimir Putin."

Trump made it pretty clear in the first sentence that he wouldn't be giving Ukraine any more equipment, because we currently don't have any ammunition for our own military.

Trump then claimed that Putin would have never invaded Ukraine if he was the current President. Even though there's not much (or any) evidence to prove such a claim, it doesn't actually seem entirely farfetched either, as Putin had four years to invade Ukraine while Trump was in office, and didn't... but did when Joe Biden was the President. Trump even made the claim that "even the Democrats admit [that Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Trump was POTUS]," to which he received some backlash for from CNN host Kaitlan Collins. "Which Democrats say that, Mr. President?" asked Collins while Trump was addressing the young woman who asked him the initial question. Trump ignored Collins and continued. "You don't have to know too much about history to realize... or geography to realize that... they're a little bit more affected than we are," continued Trump, speaking about Europe's failure to rise up to the challenge to defend Ukraine, which has only given the country about 55 billion Euros to fight Russia, whereas the American people have given Ukraine over $170 billion. "They've got to put up a lot more money, because they're taking advantage of us like every other country did," claimed Trump. I have a hard time disagreeing with him here. According to the GDP per capita, America is far from the world's richest country, and yet for some reason the American people are expected to foot the bill for other country's wars.

"But the question here is would you give Ukraine weapons and funding if you were elected?" asks Collins, as if Trump hadn't made it pretty clear at this point that he wouldn't (and shouldn't in my opinion).

"Let me just put it a nicer way," responds Trump, "if I'm president, I would have that war settled in one day - in 24 hours."

And then came the truly entertaining part. "Do you want Ukraine to win this war?" asks Collins.

"I don't think in terms of winning or losing [...] I want everybody to stop dying. They're dying. Russians and Ukrainians," responds Trump. I agree with this statement. Personally, I don't care who wins this war that's going on a half a world away from us. Who "wins" the war doesn't matter to most Americans - and it shouldn't - because it doesn't affect our lives either way. I want peace in Eastern Europe. I, like the former President, want to put an end to the killing. That's all I care about. And that's all any American should care about. And it's too bad we have so many mainstream media outlets that seem enjoy doing the bidding of the military industrial complex, and manufacture consent (as Noam Chomsky would put it) for Americans to fund murdering people overseas. Kaitlan Collins sadly seemed so disgusted that Donald Trump might actually just want to end a bloody war , instead of endlessly funding the military industrial complex's country-of-choice defenses and offenses , until the day Ukraine actually does in fact lose the war (which most foreign policy experts who've weighed in on the matter say is practically inevitable).

Regardless of what you may think about Donald Trump (and trust us, we're no fanboys of The Donald over here at EndingPolitics.com ), he's objectively been the least bad president when it comes to foreign policy in generations (certainly in my lifetime). And his stance on Ukraine - putting an end to the killing instead of worrying about who wins - is the correct position to take. We should care not about which country half a world away wins this war. Instead, we should care about stopping the violence and ending the killing. Human lives are far more important that putting medals on the jackets of generals ( who usually don't actually earn them anyway, as the popular meme goes ).

We've taken the liberty of iFraming the brief segment below for your viewing entertainment.

Peace, my brethren.

Lance From 'The Serfs' Humiliated Himself On Tim Pool's Podcast

Mon, 08 May 2023 23:25:10 GMT

This guy is even more disingenuous than Sam Seder.

Last week, Lance from the socialist internet show 'The Serfs' went on Tim Pool's podcast to embarrass himself in front of hundreds of thousands of people. He accomplished his goal.

Allow us to preface this article by saying, we really don't know much about this guy. We haven't ever watched his show, but we've seen him in other internet debates, and he's made very clear in the brief segments we've seen him in that he's a complete moron. And, he proved it last week, during his two and a half hour "debate" with Tim Pool & Co. on Timcast.

Lance's appearance on Timcast was absolutely humiliating, as you might expect. Lance behaved the same way during this debate that he has in any other debate you've ever seen him participate in: he was disingenuous, provided strawman arguments and spewed far-left cliché talking points, and occasionally avoided answering questions altogether when he knew he had no valid counter-argument to offer.

One of the most memorable discussions in the debate was the sparring between Pool and Lance over abortion issues. Now, we here at Ending Politics have the single most center-leaning opinions on abortion on the planet, and Tim Pool seems quite center-leaning on the issue also; so even though we're not the biggest Tim Pool fans ever, we can certainly sympathize with his position on this particular issue. A myriad of times, Pool presented Lance with a hypothetical about very-late term abortions, specifically abortions in the final weeks of pregnancy. Pool asked that despite a woman potentially requiring an abortion for medically necessary purposes in the final weeks of pregnancy, since the baby is still viable upon taking it out of the mother's body, why it's necessary to "kill the baby," since a baby in that stage of pregnancy could certainly survive outside the womb. In order to not look like a complete psychopath while still attempting to maintain virtuous status amongst his audience members that may have been watching at the time, Lance did anything he could to avoid answering Pool's question, and in multiple ways. Several times during this very long discussion, Lance accuses Pool of using a "baby guillotines" argument (which we're not even quite sure what that means), to claiming women never have abortions in late-stage pregnancy outside of medically necessary reasons (which we've been unable to confirm is true; but even if it is, the reason the abortion occurs isn't even relevant to Pool's question, and a discussion about what the policy should be regarding a viable fetus after performing an emergency late-stage abortion on a woman is a very important and legitimate political discussion), to even making the most absurd claim that he made during the entire debate: that even if the baby has already been removed from a woman's body, that the fetus is still "[the woman's] body." During the conversation, Lance even attempted to suggest that allowing a live fetus that's already been removed from a woman's body to live instead of killing it, that it's "forc[ing ] birth" on a woman. Ridiculous!

We've taken the liberty of timestamping and iFraming the absolutely absurd conversation below, for your viewing entertainment. Get your ibuprofen ready for this one.

But believe it or not, Lance's arguments became seemingly even more disingenuous when the debate turned to gender-affirming care for children and pubescent teenagers. Now, this is a highly-debated issue with lots of opinions on both sides, and we're not doctors, so we're not going to pretend we know what the correct answer is on this issue. That said, we will still continue to make fun of Lance's disingenuity, because it's funny, and because we don't need "M.D." after our names to do so.

A particularly funny part of this segment of the debate was when Lance continually tried to use a "meta-analysis" to support his argument, instead of just naming specific peer-reviewed studies. A meta-analysis, especially in a debate with a bunch of non-experts, is not a particularly good way to support one's argument, because the people who conducted the meta-analysis can use any number of studies with whichever outcomes in the studies they desire to prove their biased opinion. Pool clearly knew this, and asked Lance to just provide him with peer-reviewed studies to prove his argument instead, which Lance hilariously refused to do.

And then we had the single-most disingenuous and funny part of this debate, when Lance completely avoided an argument entirely when asked about transsexual TV personality Jazz Jennings, because he wasn't smart or prepared enough to have refuted Pool's argument. Pool reminded Lance during the debate about Jennings' sterility post-operation, and also that she cannot experience sexual sensation, and instead of actually addressing Pool's argument, Lance claims his argument is "weird" and "bizarre," because Pool mentioned the complications of Jennings' surgery during their debate about trans issues. This was a feeble attempt by Lance to not have to refute Pool's argument - though unsuccessful - as Pool shot back using Lance's exact words, calling him "weird" for attempting to shame Pool for an intellectually dishonest reason instead of actually refuting his argument. It's a pretty absurd moment, and probably the most entertaining in the entire debate, so we've timestamped and iFramed below Actual Justice Warrior's breakdown of the moment so you can watch it with quickly-delivered context and an accompanied explanation.

There are plenty of other highly-entertaining moments like these during the two and a half hour long debate, and if you have the time, we recommend you head on over to Tim Pool's YouTube channel and watch Lance of 'The Serfs' humiliate himself repeatedly over and over again. And even more unfortunate for Lance, even people of his own political persuasion are angry at his poor debate performance on Timcast, and are sticking it to him on Twitter. We'll leave you with a mildly-funny response from obvious leftist-ally @fervered_femoid on Lance's Tweet about his debate, which serves as a good example of what Lance is currently dealing with from people of his own political persuasion.

The COVID-19 "Emergency" Is Officially Over. So, What Do We Do Now?

Sun, 07 May 2023 01:02:12 GMT

The WHO officially declared an end to the covid-19 pandemic "emergency" yesterday. The virus says it promises not to infect anyone else.

Yesterday, the World Health Organization officially declared an end to the COVID-19 "global health emergency," whatever that means.

We're told this marks a new chapter for all of us, even though despite looking out my office window right now, and it looking exactly the same has it has all week long, it's time to celebrate this big change to all our lives.

You may be reading this article thinking, "I was so over this fucking nonsense years ago," and I would more than likely agree with that sentiment. But the WHO reigns supreme, and their words are to be taken for the same value as God himself's.

So now that the "emergency" is over, what do we do , and where do we go now?

The government (and probably the entire Democratic establishment) more than likely wants us to completely forget the last three years ever happened, so it won't affect their chances of (presumably) Joe Biden's reelection in November 2024.

Should we allow them that courtesy? For three years, the Democrats called anyone who questioned the legitimacy of their precious COVID-19 pandemic heartless and selfish (if you weren't ashamed of who you were and didn't want to hide your face with a mask), conspiracy theorists (if you happened to notice the profits of large corporations were skyrocketing while small businesses were shuttering), and then eventually "anti-vaxxers" (even if you'd taken every vaccine that was ever offered to you your entire life up until the point when you were intimidated into taking a very shoddily-tested one).

And as the same people who called you a "conspiracy theorist" were proven wrong as more and more evidence came out (about COVID death rates, vaccine efficacy problems, inflation, etc.), instead of admitting they were wrong, they only became more and more vicious and mean, and blame-shifted on other elected officials and bureaucrats, and occasionally even on you for not bowing to the throne, kissing the long cock of the federal government, and doing everything you were told at the exact moment you were told to do it.

I'd argue that one of the biggest problems COVID actually created in the United States was an even greater level of hatred for one another, at least those of us that are affiliated with the opposing political party as ourselves. The political temperature of the country had already hit a boiling point in this country after the election of Donald Trump in 2016, but it exploded in 2020, when the partisanship grew to historically unheard of levels. Last October, NBC News had the gall to publish an article claiming in the headline that "Covid death rates" were higher among Republicans than Democrats . but then admitted in the second sentence of the article that their evidence was based at least in part on "excess deaths" in Florida and Ohio, not on actual reported COVID-19 deaths. NBC News has a left-leaning bias, according to Media Bias / Fact Check .

The economy is currently in shambles, provably from the fallout of COVID lockdowns and money-printing. Our economy was already a house of cards before the pandemic began; but at least at the time, the card house seemed to be relatively stable. Now, it's tumbling right before our eyes, and the same bureaucrats that claimed we'd be able to fire the economy back up at full speed in a very turnkey fashion post-pandemic, have yet to apologize for their false predictions and shortcomings, with the exception of "economist" Paul Krugman, whom we've written about before on this blog . He notably wrote a column in The New York Times last year, admitting he had made a "bad call" in regards to his inflationary (or lack thereof) prediction after we shot trillions of dollars out of the Fed's money printer and had already begun to experience the hangover of our bad economic policies . On a side note, how Paul Krugman hasn't been fired from The New York Times, tarred, and feathered by now is a mystery to me. He already assisted in destroying the world economy after the dotcom bubble, when he infamously called on Alan Greenspan to inflate a housing bubble to "replace" the deflated Nasdaq bubble. And we don't even need to mention Krugman's laughable prediction about the internet in its early days, and how it would have about the same impact on the economy as "the fax machine." With his prediction on the lack of inflation we'd see after printing out trillions of dollars - I think it's safe to say at this point this guy isn't an economist - he's a crackpot, and a pretentious moron.

Then we have the fallout from the COVID jab intimidation tactics, which the government and its allies in the mainstream media used to shame and scare everyone and anyone it could to take a shoddily-tested vaccine, which the two primary jabs that were pushed by the government were created with a new medical technology that really hadn't ever been used before, mRNA. I don't think we'll ever know what the true death count is from these shots, especially the Moderna jabs, which is at this point is provably the most dangerous one(s), because the government its lackeys are too afraid to admit just how many people they killed with their vaccine propaganda. We are starting to realize, however, the fallout vaccine-induced myocarditis, and especially pericarditis is causing. Dr. John Campbell recently released a video on his YouTube channel of the data on pericarditis, proving that it catching COVID-19 naturally seems to almost be a protective agent against developing pericarditis, whereas getting vaccinated is causing it. The data is quite scary. We've taken the liberty of embedding his video on the subject below.

The Branch Covidians don't deserve forgiveness for their shortcomings over the last three years. What the deserve instead is accountability, for being politically divisive, destroying the world economy, and hurting people with their jabs for their precious profits. Their behavior has been absolutely unacceptable, and they deserve condemnation, not forgiveness, and that's how the American people should proceed. Everyone who assisted in this travesty should be held accountable for their actions, even if that means prison, or paying financial restitution to business owners and their employees, people that they've hurt with their vaccines, and also anyone that they wrongly smeared or defamed with their propaganda.

Kyle Kulinski Has An Overactive Imagination

Thu, 04 May 2023 00:07:55 GMT

Kyle Kulinski knows almost nothing about current events, politics, or economics.

One of the most internet's most difficult people to take seriously is Kyle Kulinski. Kulinski hosts a show on YouTube called "The Kyle Kulinski Show" (formerly Secular Talk) on his YouTube channel "Secular Talk."

Interestingly enough, despite hosting a show specifically devoted to discussing politics, economics, and current events, Kyle Kulinski happens to know noticeably very little about any of the subjects. Ironically, Kulinski claims he has a degree in political sciences, which is pretty ridiculous, considering he knows so little about the subject.

Kulinski frequently discusses Bernie Sanders' Medicare For All proposal on his show, which he clearly loves, but he also likes to make fun of people on his show for asking the legitimate question of how the policy would be paid for. The cost of this proposal (even from the left) sits at close to $58 trillion dollars over 10 years (although this figure is actually disputed by the original author of the study the left likes to cite to make the claim that the proposal would "save" the American people $2 trillion over 10 years ) .

Upon clicking the video above, you may notice that it begins with a hilarious clip of Kyle Kulinski making stupid noises with his mouth and making fun of the phrase "how are you going to pay for it?" in reference to Medicare For All. Kulinski obviously doesn't think this is a serious question, and from what we can tell and have researched here at Ending Politics , he's never actually addressed the question on any of his videos, suggesting to us at least, that he has no idea.

But Kulinski's child-like and imaginary U.S. policy analysis doesn't stop there, and actually becomes far more hilarious the deeper you dig. Kyle Kulinski actually believes that the government, similar to stock market triggers, could somehow create some sort of "pause button," which upon "pressing," would immediately stop all economic activity in the United States. The "pause button" Kulinski referred to in one of his videos is actually more of a metaphor, analogical to a set of emergency-initiated protocols that the federal government would enact in a time of crisis. Kulinski's "economic pause button" is probably the single-most child-like and imaginary of all the policies Kulinski has fantasized about on his show, and therefore we think it's noteworthy to mention in this article.

Of course, legally-speaking, such a thing is completely unconstitutional and therefore completely inexecutable anyway. There's nothing in the constitution, any law every passed by congress, or for that matter, even any supreme court case that would ever actually permit the government to do such a thing.

But what's more, even if such a practice was legal, it would be completely impractical, and actually next-to impossible to actually successfully execute. Markets and the economy are far more powerful than any branch of government or politician - even the most powerful man in the world, the POTUS - and even if such a "button" were to be "pressed," it would never be able to shut down all economic activity in a given region anyway. Pretending for a moment that all "licensed," incorporated business owners in a given economy would just succumb to such an authoritarian edict from any government anywhere is hard enough to imagine, but pretending that no black market entity would immediately take over to supply the desired product or service sought is completely impossible. A great example of this in practice right now is the drug war, which the federal government has been fighting for decades completely unsuccessfully.

The "pause button on the economy" is admittedly one of our favorite Kyle Kulinski crackpot theories.

One of Kyle Kulinski's most idiotic clips though comes from his brazen oversimplification of how to win elections. Kulinski seemingly truly believes that if politicians (particularly on the left) were to just step up on debate stages, and (deceptively) promise the American people progressive policies, that the "Republican Party [would] be in an minority from now until the end of time."

This is of course ridiculous, as politicians on the left have literally been doing exactly what Kyle Kulinski told them to do in the preceding paragraph for generations now, and the Republicans certainly haven't been in a "permanent minority."

On a brief side note, we sometimes wonder if Kulinski truly believes the things he says on his show, or if he just talks out of his ass so frequently because he knows it's exactly what his audience (which we guess primarily consists of simpletons) wants to hear.

But we digress, the Democrats getting up on debate stages, lying about everything they're going to hand Americans on a silver platter, and then simply getting his or her name on the ballot, hasn't landed the Republicans in a permanent minority and the Democrats in a permanent majority. There are a bunch of reasons why of course, so many that we can't list even close to all of them in this article, but a couple examples are the rising national debt and an economy that's seemingly falling apart right in front of the eyes of the American people, the looming threat of the social welfare programs the Democrats so often praise becoming insolvent, as well as social conservatism, which even the most fiscally-responsible Democrats certainly haven't embraced. All that said, Kulinski's oversimplification of how easily Democrats should be able to win elections is just yet another example of his child-like, imaginary political dreams.

This article may become just one of a much larger series we do on Kyle Kulinski here at EndingPolitics.com , because making fun of Kulinski's ignorance is certainly a ton of fun, especially for a group of people who live in the real world and understand politics much better than a guy who reportedly has a degree in it. Until then though, we'd like to thank Stephen Michael Davis , whose YouTube channel helped us supply the content of this article. We do recommend you head on over to YouTube and subscribe to his channel, because you'll probably enjoy a good bit of his videos if you appreciate the content on our blog.

-Fin-

'Air' Is The Greatest Underdog-In-Business Movie Of All Time

Wed, 03 May 2023 00:40:30 GMT

Ben Affleck & Matt Damon are two of the great actors of our generation, and their acting makes 'Air' a truly amazing film.

Air is a truly amazing film about a business underdog winning big by taking risks. And that's partially what makes this film so great, because every entrepreneur that sees this film will undoubtedly love the greater themes of success in business, and everyone else will love how heartwarming it is.

The film follows Sonny Vaccaro (Matt Damon), a slightly-overweight athlete relations marketing executive in the then-failing basketball department for Nike, just as it had become a 10-figure company and gone public in 1984. The Sonny Vaccaro character is a great archetype: his kindness and outgoing personality, positive outlook on life, hope, and status trying to make a name for himself at a huge corporation as an underdog all make him a lovably relatable character. Damon's portrayal of him is what makes the film so special.

The stakes are high in this film. Vaccaro and his colleagues in the basketball athletic marketing department, including his bosses' jobs are all on the line now that the company has gone public. Basketball shoe sales at Nike are declining and have been for a long time. Their only hope is to sign a big up-and-coming star to reignite their brand in the basketball scene. But Vaccaro believes he's found the answer they were looking for in the rookie Michael Jordan, who'd just been drafted by the Chicago Bulls several months earlier. Jordan is still a fairly unknown player at the time, but showed much promise for the future, and Vaccaro isn't the only one who notices. Converse and Adidas (who at the time both maintained a much larger share of the basketball shoe market than Nike) have also taken a liking to Jordan, and the three companies enter a bidding war to sign him to represent their brand. Vaccaro is stuck in a touchy situation though, because even though he knows Jordan is the key, offering the department's entire budget on one player hadn't ever been done before, and all his colleague's job are on the line, and as much as they'd like to just trust him, it's difficult for them to do so. They have families. And his bosses have bosses, including CEO Phil Knight (Ben Affleck), and as much as he likes Vaccaro, he has to do what's right for his business, even if that means eliminating a failing department inside his company.

It's the characters, conflicts, and relationships between them that makes this movie so great, as well as the unfolding story, and how much you'll want to see Sonny Vaccaro succeed in his role at the company.

On another note, this movie has an absolutely bitchin' soundtrack which really adds to the atmosphere and immerses the audience in this world that takes place in the mid-1980s, with hits like Grandmaster Flash's "The Message," Chaka Khan's "Ain't Nobody," "Let It Whip" by Dazz Band, Cyndi Lauper's "Time After Time," and even Bruce Springsteen's "Born In The USA" which plays during the montage in the ending sequence.

This film is a fantastic underdog-in-business story and it's the character Sonny Vaccaro's relatability that makes the film truly stand out from other business and sports films. Seeing Michael Jordan's legacy in marketing unfold on screen also makes the film very unique and cool. But the underlying Americanist success themes and business philosophy are what really make it special, especially for the patriots and entrepreneurs. Taking risks, reaching for the stars, and being kind and building relationships with your business partners and potential clients are all themes that are built into the fabric of this film, and will undoubtedly put a smile on the faces of the audience members who are a bit more advanced in cinematic analysis, and perhaps a bit more entrepreneurial than others.

We don't do this often, but EndingPolitics.com gives Air two big thumbs up and four stars. At the time you're reading this, you probably still have another week left to see this film on the big screen before it leaves theaters. We recommend it.

Aria DiMezzo's 18 Month Prison Sentence Is A Warning To Libertarians

Thu, 27 Apr 2023 00:07:56 GMT

The Biden Administration is coming for its dissenters, and that doesn't necessarily mean conservatives.

The big news in libertarian circles yesterday was Aria DiMezzo's sentencing, which was handed down shortly before noon yesterday. DiMezzo was arrested in March of 2021 for "crimes" related to selling cryptocurrency without the permission of Big Daddy Government.

DiMezzo is currently one of the hosts of the nationally-syndicated radio program Free Talk Live, on which she frequently discusses libertarian philosophy, cryptocurrency, and transsexual issues. She also made national headlines a couple years ago for her candidacy for sheriff in Cheshire County, New Hampshire, for which she ran as a Republican, and garnered close to 25% of the vote.

After more than two years, DiMezzo's case has finally come to a close, culminating in her sentencing to 18 months in a federal prison by Judge Joseph Leplante in the U.S. Federal Court in Concord, NH. Her sentence is scheduled to begin in late June.

Our personal belief here at Ending Politics though, is that DiMezzo's sentencing has less to do with what she was accused and convicted of, and more to do with federal government's detractors in general. During President Joe Biden's inauguration in January 2021, former CIA Director John Brennan claimed on MSNBC to his good friend and fellow neoconservative Nicole Wallace that libertarians were "extremists" and that the libertarian movement as a whole resembled an "insurgency movement." This is of course an absurd claim, as the basis of the entire libertarian philosophy is the non-aggression principle and non-violence , but former CIA Director John Brennan either doesn't know anything about the libertarian philosophy at all or he's just lying so he can justify to the American people why the Justice Department will begin taking down peaceful dissenters. Our guess is it's probably a combination of both. If you haven't seen the clip, we've taken the liberty of iFraming it below so you can hear it straight from the gift-horse's mouth.

Unfortunat ely though, Aria DiMezzo, who's done nothing wrong and hasn't actually been accused of hurting anyone, will take the fall on behalf all anti-establishmentarians for the Justice Department's extremely-unjust pursuit of crushing the United States Federal Government's detractors.

Much like the former CIA Director's public statement on MSNBC two years ago, this is yet another warning from the U.S. Justice Dept. to all anti-establishmentarians, libertarians, and cryptocurrency users. "You'd better shape up," claims the U.S. Justice Dept., "or we're coming to crush you!!!!"

It's also noteworthy that the arrests of the "Crypto 6" (as they're now colloquially known as) came only a little over a month after Biden's inauguration, and the former CIA Director's assertion that libertarians were extremists on MSNBC.

We've written about the coming-collapse of Western Society on this blog before , and the persecution of peaceful dissenters by the feds is yet another symptom of it. Libertarians should take the imprisonment of Aria DiMezzo as a serious warning to either stay completely under the radar (quite possibly for the rest of their lives), or begin planning a life in a different country - preferably one with lower taxes and more freedom than America, but also one that would not cooperate with the U.S. Federal Government under any circumstances, especially if you believe it would attempt to have you extradited one day for a "crime" you may have once committed, like engaging in a voluntarily financial transaction without permission from the FBI, for example.

'Evil Dead Rise' And The Renaissance Of B-Rate Horror

Wed, 26 Apr 2023 01:19:46 GMT

'Evil Dead Rise' is not only a horrifying film, but it's representative of the current renaissance of B-rate horror in American culture.

Evil Dead Rise is a terrifying film, as it was promised to be. It's also a clever continuation of the Evil Dead franchise's storyline, and delivers for the fans.

The acting in it is fantastic and terrifying. The soundtrack adds its own subtle degree of horror to the film's atmosphere. And the story is simple but pays due homage to its predecessors.

But the film is also representative of a larger trend in American culture.

For the past couple years, we've seen a re-introduction of the art of B-rate horror to young, hip American pop culture.

I call it, appropriately, the "renaissance of B-rate horror."

Interestingly enough, it started in 2017 with the revitalization of the Resident Evil video game series, with Capcom's release of Resident Evil 7: Biohazard . Then, its commercial and critical success inspired several remakes of Capcom's older Resident Evil entries, like 2 , 3: Nemesis , and just a few weeks ago, 4 .

In between, Constantin Films released a complete reboot of the Resident Evil film series, which paid homage to all the B-rate horror films of old.

Then, in 2022, A24 Films gave us X , which was essentially a modernized and uniquely-written remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre , and made about 15 times its budget in the box office and was critically-acclaimed. It's success inspired a B-rate horror prequel, Pearl , and a third film and sequel, MaXXXine , is already scheduled for release.

Q4 2022 also gave us Smile , a low-budget psychological horror film that some will argue is one of the scariest films of all time.

So what's going on? Why is this all happening at once?

Arguably, we're in the middle of the modern renaissance of B-rate horror. B-rate horror experience a wave of popularity in the 1980s and into the 90s, and now it seems to be, once again, rearing its beautiful head.

And Evil Dead Rise marks the peak. We're in the middle of this renaissance, and I personally believe there's much more to come. The Evil Dead (1981) is probably the single-most popular (and important) B-rate horror film of all time, and resurrecting the franchise and exposing the younger generations to it will continue to ignite the popularity of the art of B-rate horror. And I'm here for it.

'Renfield' Is Bloody Good Fun

Wed, 19 Apr 2023 01:44:33 GMT

'Renfield' is more than just a Dracula spinoff. It's a story about a man who has to come to terms with his past mistakes.

Renfield , the new Dracula spinoff starring Nicolas Cage and Nicholas Hoult is bloody good fun. This film is far from your average Dracula movie though. It's morbidly funny, unique, and unpredictable.

The story revolves around Count Dracula's (Cage) assistant, Robert Montague Renfield (Hoult), who's job is almost exclusively to kill people and bring them to his narcissistic and manipulative boss to eat for energy.

But after nearly a century of unquestioning loyalty to Count Dracula, Renfield realizes that he's not much more than a slave, who's in a toxic, co-dependent relationship with his master.

But Renfield, who's been given the gift of immortality and incredible strength by his boss (which he activates by the oral consumption of bugs), is still quite terrified of his boss though, and reasonably so, because Dracula's magic still greatly outmatches Renfield's gifts. And we learn early on in the film that Renfield separating from the Count will not be easy.

And that's the story: the chronicles of the falling-out and subsequent breakup of Count Dracula and his former assistant. And its simplicity is its strength, because it gives us the opportunity to fall in love with the characters, and laugh at the dialogue and gory action sequences.

Robert Monatgue Renfield's character is fantastic and relatable, but very conflicted. He met and joined forces with Dracula nearly a century ago when he was a struggling real estate attorney who was dissatisfied with his life at the time. He had a wife and child, who he abandoned for a life of excitement, adventure, and the gift of immortality and power, which Dracula promised him if he agreed to leave his boring, average life behind and become Dracula's loyal assistant. But after a nearly a century, Renfield still carries around the guilt and shame of abandoning his family, which he considers a mistake. He also carries around the guilt of all the people he's killed to feed his boss. And this is why Renfield is so likable. He's far from perfect, but he's had enough time to think about his past actions, and he's unhappy with himself and regrets the things he's done. He recognizes his past actions don't represent the person that he believes himself to be deep down: a good, average human that, at the end of the day, wants nothing more to be happy. And it's Renfield's relatability that turns out to be the most memorable part of the film, as well as Nicholas Hoult's performance.

Cage's performance as Dracula is memorable also. The version of the vampiric lord in this film is quite similar to other renditions of Dracula in cinematic history, albeit a bit sillier. The Dracula in this film is also more focused on the manipulative side of him, which is very fitting for this unique storyline, but also stays true to the source material and the personality of the original character. And even though Dracula's character is memorably silly in this film, Cage still does a good job of portraying the evil that you'd expect to see in a scarier vampire film, and his interpretation of the character will still run a chill down your spine here and there.

The action scenes in this film are hilarious and entertaining. Even though Renfield is something of an underdog compared to his boss, it's still awesome to watch him eat a bug, and then turn into an ass-kicking superhuman whose moves and athleticism are often reminiscent to Neo's in The Matrix . Renfield's superhuman strength is often enough to completely annihilate humans with his fists alone, and a punch to the face of one of his enemies usually results in a hilarious and violent decapitation, with massive amounts of blood and brains exploding all over the place upon impact.

Renfield is a great Dracula spinoff film that's highly entertaining, and fans of the notorious vampire franchise will thoroughly enjoy the telling of the backstory of Dracula's loyal assistant, their falling-out, and how their relationship ends. It also surprisingly send a very positive message to the audience about coming to terms with one's past mistakes, moving on from them, and realizing that they don't necessarily make you a bad person... and that it's never too late to be a hero.

Progressives Are Mad At Ana Kasparian For Preferring To Be Called A Woman

Fri, 14 Apr 2023 00:08:30 GMT

There's nothing more annoying than a leftist trying to out-left another leftist.

Ana Kasparian apparently doesn't like the new pro-trans-movement vernacular, calling women "birthing persons" or "persons with uteruses."

To preface this article, I personally don't really care much about these highly-obscure social issues that have almost no effect on actual policy whatsoever, but I do find this particular situation interesting, and pretty humorous, to say the least.

Anyway, after Kasparian spoke about her preferences to be called a "woman" on Twitter, and making it clear on an edition of The Young Turks a few weeks ago that calling women "[people] with uteruses" is utterly stupid, the online leftists on Twitter and progressives in general have seemingly turned on Ana Kasparian, as well as her TYT cohost Cenk Uygur.

It's hard to believe because this is so incredibly stupid that to all of us normal people, it seems like something that we'd immediately forget about, even if for some reason we did have a desire to start unsolicitedly coming up with replacement nouns for the word "woman," but never underestimate the online left's ability to uproar over the smallest of issues you could possibly imagine.

We'll start with our favorite friend of the website, Sam Seder, who is not a woman, had the gall to claim on his show that this really doesn't affect Ana Kasparian's life, whereas it does in fact affect the lives of transsexual people. How Sam Seder could put himself in the shoes of a woman and determine this is still lost on me (unless he now identifies as a woman, which in reality wouldn't surprise me, considering he's extremely emasculated), but nonetheless, he (I guess) insists that Ana Kasparian shouldn't talk about it or shouldn't care about it. Now, Sam Seder: King of Disingenuity has a long, documented history of being extraordinarily wrong about 90% of the shit that spews out of his mouth (or maybe he just lies), but we're absolutely sure it's different this time around. We've taken the liberty of timestamping and iFraming his fucking completely idiotic opinion on the matter below for your entertainment.

Seder says a few fucking idiotic things in this segment, including that he "[doesn't] have any reason to be believe [...] that Ana is anti-trans." REALLY??! YA THINK??!! Are ya fucking sure about that, Sam? Of course, what she tweeted wasn't anti-trans in any way, shape, or form whatsoever, and literally only has to do with what she herself prefers to be called, but maybe we should review the thousands of hours of Ana Kasparian advocating for trans' rights just to be sure. By the way Seder, I personally find it fascinating that for a guy who'll endlessly defend the right of people to pick what pronouns they want to be referred to as, that somehow you have some sort of big problem with Ana Kasparian wanting to be called a woman, which she is. Or, perhaps, your real issue is that she doesn't want to be referred to as a man in the post-modern world, which would actually make a lot more sense to me (coming from you). And by the way, before you claim that you wouldn't mind being called a "semen provider," maybe you should go figure out what your sperm count actually is, because I have a feeling it's probably extremely low, and I wouldn't want to call you something inaccurate.

Speaking of disingenuity on The Majority Report with Sam Seder , this golden Twitter thread between Emma Vigeland a nd Cenk Uygur proves just how disingenuous Seder's cohost Emma Vigeland is, and just how far she's willing to go to avoid disagreeing with her boss and deity, Sam Seder. We won't post the whole thread, but clicking on the below Tweet embedment will lead you to the actual Twitter thread, which you'll be able to follow back to the beginning if you so desire.

"Whaaa! Whaaaa!" cries Emma Vigeland. To be clear, Uygur really wasn't being even mildly disrespectful to Vigeland at all up until she claimed that she wants "[Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian] to be on the right side [of the issue]." How Emma Vigeland just gets to decide that she's on the right side of any given issue and therefore gets to tell other people what to believe, I don't know, but Cenk Uygur still didn't respond particularly poorly to her tweet; he just (in a sarcastic way) told her she was being patronizing and that he congruently believes she's on the wrong side of the issue also.

Then, Emma Vigeland received a comment from someone who proudly calls him/herself "F ancy Communist " on Seder's YouTube show, and thanks Vigeland for her "courage" and standing up for "a marginalized community." LMFAO! Yes, she stood up for a "marginalized community" by claiming that women should just unquestioningly accept being called "birthing people" or "people with uteruses." Wow, how courageous! I personally remember a time when the word "courageous" actually had some level of meaning to it, and you actually had to do something brave to be called it. As always, for your viewing pleasure, we've iFramed the aforementioned clip below.

But that's not all, Lance of The Serfs, whom The Young Turks gave a platform to many times in order to promote his much newer and less-known web show, didn't have to think twice ab out stabbing Ana Kasparian in the back the moment it became convenient for him to do so, trading his friendship with Uygur and Kasparian for a few moments of world wide web clout and a few likes on Twitter.

If you have the time, watch this clip of the new podcast The Leftist Mafia with Lance betraying his former friends, not stick up for them when appropriate, and smile and laugh whenever Olay insults Kasparian, and even brings Kasparian's race into the argument where it has no place.

Matt Binder, whom we've made fun of a myriad of times on this blog for being stupid as fuck , and - no surprise here - is also a Thursday afternoon cohost on Sam Seder's show (because what far-left retard wouldn't be?), also doesn't stick up for his former friend from at TYT when Olay insults her, because Matt Binder also plays the stupid game "out-lefting the leftists" for minimal amounts of internet clout and a misplaced sense of self-perceived superiority.

We won't go on, but these are all great examples of what happens when you join in with the leftist community in reciting their typical lines of bullshit. Eventually, there will inevitably come a time when you just can't measure up to their far-left leaning absurd standards, and when you do, they'll cast you out because you won't be needed anymore. This will continue for a long time, until all that remains of the "leftist" community is about 12 morons on Twitter with about 10 followers each, who all "identify" as transsexual space aliens from the Planet Zorgonn, and have been "surgically-adjusted" on the black market to have experimental "peniginas" and hail from a foreign Middle Eastern country, so they'll even have extra wokeist clout, not just for their highly-experimental "penigina" sex change operation that you can only buy on the black market in a third world county, but also for being part of a racial minority in the United States. Can't measure up to that level of wokeness ? Sorry, you're no longer woke enough. Later!

Mehdi Hasan Got His Facts Wrong During His Rant Against Matt Taibbi

Wed, 12 Apr 2023 23:45:21 GMT

Considering Mehdi Hasan's behavior during his interview/"debate" with Matt Taibbi, he's got some serious gall to have gotten his facts wrong.

We just wrote an article a few days ago about Mehdi Hasan after stumbling upon a ridiculous rant on YouTube of him trying to "debunk" (if you use the word loosely) the COVID-19 lab leak theory.

Unfortunately, we have to write another article about Mr. Hasan; this time, about getting his facts wrong during his angry rant (because it's difficult to call it a debate) against Matt Taibbi when guesting him on his MSNBC show, and at this point, he hasn't returned our requests for comment again.

Considering Hasan's behavior during the edition of his show, he must have some serious cojones down there to actually get his facts wrong during his argument with Taibbi, which was specifically about getting his facts wrong. Nonetheless, Mehdi Hasan proved the other night on his show that either himself or someone else on his show is extraordinarily incompetent, because Hasan made a provably false claim on his segment with Taibbi.

Specifically, Hasan claimed that Matt Taibbi incorrectly reported that the EIP partnered with the government-run CISA, and that the EIP actually partnered with an independently-operated nonprofit known as "CIS." But this is a provably false statement from Hasan. The EIP did partner with the government-run CISA, which is easily fact-checkable through a simple Google search, and even says so directly on the EIP's website. Here's a quote directly from eipartnership.net : "The EIP partnered with CISA in 2020, both to help them understand rumors and disinformation around the 2020 election and so CISA could provide corrective and/or clarifying information from election officials."

Unlike the COVID lab leak theory, which isn't directly provable as of yet (although any intellectually honest individual will accurately claim that the preponderance of the evidence does lean in that direction), the partnership between the EIP and the government-run CISA is provable right now as I write this, and yet Mehdi Hasan has completely failed to issue a retraction on his show, or apologize to Matt Taibbi for making a false claim about his reporting on a so-called news network.

Journalist Lee Fang blew the lid off Hasan's bullshit from the other night, and goes into intricate detail of the partnership and incident on MSNBC on his substack blog . Props.

On another note, many other anti-establishment journalists and internet news shows are absolutely lambasting Mehdi Hasan for not only getting his facts wrong during his segment with Taibbi, but for being an all-around bad faith actor on many occasions. Robby Soave of Reason Magazine went off on Hasan's bullshit on an edition of Hill TV's Rising the other day, which we've taken the liberty of time-stamping and iFraming for your entertainment below.

As always, we'll certainly update this article if/when we hear back from Hasan for comment, but it seems he has already joined the ranks of other far-left leaning political commentators such as Sam Seder, Matt Binder, Rashad Richey and others who are too afraid to ever offer comment to us on our stories; not to mention we reached out to Mehdi Hasan a few days ago regarding our other story, and we never heard back.

Our advice to Mehdi: you're getting sloppy. Straighten up your act. If you're going to invite your colleagues on your show, not refute any of the actual substance of their stories and instead just nit-pick minute details in their articles, talk over them when they're trying to respond to your accusations, and just in general act and "debate" in bad faith, then at least get your fucking facts right, moron.

Super Mario Bros. Is A Funny, Trippy, Heartwarming Film For The Fans

Wed, 12 Apr 2023 04:40:27 GMT

'The Super Mario Bros. Movie' sets wokeness aside, and tells a heartwarming story for the fans, with psychedelic imagery and lots of laughs.

Before even setting foot into the theater this afternoon, I'd had a good feeling in my gut that Hollywood had learned its lesson after the first Super Mario Bros. movie, and that this one was going to be much different. And boy was I right about that.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie has already set records after their opening weekend, earning over $375 million globally, and is expected to well exceed $1 billion when it's all said and done.

This movie was certainly made for kids, but it's the adults seem to be enjoying it just as much or more, and for good reason. The characters, imagery and cinematography, acting, soundtrack, story, and intelligent and thought-provoking themes are what's making this movie an instant classic, and perhaps the single-best video game film adaption ever made.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie is highly psychedelic and trippy in its imagery and cinematography. It's one of the most colorful films you'll ever see. I raved in my recent John Wick 4 over its use of color and lighting to portray a very colorful yet neo-noir film experience, but this film is really more reminiscent of a 90 minute acid trip (and that's a good thing!). I love the color schemes and animated lighting effects in this movie. It's probably some of the best I've ever seen in any film ever, and it's times like these I wish I hadn't given up a life of experimental drug use so soon - because otherwise I almost certainly would've seen this film while tripping my balls off ( on shrooms or Lucy, I'm not picky! ;) ). Some of the most memorable moments of this movie were catching brief glimpses in the establishing shots of the entire mushroom kingdom, watching Mario and Luigi glow from their invincibility power-up after utilizing star power, and watching Mario, the Princess and Donkey Kong Country's entire colonial army racing down Rainbow Road to face off with Bowser. Between the glowing, flashing, and rainbow-lit scenery, the cinematography and imagery is enough reason alone to go see this movie (and maybe drop a couple hits of acid before-hand to enhance your experience).

The acting in this movie is fantastic. Jack Black delivers an outstanding standout performance as the antagonist Bowser. Jack Black manages to not only perform hilariously as you might expect, but also truly embraces the conniving evil in his voice and truly brings the character from the video we love to hate to life onscreen. Black also utilizes his musical talent multiple times in the film, which any Tenacious D fan will certainly love. Bowser ends up being perhaps the most memorable character in the film due to Black's humor and his vocal monologues, hilariously singing about the object of his greatest desires, Princess Peach. Seth Rogen also delivers a hilarious performance as Donkey Kong, and Chris Pratt gave the other standout performance as the titular character.

And of course, a great movie wouldn't be complete without a killer soundtrack, which the fans of the video game serious will love. There are lots of reprises of the classic Super Mario Bros. video game soundtrack, which have been cleverly rewritten for the film, but there are also a multitude of classic tracks that all music fans will be satisfied with. Take On Me , Thunderstruck , and The Beastie Boys' No Sleep Till Brooklyn all sit nicely within the film's soundtrack and make each seen they're heard in very memorable.

It's the story of this movie that truly makes it amazing, though. It's clear writer Matthew Fogel understood what the fans wanted out of the film and was able to usher the gameplay of the Super Mario Bros. video game series one to the big silver screen flawlessly. What makes this film so special is the relationships and dynamics between the characters, their backstories, and their journeys through this magical world that they're interfacing with. Surprisingly, Princess Peach is one of the more memorable characters due to her maternal instinct for her constituents, the Toadstools, who all look up to her and rely on her for protection. Much like the video games though, Peach is also somewhat of a badass who isn't afraid to fight back against villainy when she needs to, and when she has the ability to do so. The dynamic between her and Mario is interesting, and the trust they have for each other grows throughout the film, culminating in the Princess becoming one of Mario's greatest allies and friends. Same with Luigi, who in the film is Mario's younger brother, best friend, and even business partner, as the film begins with the two opening their own plumbing business in Brooklyn (and learning quickly and hilariously that starting a business is not an easy feat). Their onscreen relationship is quite heartwarming, and a great reminder to all of us that at the end of the day, our families will always be there for us through thick and thin, no matter what.

Mario and Luigi first arrive in the Mushroom Kingdom accidentally, through an act of courageousness trying to fix a major water pressure issue deep inside Brooklyn's sewer system. After warping into the magic kingdom through a mysterious pipe in the depths of the Brooklyn sewers, the two accidentally become separated, with Mario landing in the middle of the Mushroom Kingdom, and Luigi landing deep in the middle of Bowser-controlled territory, in which his army is moving swiftly toward Mushroom Kingdom, in attempts to take over the kingdom and kidnap the Princess for a forced-marriage (not kidding!).

The rest of the movie is led by Mario's character, preparing to fight Bowser to help Peach save her kingdom, and to rescue his brother Luigi which Bowser has imprisoned. The story is simple, but allows for Mario's character to really shine cinematographically-speaking, as his character is full of conflict and very unsure of himself. Up until this point, Mario hasn't had the easiest life - the only person that ever believed in him was his younger brother Luigi. He could never rely on anyone else for anything. His former boss, his uncle, and even his father all frequently gave Mario a hard time, and never took him too seriously, which we see in the opening scene after the Super Mario Bros. plumbers air their first commercial for their business, and Mario and Luigi's family of Italian immigrants as well as his former boss, laugh at him over it. This makes for an interesting dynamic in Mario's character. He's somewhat afraid and unsure of himself in this new world he needs to navigate to find his brother. But Princess Peach believes in him, and helps him realize just how capable he truly is - which is one of the major themes of the film - overcoming self-doubt and realizing one's true potential, which Mario does towards the end of the film. There are many other positive themes in the movie, including never giving up even when you're (literally) knocked down, as well as a great scene in the middle of the film between Mario and Peach, in which we examine the timeless philosophical question humans have asked themselves since the dawn of time: How did we get here?

Keep in mind, this was supposed to be a kid's movie, but talented screenwriter Matthew Fogel was able to portray all these ideas in a very thought-provoking and fun way. This movie has almost no business being this smart... but it is, and it's one of the reasons we adults seem to be falling in love with the story so quickly.

When it's all said and done, The Super Mario Bros. Movie is supposed to be a 90-minute-long kids movie, but seems to jam-pack so much action, comedy, thought-provoking themes, and a great story into it so flawlessly that it ends up appealing to adults even more than the youthful audience it was intended for. That, and maybe it rubs our nostalgia nerve in a way that other film scripts just couldn't do. It's funny, trippy, and heartwarming all at the same time, and for that, we here at EndingPolitics.co m give it three and a half out of four stars , two big thumbs up , and call it the best animated movie since the original Toy Story, and the best video game film adaptation ever made.

Is Mehdi Hasan One Of The Last 26%ers That Believe COVID Was Natural?

Sat, 08 Apr 2023 01:19:26 GMT

After hours of trying to figure this out... we're still not too sure.

A few weeks ago, MSNBC talking-head Mehdi Hasan took to his far left-leaning studio to... uh... do something . We're still not exactly sure what he was trying to accomplish here, but we'll give you the details anyway.

So as we were saying, Mehdi Hasan took to his show on MSNBC a few weeks ago to - either "debunk" the lab leak theory of COVID-19, or something similar to that (we guess) - and he put on quite a show consisting of article headlines, Fox News clips, and screen caps from Nate Silver's Twitter account.

Again, we're not quite sure what he was trying to accomplish in this segment, as he even admits toward the end of the segment that he's not actually claiming that the lab leak theory is false. Nonetheless, he spent close to a half hour seemingly making the case for that claim.

And we'll preface the rest of this article by saying we reached out to Mehdi Hasan earlier this afternoon with quite a few questions for him, in a good-college-try attempt to get some clarification on his positions on all this, and as of this writing we have yet to hear back. As always, we guarantee we'll update this article if/when we hear back from him, but as of right now, we're assuming Mr. Hasan has joined the ranks of Sam Seder with The Majority Report, Matt Binder with Mashable.com, Rashad Richey with The Young Turks, and a myriad of other left-wing commentators who are always seemingly too afraid to ever answer any questions we have for them.

Anyway, early on in his MSNBC segment, Hasan attempts to "debunk" the "claim" that the "intelligence community agrees on a lab leak" - a claim that the The Wall Street Journal didn't actually make - by showing data from WSJ's own article that says there are apparently still two more "agencies" in the U.S. government that believe COVID originated naturally instead of from a lab leak, even though the Dept. of Energy and the F.B.I. do believe it came from a lab. Hasan's logic, in his own words, is that "4 is a bigger number than 2," and therefore this proves nothing. Well, we won't argue that 4 is a bigger number than 2, because it most certainly is, but we are wondering what these 4 agencies are. What are the names of these U.S. government agencies? We've been completely unable to find this information on the internet. We reached out to Mehdi Hasan, who has MSNBC's fact-checking team behind him, to ask whether or not he or his team of fact-checkers over at MSNBC have been able to find this information. This just happens to be one of the questions he hasn't responded to yet.

Mehdi Hasan then goes on to "debunk the claim" that - and we're not kidding, even though this is going to be absurdly difficult to write in a sentence that's actually understandable - the lab leak theory wasn't about bioweapons. You read that right. He tries to "debunk" the claim that conservative media wasn't talking about bioweapons when discussing the lab leak theory . We guess Mehdi Hasan is upset that conservative media hasn't been speaking enough about Chinese bioweapons lately. Surprisingly or not surprisingly, he only refers to these bioweapon theorizers as "they" or "tin foil hat wearers" and never actually mentions any specific people, with the exception of Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), whom Hasan never actually attributes any specific quotes to about bioweapons. Hasan then plays a short montage of right-wing commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, and Steve Bannon. To be fair, Jones and Limbaugh do suggest in their short clips that SARS-CoV-2 could've been a bioweapon, but in the clip he played of Bannon, it was actually just a random caller to his show that suggested SARS-CoV-2 could be a bioweapon. Hasan then plays a short clip of Mike Pompeo not suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 was a bioweapon, but only that there is a potential threat of bioterrorism from China ( which is certainly true ).

We should note though that the most prestigious scientific journal in the world, Nature, did publish an article in August of 2020 called " Preparing for the pandemic that came ," in which contributor Robert Carnahan outlines a DARPA-funded program called the "Pandemic Prevention Platform." This "Pandemic Prevention Program" (or "P3" for short) was designed, in part, to determine how quickly antibodies could be discovered during an outbreak for "therapeutic" purposes. It was only about a year after this DARPA-funded drill was run that the first cases of COVID-19 were identified. Now, we're certainly not making the claim that SARS-CoV-2 was developed as a bioweapon, but if it was, a drill like this would certainly give a lot of large pharmaceutical companies information about how profitable the release of a deadly pathogen could be for a company that developed vaccines and other sorts of therapeutics.

We should also mention that any theory of bioweapon manufacturing by the Chinese government, Hasan claims, have been "dismissed" by "every respected scientist on earth." Mehdi, good sir, how does a "scientist" get the professional authority to "dismiss" a claim that a deadly pathogen that, by your own standards, could have been created in a lab, is not a bioweapon? What class in a biochemical engineering major does a scientist take that teaches them to determine whether or not a deadly man-made pathogen is in fact a bioweapon? Do they take Is This A Bioweapon 101? Sorry Mehdi, but to say that your run-of-the-mill scientist gets to make a hypothesis on such a thing is, by any standard, a pretty fucking stupid claim to make.

But then, Hasan goes on to "debunk" yet another "myth": that the media suppressed the "lab leak theory." Well this is certainly true by almost any reasonable standard, but Mehdi Hasan apparently has a different opinion then the vast majority of the western world on this issue, and we're not just talking about the bitter irony that Hasan attempted to "debunk" this myth in the same segment in which he's seemingly attempting to "debunk" the lab leak theory altogether. Hasan then attempts to make his point by claiming that New York Magazine wrote a story about the lab leak hypothesis in January 2021, according to Hasan "less than a year" after the pandemic began, even though the first identified cases of COVID-19 were discovered in Wuhan in December 2019, and the mainstream media was already running stories on COVID-19 in January of 2020. But hey! We should all believe Mehdi Hasan here, because apparently some liberal magazine nobody reads wrote a story about how the lab leak might be real 12 months after the pandemic started! Needless to say, Hasan either forgot or ignored all the cable news networks (including his own) and newspapers, that even claimed almost a year and a half into the pandemic , that the lab leak theory was debunked. Here, in June of 2021, The Washington Compost wrote: "One would have to come to the firm conclusion that not only was the virus developed in a lab — something experts have said is nearly impossible given the virus’s features..." Would you like to issue a retraction on your opinion on that "myth," Mehdi?

Most interestingly though, in his segment, Hasan goes on to suggest based on three unidentified sources that "told CNN" regarding the Energy Dept.'s report, that the coronavirus research in question wasn't being done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology at all, but was actually being done at a different lab, which are only known currently as the "Chinese Centers for Disease Control" in Wuhan. But here at EndingPolitics.com , we've so far been completely unable to verify that such a lab with this name even exists in Wuhan. Attempting to Google or use any search engine to find an address for such a lab turns up nothing. But here's yet another problem for Hasan's theory: these three unidentified sources say "center s, " not "center," suggesting that there could even be more than one. That said, we have been able to identify a research lab in Wuhan called the "Wuhan Jiang'an Center For Disease Control and Prevention," but it's still unclear whether or not this was the lab referenced by CNN's three unidentified sources, or whether or not they actually research coronaviruses there. But, here's a very interesting detail: we have been able to verify that the Huanan Wet Market and this particular research lab are extraordinarily close to each other, quite possibly even less than a 10 minute drive from one another. If a coronavirus outbreak was being investigated at this "Wuhan Jiang'an Center for Disease Control and Prevention," and the Huanan Seafood Market was the "epicenter of the outbreak," as Hasan, in his own words would like us to believe, then that actually could make quite a bit of sense. This is especially true if a tired (and coronavirus infected) research worker were to say, stop by the market on his way home from a hard day's work, pick up some fresh food for the evening, and leave behind a deadly pathogen he'd contracted at work during his research earlier that day. To be clear though, it's still not even verifiable that any of Hasan's theory here is true whatsoever, as it's only come from three completely-unidentifiable sources that are only at best "familiar" with the Energy Dept.'s investigation, and not to mention the Wuhan Institute of Virology itself is also only 7.5 miles away from the Huanan Seafood Market, to which any WIV lab-infected worker could also make an easy and short commute to after a hard day's work (a very possible hypothesis that could easily connect all these different theories on the origin of COVID that no mainstream media talking-head, including Mehdi Hasan himself, will ask about).

At this point, we had to email Hasan and ask him some pretty simple questions because, let's face facts, if in fact this coronavirus did happen to originate naturally, from an animal in a wet market just a few miles away from a highly unsafe coronavirus research lab (and possibly several others), when three of the researchers at said lab fell ill with some mysterious unknown pathogen just a little over a month before the first identified cases of COVID-19 were identified, then this is quite possibly the biggest coincidence in the history of mankind. In our email, we ask Hasan a few questions about his opinions on the origins of COVID, which we've - in complete transparency - listed in entirety below, using our exact words verbatim:

1. Do you know which of the “four” American “agencies” are claiming SARS-CoV-2 originated from nature? If so, what are they?

2. Do you believe that gain of function research was being done inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology?

3. If not, are you aware that the NIH itself has confirmed gain-of-function research was being done inside the WIV? (source: https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-says-grantee-failed-report-experiment-wuhan-created-bat-virus-made-mice-sicker )

4. Do you believe that 3 Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers "fell ill” in November 2019?

5. Are you personally aware that U.S. taxpayers were funding research on bat coronaviruses through NIH grants to EcoHealth Alliance, and are still doing so right now, despite being found to have been out-of-compliance with the terms of their NIH grants? (source: https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-slams-nih-for-continuing-to-award-taxpayer-funded-grants-to-ecohealth-alliance/ )

6. At 9:31 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHACkULrga8 , you show a quote on screen from the Director of National Intelligence, which says that the IC “concurs with the wide scientific consensus that COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified.”

Are you personally aware that not only does the Director of National Intelligence admit that a lab leak was possible, but also states in declassified documents that (direct quote):

"One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses." [source: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-Summary-of-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf ]

7. Do you acknowledge that many mainstream media outlets including cable news channels and newspapers had once claimed that the “lab leak theory” of COVID-19 origins was “debunked” without evidence to prove so?

Also, just a couple more questions about your personal opinions.

-Are you personally in the remaining 26% of Americans that believe COVID-19 originated naturally?

-If you do claim it originated “naturally,” does that include or not include the possibility that the virus escaped from a lab due to “animal mishandling”?

-You said in your MSNBC segment that there’s no “consensus” on COVID origins. What level of “consensus” would there need to be for you to believe COVID-19 originated in a laboratory (or even that it definitively originated in nature)? Would you say 60%, 70%, or 90%, just as an example? We’d be looking for a number in percentages, and that number could be a percentage of consensus between governmental agencies, scientists, etc.. (Please try to be as clear and concise as possible with this question, so we report your answer accurately)

-Are you aware that former CDC Director Robert Redfield adamantly believes that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a lab? If so, do you believe him, or not? And, would you be more apt to believe Robert Redfield on the subject, or Dr. Fauci (assuming Dr. Fauci still believes the preponderance of the evidence suggests natural origin), and why? And finally, what would change your mind on the subject and make you believe the other?

To reiterate, Mehdi Hasan has yet to reach back out to us with the answers to any of these questions. To be honest, we don't expect him to, and surmise that our inquiries will go ignored, just as they have been from Sam Seder, Matt Binder, Rashad Richey, and many others. Again, if we do on the off-chance hear back from Hasan, we'll happily update our article with his answers.

Until then, we should admit, we don't feel like Hasan has done much "debunking" here. To "debunk" any of this would be to prove otherwise, or at very least prove it wrong, and he's done neither. In fact, in some respects, his "debunkings" actually raise more questions than they answer, such as his assertion that the Energy Dept. actually secretly believes that even though coronavirus did leak from a lab, it actually originated in a completely different lab that everyone has believed it came from so far.

In closing, we believe that Mehdi Hasan is no less of a talking-head than Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, Don Lemon or anyone else on mainstream cable news. If this guy truly is actually a "master-debater" like some say he is, well, then he's also a mediocre-convincer, at best. And when you're a mediocre-convincer, being a master-debater seems meaningless.

Why Is Matt Binder So Triggered By Elon Musk?

Wed, 05 Apr 2023 20:32:11 GMT

If you love him so much Matt Binder, why don't you marry him?

Matt Binder's been feverishly whining about Elon Musk lately, and he just can't seem to stop.

For some reason, Elon Musk is incredibly triggering to Matt Binder, which is interesting, considering Elon Musk's company has probably done more to battle climate change than any other company on planet Earth, and Matt Binder himself claims we should be spending "trillions" to battle climate change . One would think Matt Binder would worship Elon Musk for such reasons.

But, he clearly doesn't. In fact, we can't find anyone who Matt Binder seems to hate more than Elon Musk. One would think that if there's any entity or anyone Matt Binder should hate more than anyone on the face of the earth, it would be us here at EndingPolitics.com , as we've written some very unflattering articles detailing how he's not exactly the brightest crayon in the box, to say the least ( here and here ).

Going through Matt Binder's Twitter timeline, it's full of critical nonsense about Elon Musk over the most boring reasons one could possibly imagine.

In one recent post, Matt Binder seems upset that Elon Musk changed the Twitter logo to the unofficial Dogecoin logo . Why and how Matt Binder could get mad over such a non-issue is beyond our imagination, as well as the scope of this article. But even more hilariously, Matt Binder took to his login creds over at Mashable.com to write an entire article on the subject . In the article, Binder delicately parses his words, being careful not to directly accuse Musk of "pumping Dogecoin," but insinuating so. Our guess is Matt Binder is covering all possible bases to try to entertain his audience while avoiding being sued by Musk for libel. Binder also mentions in his article that Musk's attorneys are seeking a dismissal of a frivolous lawsuit against him, which accuses him of running a "pyramid scheme" to (in Binder's own words) "help prop up" Dogecoin. It is in fact quite a silly accusation, considering Dogecoin has no owner, and is completely decentralized . To be clear, we're not defending Musk's attempts of using Twitter to influence crypto markets, and we do in fact believe it's a sketchy method of doing business, but to claim that posting silly tweets about Dogecoin is somehow in violation of the law is ridiculous; and quite frankly, the case has major constitutional issues in regards to the first amendment. Then in his article, Matt Binder made the unprovable claim that Dogecoin was "pumped" specifically due to Musk's decision to replace Twitter's logo (which it wasn't; as of this writing, Dogecoin is only up a little over 20% on the week), and then claimed and we quote: "Dogecoin has hovered no higher than around $.06 and $.08 since the beginning of this year." This is a provably false claim , as Dogecoin hit as high as $.096 in the middle of Q1.

Check your sources, Binder; you're getting very sloppy!

But that's not all. Looking at Matt Binder's article history on Mashable.com , the vast majority of the articles he's written lately are just him whining about Twitter, Musk, or some combination of the two. Binder also hilariously loses his mind in an article he wrote a few days ago, because of Twitter's decision to raise prices for app developers to access their API . Clearly, this was a top-down business decision probably meant to discourage app developers from using Twitter's API to make Twitter more exclusive, so more people actually have to create Twitter accounts to use Twitter.com or the Twitter app itself to see Tweets, but for God-only-knows what reason, Matt Binder is upset about it . Why are you so mad, Binder? Why do you even care? Are you developing apps with Twitter's API now?

The funniest (and most ironic) part of all this is, despite Matt Binder's raging fury at Elon Musk and Twitter, he still seems to be using the platform every day. We reached out to him - via his favorite platform, Twitter - for comment, and as of this writing, we haven't heard back. We'll update this article if/when we hear back from Binder.

Turns Out "Long COVID" Is Mostly Mythological

Tue, 04 Apr 2023 21:05:14 GMT

People who claimed to suffer from "Long COVID" are not only few and far between, but their "symptoms" might be largely related to other undiagnosed illnesses and diseases.

In the early stages of the pandemic, one of the scariest possibilities of catching coronavirus was the possibility of having ongoing symptoms that didn't seem to dissipate, which we began colloquially referring to as "Long COVID."

But the more we learn about "Long COVID" and the patients that claimed to be suffering from it, the more mythological the condition seems to be - and it certainly seems to be extremely rare, based on the data.

The Lancet published a study in which they followed 94% of all diagnosed COVID cases in New South Wales, Australia, and the results were fascinating. Of the 2,572 patients in the study, 80% of them had fully recovered from COVID within a month (and many had even recovered before then). Only 5% of patients had continued to experience symptoms of COVID 3 months after diagnosis. That said, it's noteworthy that the data shows that 96% of all the patients studied had made a full recovery at 120 days.

So, what about "Long COVID"? Is this actually a thing?

The data suggests... maybe, at best. The Mayo Clinic published a study in 2021 during the vaccine rollout, in which 108 patients seeking post-COVID were studied. Again, the results were fascinating.

The Mayo Clinic found that it was primarily men who complained of (perhaps) ongoing respiratory issues such as shortness of breath and chest pain. Most of the women studied, however, complained of other symptoms like "widespread pain," "fatigue," and "brain fog." But these symptoms might not have been specifically caused by "Long COVID." In fact, indicators like these have long been attributed to other diseases and conditions, such as fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and arthritis, as well as your run-of-the-mill, everyday ailments like stress or exercising too vigorously. It surely seems, based on this data, that if "Long COVID" actually exists, it's far more likely to be men that actually display real symptoms of it; and if there are women out there suffering from "Long COVID," they're not showing signs of respiratory illness, but other symptoms that could be blamed on other undiagnosed diseases or conditions (and quite possibly might be completely unrelated to COVID-19 at all).

All this data is far and away from the left-leaning Brookings Institution, which published a "report" (even though the author, Katie Bach, admits in her "report" beneath the sixth paragraph that her "source" was "[her own] estimate based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau [LMFAO!], CDC, and UC Davis Health") claiming that "more than 30 million working-age Americans may have had long COVID." Of course, by her own admission, she bases this claim on absolutely nothing, and of course the actual data supplied by real health organizations easily debunk her entire report.

Lending any credibility to public health officials early on in the pandemic turned out to be a mistake for yet another reason, as we now know that "Long COVID" is extraordinarily rare and unprovable at best, and completely mythological at worst. The science and data have, once again, proven that are "public health officials" are not scientists, but politically-partisan hacks working on behalf of the Democratic Party, its power structure, and their partisanly-motivated political objectives (which as far as we can tell in 2023, are creating the largest upward transfers of wealth in human history, shutting down small businesses, creating a society that's completely run by the top Fortune 500 companies in America, and creating large, Third Reich-style forced-vaccination programs).

Sam Seder Is Frantically Damage Controlling From PBD Podcast Appearance

Fri, 31 Mar 2023 02:01:09 GMT

Can Sam Seder get any more pathetic?

Last week, we published an article about Sam Seder's ignorance of tax rates in the 1950s , which he embarrassingly botched during a debate with Patrick Bet-David on PBD Podcast.

Sam Seder still hasn't commented on our article, the facts/data we present in it, or whether or not we've fixed his ignorance on the subject, even after reaching out to him multiple times on Twitter. To be honest, we don't really expect him to... ever.

Since then, the internet has exploded on Seder's ignorance on that particular subject, as well as a myriad of others brought up during the debate. He's been heavily ridiculed over the past six days, and for good reason. Quite a bit of the statements Seder made on Patrick Bet-David's podcast were not only illogical and unbelievable, but many were also just provably incorrect and false (several of which we highlighted in our last article).

Hilariously, Seder has taken such a verbal beating from the net-nerds that he's since taken to Twitter and his own YouTube show to attempt to run damage control for his noteworthily mockable appearance.

Most notably, he made an idiotic, unsolicited Twitter response to a clip of Joe Rogan, which Rogan himself didn't even tweet. He then had to tag Joe Rogan so he'd see it, because the person who tweeted it had an unverified Twitter account, and therefore it's highly unlikely Joe Rogan would even see the tweet otherwise (because of how Twitter's algorithm works).

We've taken the liberty of posting the thread below for your entertainment.

In his ridiculous response, not only does Sam Seder not actually refute anything Rogan says, but also informs Rogan he's willing to "discuss" a claim Joe Rogan didn't make, that "only the top .05% of rich people should decide best tax rates." It's absolutely absurd for Seder to tweet this to Rogan, considering Rogan never made any such claim in the referenced clip.

Then, Seder took to his show the next day to whine that Joe Rogan "forgot" his name. As you might expect though, once again, Seder refuted nothing Rogan actually said in the aforementioned clip.

Then, Sam Seder went onto irrelevantly insult Joe Rogan and the way he plays sports, something Seder has done on his show before, just because Rogan (accurately, in our opinion) called Seder a "fucking dork."

Then, in a hysterically ironic moment in the clip above, Sam Seder actually addressed US here at EndingPolitics.com , but also "forgot" our website name as Sam Seder would say in his own words, then called us "libertarian idiots," and then mentioning that we go "look up what the effective tax rates are." He then (wrongly) claimed the current effective tax rates were "more than double" what they are today.

Well, since you asked Sam, we went ahead "looked it up" for you, and we even pulled the most recent data. Even as of this year , the average income tax rate on the top 1% was still 26% , and doubling that would be 52%, which is 10% higher than the average 42% of average income tax rates paid by the 1% in the 50s. So, at best, what you're actually advocating for by your own standards is a maximum 16% increase on the total wealth of the 1% in this country. Still far and away from the 91% you proposed on your PBD Podcast appearance, and it's our honor to prove you wrong again.

For your entertainment pleasure, we've taken the liberty of iFraming and timestamping the moment where Sam Seder addresses our article, but "forgets" the name of our website below (the timestamp is at 10:29 in case your browser doesn't start the video at the appropriate time).

Also, as you might expect, Sam Seder never actually mentions what he believes the "effective tax rate" to be on the 1% anyway, as he knows that his audience members' heads would explode upon learning the truth about taxation in our country (and that they're probably too stupid to research the subject themselves anyway).

But that's not all. Sam Seder feels so humiliated for the verbal beatings he's taken over the past week, that he's even responded to unknown podcasters who've posted their own rebuttals to the nonsense he spewed on PBD Podcast.

For instance, Sam Seder got so mad at a small podcaster who goes by @table_moments on Twitter, challenging the podcaster (who as of the time of this writing, has but 10 followers on Twitter) to call into his show to debate this coming Friday. Sam Seder seemingly didn't bother to schedule a time for him to call in, or actually try to get him to appear on his podcast, because he'd apparently rather just have the podcaster call in and wait on hold until Sam Seder just decides to take his call. We've posted the Twitter thread below for your entertainment!

And just two days ago, Sam Seder posted a video on his channel briefly discussing a Liberal Hivemind video, claiming (wrongly) that "one right wing YouTuber [...] deceitfully clipped up" a segment from from his appearance on his podcast. Liberal Hivemind didn't deceitfully "clip up" the segment at all though, he just inserted some funny clips from movies and TV shows in between what Seder was saying for comedic effect, but the essence of what Seder was arguing was still intact, which is ironic because Sam Seder seemingly took issue with it. Hey Sam, Liberal Hivemind's video isn't the problem - the problem is what you said was idiotic. As always, we've iFramed Seder's video as well as Liberal Hivemind's video below for your viewing pleasure.

Sam Seder has really gotten his comeuppance for his ignorance this time. He deserves every bit of it though, as you can only go off spewing unrealistic bullshit and trash for so long before people notice and start to verbally tear you to shreds. And for the record, we're not advocating that the 1% pay less taxes than the rest of us - we're merely exposing Sam Seder's ignorance (and thoroughly enjoying doing it), while making the point that his unrealistic and grandiose tax policy proposals are completely unrealistic, and would obviously completely destroy the American economy if they were ever attempted.

And Sam, when you read this, and we know you will, please don't "forget" to mention our name in your videos again. Our website URL isn't hard to remember - we picked it specifically because it was catchy and quite easy to remember, actually. And when you whine that Joe Rogan "forgot" your name and then you do the same thing, and pretend to forget ours... well, it's annoying, to say the least.

'John Wick 4' Is A Beautifully SHOT, Action-Packed Thrill Ride

Wed, 29 Mar 2023 04:12:04 GMT

'John Wick 4' is a perfect neo-noir action movie.

John Wick 4 does exactly what it sets out to do, and does it almost perfectly.

The writers set out to conclude the John Wick series that began in 2014 with a fourth and final chapter, and this movie is a home-run in almost every way imaginable. Clocking in at close to a three hour run time, this movie is an action-packed thrill ride from beginning to end, and paces just perfectly the whole way through.

John Wick 4 is so visually intoxicating that you'll leave the theater with a head buzz. The Director of Photography, Dan Laustsen , did an incredible job lighting and shooting this film, which is worth seeing just to experience the cinematography alone. The color scheme and lighting in this movie is reminiscent of an LSD trip from the yellow gel tab acid that was popular during the mid-2000s. I t very well m ay be one of the most intricately-lit movies ever made. From the subtlety of the candlelights in the church scene to the flashing dance lights and full spectrum of color that fills the entire screen in the nightclub scene - this beautifully lit, colorful cinematographic artwork will keep your eyes locked on the screen with a natural high that's centered right behind your mind's eye.

If you've been reading this blog for awhile, you'll know I truly appreciate a movie with an absolutely bitchin' soundtrack. And this movie has one in spades. The music in John Wick 4 rounds out each scene flawlessly and helps immerse you into the story. The soundtrack is very modern in tonality, and ranges from pulsing Berlin EDM all the way to covers of classic rock songs like The Rolling Stones' "Paint It Black." The sound effects are also incredible, with deep bass that makes you feel like you're right in the center of the action, with gunshots blazing all around you.

The action sequences in this film are extraordinarily-well choreographed, and each major sequence lasts 30+ minutes at a time. In fact, the action sequences are so impressive and entertaining that more than 50% of the story is completely driven by them alone, with very little dialogue to accompany them. All three acts have at least one major action sequence in it to drive the story, and each one of the three also happen to be the most memorable scenes in the film. Keanu Reeves stunt-work here is award-worthy. It's just way too much fun watching him beat the hell out of the bad guys with nunchucks, blow their brains out with high-powered weaponry and pistols, and even literally light 'em up towards the end of the movie with incendiary ammunition that leaves his enemies dead and burning in a blaze of fire.

And as always, Keanu Reeves does a great job playing the slow-talking, introverted former hitman that doesn't have a lot to say but holds a major grudge. But John Wick 4 also introduces a fascinating new character, known only as "Mr. Nobody," a highly-skilled and trained professional assassin who throughout the film, seems to be both an ally and enemy of John Wick. Mr. Nobody does seem to want to collect on the bounty put on John Wick's head, but he knows he's providing a highly-valuable service, and wants to be compensated appropriately. So, to make sure his competitors don't get his kill before him, he is often seen helping John Wick by killing his competing hitmen before they can kill Wick. All the while, the longer Wick is alive, the higher and higher the price of the bounty gets, and Mr. Nobody strategically tries to maximize his reward. Interestingly, he's also always accompanied by his German Shepherd, who also happens to be a very well-trained attack dog, and helps him with his kills. "Mr. Nobody" is played by Shamier Anderson, and is the most-memorable supporting character in the film, and the other standout performance besides Reeves'.

John Wick 4 i s by far the best action film of 2023 so far, and will probably hold that title through the end of the year. As of this writing, it's only been in theaters for five days, and has already profited close to $50 million - and for good reason. The conclusive chapter of the John Wick series is absolutely fantastic, and Ending Politics g ives it three out of four stars and two big thumbs up! Don't miss this one.

Branch Covidian Scientists Learned Nothing From 'Resident Evil'

Tue, 28 Mar 2023 03:33:13 GMT

All of Raccoon City's suffering was caused by cronyism, greed, and the gain-of-function research that created the t-virus. So was the world's, after the escape of SARS-CoV-2 from a lab in Wuhan.

According to Resident Evil' s canonical lore, the Umbrella Corporation, headed up by President & CEO Oswell Spencer and founding virologist James Marcus, created the "Tyrant Virus" (canonically known as the "t-Virus") through gain-of-function experimentation from the "Progenitor Virus," a naturally-occurring RNA virus that originated in West Africa. Spencer and Marcus created this "t-Virus" as a bioweapon to sell to governments and their militaries all over the globe. This gain-of-function research conducted by the greedy, crony Umbrella Corporation was the root cause of all of Raccoon City's suffering.

In retrospect, the Resident Evil horror franchise was quite prophetic. The writers of the Resident Evil video game series seemed to predict the coronavirus pandemic in the early '20s almost to the T (pun intended). They predicted that experimenting on a naturally-occurring virus to make it more infectious to humans would be absolutely disastrous. They also predicted that a virus such as this could very easily escape from the laboratory in which it was created through researcher infection. And they predicted that the aftermath of such an escape would create widespread chaos. And they were dead right.

The original Resident Evil video game and canonical storyline was released all the way back in 1998, and Capcom was about 21 to 22 years ahead of the curve, despite the fact that the most of the English-speaking world wouldn't even know what "gain-of-function research" was for at least another 20+ years. And the Branch Covidian American government-scientists and Dr Fauci's team of cronies had over two decades to examine the story and philosophy of the (once upon a time-called) "science-fiction" horror franchise Resident Evil, and to consider what the consequential results of their own reckless actions could warrant, but nie. And near the end of the year 2019, a dangerous, (probably) man-made virus escaped from a partially-American-taxpayer-funded gain-of-function virology research laboratory in Wuhan, China.

On an ironic side note, we should mention that not even highly-educated virologists knew how easily such a deadly virus could actually be unleashed into the world, just a few years ago. In 2019, Fanbyte.com interviewed Duke University virologist and Resident Evil fan Justin Waterfield, who at the time was highly skeptical such an event could ever occur. Waterfield says in the interview: "We’ve had only two or three instances in my lifetime that could be even remotely comparable to Resident Evil' s description of the t-Virus outbreak, and they aren’t even close. That’s Ebola, SARS, and the various mutations of the influenza virus."

Very ironically, Waterfield actually mentions SARS, specifically. That said, we have a hard time ripping on Waterfield here. We all end up eating our words from the past, sometimes.

But even more ironically, Waterfield says shortly after: "And though we can't always vaccinate for each type due to continuous changes , we can contain them, so spreads are limited..." Oh, Mr. Waterfield... you really had no idea what was coming, did you??

We reached out to Justin Waterfield for comment, and as of the time of this writing, haven't heard back. We will update this blog if/when we hear back.

But digressing, even post-pandemic, when the vast majority of the world wants absolutely nothing to do with anything resembling gain-of-function research whatsoever because of the obvious risks it poses to human health and the global economy, Dr. Scamthony Fraudi has awarded yet another taxpayer-funded grant to study bat coronaviruses to EcoHealth Alliance ( for those unfamiliar, EcoHealth Alliance, headed-up by Dr. Peter Daszak, is the same organization suspected of conducting the very-same dangerous gain-of-function research at the same coronavirus research lab in Wuhan, China that could have created the pandemic that through the world into chaos for the last three years ).

And as if you still weren't convinced that we very-well could be living in a simulation, Dr. Fauci himself is still, to this day, denying that the coronavirus came from said lab in Wuhan, despite several federal government agencies specifically reporting that the most-likely origin of the coronavirus was a lab-leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology .

The above meme sums up Dr. Fauci's opinion on the subject quite well. Replace "at the Umbrella Corporation" with the words "by us," "Raccoon City" with "Wuhan, China," and "t-Virus" with "coronavirus," and Fauci's opinion is equally as dumb in real life as it is represented in that meme.

Another similarity of the coronavirus pandemic to the Resident Evil franchise is the rampant cronyism, corporatism, and fake capitalism that funds both the gain-of-function research here in reality and the gain-of-function research at the fictional "Umbrella Corporation." Rest assured, the entire canon of Resident Evil relies on the audience's (accurate) belief that a given government's defense spending would fund such a massive bioweapon research operation, and of course, a government would. In fact, think of any government that exists in the world right now. Any one of them would love to have the defensive biological edge over any other government - and here we've already made the connection between fiction and reality. Would an organization like EcoHealth Alliance even exist if there didn't exist a government with a huge, bloated budget, that loves to dole sweet, inflated contracts to the good buddies of federal employees? Our guess here at Ending Politics is probably not. After all, what real value does EcoHealth Alliance or any organization like it actually provide to the world? The answer is little to none, and therefore wouldn't exist in a truly free marketplace...

It was Dr. Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance's greed ( as well as Anthony Fauci's, considering it's already been proven that his own agency receives royalty payments from pharmaceutical companies for their uses of NIH-patented discoveries ) that at the very least is somewhat responsible for the coronavirus pandemic outbreak, given that his grant helped fund the very lab the virus leaked from.

And it was greed, cronyism, and gain-of-function research that caused the suffering of Raccoon City in Resident Evil (and the global suffering in reality from SARS-CoV-2). At the time the coronavirus pandemic had broke out, there were about 27 Resident Evil video games, 6 live action films, and several more animated movies, and the U.S. federal government never got the hint that something truly horrible could come from their reckless actions. Then, in late 2019, the coronavirus escaped from the lab at Wuhan, probably by infecting a researcher (colloquially known as 'patient 0'), and then spread one human at a time, until we had a global infection. Canonically in the original Resident Evil video game, the reckless gain-of-function experiments in creation of the t-Virus, caused several researchers to become infected while working in the laboratory hidden beneath the Spencer Mansion in the Arklay Mountains, leading to a highly infectious and deadly outbreak which caused widespread chaos, panic, and death in Raccoon City.

The story is too disturbingly close to the suffering we endured from the coronavirus pandemic.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Peter Daszak, and their gang of crony thugs at the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance should be held accountable for their actions, their lies, and their greed that caused global suffering, panic, and death over the past three years.

In closing, we've attached below screenshots of collectable documents from Resident Evil (2002), wh ich will give you chills from the striking similarities to the coronavirus pandemic. Sweet dreams.

Resident Evil 4 Remake Is A Biohazardously Terrifying Masterpiece

Sat, 25 Mar 2023 04:40:09 GMT

9 hours in, Resident Evil 4 Remake is absolutely terrifying and action-packed... everything we wanted it to be, and more.

Every once in awhile, a video game comes along that truly shakes everything we thought we knew about video games to its core.

When it happens, it isn't one in a hundred, not one in a thousand, and maybe not even one in one hundred thousand. It's really one of a kind.

Grand Theft Auto III came along in 2001 and changed everything we thought we knew about gaming. It opened our eyes to what a video game experience actually could be - if a gaming company spent enough time, energy, and money on developing it. Then, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City came along two years later, and taught us the video games could be something even more than that... they could be art .

And that same year, Rockstar Games was able to hit a second grand slam with Manhunt, which turned survival horror completely on its head. We never knew before Manhunt just how terrifying it could be to have nothing but a baseball bat and some shadowy hallways to hide from a bunch of murderous psychopaths in.

Skipping ahead a little bit to 2017 - Capcom released Resident Evil 7: Biohazard , and it scared the living hell out of us. Somehow, Capcom was able to develop their own gaming engine and then deliver what is arguably the single-scariest video game ever made. The memory of looking down the stairs at the basement door of the Baker house is still enough to give us nightmares when we sleep.

And let history reflect that on Friday, March 24, 2023, Capcom may have accomplished something even better. Earlier today, Resident Evil 4 Remake was finally released to much anticipation, and Capcom delivered in spades .

Just halfway through, you're convinced that this is one of the best-paced games ever created, with gameplay that never lets you come down off the tips of your toes, and a storyline that paces similar to a retro horror movie of the golden age.

Just minutes into the first chapter of the game, you're frantically running around a derelict town square in 2004 Spain, trying not to get murdered by a bunch of... uh... what the hell are these things? They're humans, but they're acting like zombies. You kill one to save yourself from a far more violent death than you could ever deal to one of them in good conscience, and then the corpse at your feet disintegrates into a boiling puddle of black oil. What the hell happened here? is the haunting, yet familiar question all Resident Evil fans will be asking themselves as they progress through the game.

Your weapons cache consists of nothing but good, violent fun. The shotgun in this game is absolutely bitchin', and with a well-placed shell at your enemy's temple, you're almost always guaranteed a clean, violent decapitation. So satisfying!

And then there's your new totally-awesome crossbow, with which you can even attach explosive mines to the bolt ammunition, effectively turning it into a grenade launcher (yes, with a well-placed shot, you can shoot the mines right onto your enemies, and watch them explode into a bloody mess).

The sub-machine gun you can purchase from the "merchant" is a badass piece of machinery, which is extremely powerful and has a very rapid rate of fire - which makes taking on tougher enemies exhilarating and fun.

I should note also, that this game looks positively magnificent. The graphics in this game are stunning and have photo-realistic maps to explore. The way the characters move onscreen is incredibly life-like. My only complaint here is that the RE Engine still seems to suffer from the same graphics-clipping at long distances like it did in RE2 Remake and RE3 Remake .

Chaperoning around the cute blonde, the president's daughter Ashley Graham, is actually not-at-all a pain in the ass, which many fans were initially afraid of. Capcom did a great job of making the order mechanic to control her user-friendly, while simultaneously immersing her character into the levels' difficulty in a realistic, but not frustrating way. Her character genuinely adds a touch of extra-fun to the game, and the dynamic between her and the main protagonist, the famed Leon S. Kennedy, makes the game's storyline all the more engaging.

And no horror game would be complete without a killer soundtrack (no pun intended) that adds a touch of ambience to the experiential suspense. The music always seems to start playing at the perfect moment - when you're approaching a potentially dangerous and scary situation, was helps build on your sense of fear in a controlled fashion. When it comes time to save your game at the typewriter, you'll hear a soothing instrumental which is calming and gives you some sense of safety, while maintaining your feeling of hopelessness and anxiety about the dangers that lay ahead.

One of the most terrifying moments you'll experience is being chased around by a chainsaw-wielding psychopath (with a strikingly similar appearance to Leatherface) who wants nothing more than to carve the guts right out of your body, in a nod to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre films.

And in true Resident Evil fashion, there are tons of puzzles to solve, items to find, and areas to explore that will keep your busy for hours.

Props to Capcom for the great improvements to their boss-fights too, which never get frustrating or cheesy, and are fun from beginning to end. We've come a long way with RE 's boss-fight mechanics since we first fought the heavily-mutated Jack Baker in his barn after rescuing Mia and Zoe in RE7: Biohazard .

Resident Evil 4 Remake was well worth the wait. Hopefully, Capcom will now recognize how much their fans appreciate, and even prefer, when they take the time necessary to make a game correctly. This is especially true for remakes. The remakes are for the fans. The fans don't want you to cut corners. As much fun as RE3 Remake was, it's no secret that the fans were left disappointed. As I play RE4 Remake , I can't help but wonder what RE3 Remake could have been, had Capcom did what they were supposed to do and ma d e a real remake of the original game, and not the one they did, which the fans felt they 'd cut corners on (to say the least) , simply to meet some arbitrary deadline, or whatever the reason was.

All that said, I think it's quite clear - even just halfway through RE4 Remake , I can confidently say we have a masterpiece on our hands here, gentlemans! Big congrats to Capcom for creating something truly amazing, done for the fans. And Capcom, don't ever again hesitate to give yourself the amp le time needed to truly scare our pants off. The fans really don't mind waiting for something special - something that will truly blow their minds.

Sam Seder Is Embarrassingly Misinformed About 1950s Tax Rates

Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:58:49 GMT

This guy might actually believe the nonsense he spews.

God bless Sam Seder. This guy gives us copious - actually, almost endless - amounts of content to write about here on this new, cute little blog.

Sam Seder, following in David Pakman's footsteps, went on Patrick Bet-David's podcast this afternoon, and absolutely fucking humiliated himself when he demonstrated just how ignorant he was regarding the tax rates on the rich in the 1950s.

Sam Seder began his brazen demonstration of ignorance when he claimed the top tax rate in the 1950s was an upwards of 90% on the wealthiest Americans. This is a typical bullshit-talking-point that self-proclaimed socialists usually spew, but if they ever actually wanted to be honest while discussing the subject, they'd specifically say the " legal top tax rate," because according to all available data, almost none of the wealthiest Americans paid even close to such a number.

This may make Sam Seder extremely angry to learn, but unfortunately for him, the data is very clear: the average amount of taxes the top 1% of Americans paid on their income in the 1950s was around 42% , only between 3 and 5% more than what Sam Seder claimed is the current top tax rate in the United States right now . This data has been widely available on the internet for the better part of a decade now through various studies, so there's no reason whatsoever Sam Seder should be so ignorant on the subject (unless he's just lying, but at this point, we're not so sure that he is - he may very well be just that ignorant ).

Sam Seder has hosted several debates over the years in which he's made the same claim about the tax rates in the 1950s (and so have many other YouTube socialists, including Cenk Uygur with The Young Turks ). Here at Ending Politics , we're getting pretty tired of hearing him spew this false talking point over and over again ad nauseam. It's annoying at best, and a flat-out lie at worst, meant to keep his audience extremely uneducated on the subject, and keep him artificially propped up on his left-wing pedestal.

Because we never want you to just take our word for it (and because we never like sending our readers off to run a wild goose chase on the Googs), we've as usual taken the liberty of posting the data below.

But no, don't believe your lying eyes! Believe the bullshit that's spewing out Sam Seder's mouth instead, despite the fact he's never shown you any actual data to support his claims! You're smart! Don't believe the data! Believe Sam Seder's opinion that has no grounding in reality, instead!

At the time of this writing, the clip of the podcast we're referring to was only posted about 3 hours ago on Patrick Bet-David's YouTube channel, and has already accumulated over 56,000 views. We can only hope that the vast majority of these views came from Sam Seder's own fanbase, so they know exactly what we're talking about in this article when they see it!

On another note, there was one highly funny and hypocritical moment in this podcast, when Patrick Bet-David questioned Sam Seder about what would happen to his own business if his AdSense or membership fees happen to dramatically increase. Keep in mind, Sam Seder advocated for raising the current tax rate on the top 1% from 37-39% all the way up to 90%, at least a 51% increase, just a few minutes before being asked this question. "...Let's just say the memberships you get from Patreon or whoever it is, okay, what if their fees went from them keeping 5% to 60% [a 55% increase, only 4% more than what Sam Seder himself advocated for in higher tax rates] to 90%, would you continue creating content?" asked Bet-David to Seder.

"I mean, I-I-I, I would - I would probably have to, uh, cut back if there was that..." stuttered Sam Seder.

"Exactly," replied Bet-David.

"Whoa, but, it's only because it's such a big change!" said Sam Seder, despite advocating for an increased tax rate on the 1% that was only 4% less than Bet-David's hypothetical number. Sam Seder hilariously didn't realize the irony of his answer to Bet-David's question.

As we come to a close, we'd like to mention that it's extraordinarily ironic that Sam Seder, being the "data-driven" guy that he is, who wants to see data or polling to prove literally anything anyone ever says, doesn't know what rich people actually paid in taxes in the 1950s, the decade in which many economists on the left and right consider to be the golden era of the American economy.

We once wrote an article on this blog about Sam Seder called "Disingenuous Politics: The Fall of Sam Seder." We may have to issue a retraction on that article at some point, as we're becoming less and less sure if Sam Seder is actually being disingenuous. The more we listen to Sam Seder, the more we wonder: maybe Sam Seder isn't being disingenuous. Maybe he really is this stupid....

We've taken the liberty of iFraming this piece of indie media gold below for your viewing entertainment.

The Dems' Ad Hominem Attacks On Alex Epstein Were Appalling

Mon, 20 Mar 2023 21:14:20 GMT

The ad hominem attacks the Democrats levied against Alex Epstein at the recent House Oversight Subcommittee hearing were not only appalling, but also indicative of an inability to attack the actual substance of his arguments.

Alex Epstein, author and energy expert, recently testified before the House Oversight Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs to advocate for common-sense energy policy in the United States.

Before and during his testimony, the Democrats decided it would be a more effective strategy to try to discredit him using ad hominem attacks against him, rather than refuting any of the actual substance of his arguments.

Probably the most egregious of these ad hominem attacks came from the ranking member of the subcommittee, Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO), who claimed Alex Epstein was nothing more than, you guessed it: a racist. She then tried to justify her ad hominem attacks against him by taking some words that he'd said 23 years ago, completely out of context, and claimed that he was speaking at the time about race, and not major societal issues plaguing other countries and cultures. Luckily, Alex Epstein was given the opportunity to address the despicable ad hominem attacks against him, and put a very polite verbal smackdown on Rep. Cori Bush.

After the hearing, Epstein took to his Twitter account to further discredit Rep. Cori Bush's disgusting ad hominems. We've taken the liberty of embedding the tweet below.

But perhaps a more entertaining (and unique, because let's face facts, calling someone a 'racist' in today's society probably won't win any awards for originality) ad hominem attack came from Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), who ironically began her testimony by stating "some of the behavior of [her] colleagues and how they've addressed the witnesses [was] unbecoming of [the] institution." It's unclear exactly whom on the committee she was referring to, but one can surmise it probably wasn't her colleague Rep. Cori Bush. Shortly into Rep. Stansbury's opening statement, she first referred to Alex Epstein and Ilia Bouchouev (another witness) as "fossil fuel folks." We're not quite sure how being "fossil fuel folks" would discredit them (especially since the Democrats' witness was a "climate change folk," using the Dems' own terminology, (and this didn't seem to discredit him in any way during his equally-as-biased testimony), but we digress...

Rep. Stansbury then leveled a quintessential ad hominem attack on Epstein claiming, because of his background, that he "lacked basic credibility" and therefore shouldn't be testifying before Congress (despite the fact that Epstein was likely the most educated and informed person on U.S. energy policy in the entire room at the moment). Rep. Stansbury then outright lied and claimed that Epstein was present before Congress "on behalf of the fossil fuel industry." Epstein then corrected her and told her to her face that she was lying.

It should be noted that Rep. Stansbury also attempted to attack witness Ilia Bouchouev by asking him whether or not he once worked for the Koch brothers (as if that would somehow discredit his testimony).

Rep. Stansbury spent most of her five minutes talking at Epstein instead of asking him and the other witnesses questions (which seems to be a typical grandstanding technique amongst the Democrats these days), and most of what she said surprisingly wasn't disingenuous, only because she actually is in fact as stupid as she sounded, and was not being insincere (she actually believed the nonsense she was spewing during her rant was true). At one point during her insensate rant, she even blamed Vladimir Putin for the U.S.'s current gas price emergency, completely ignoring that gas prices had increased on average over 40% in the U.S. before Russia's military even set foot in Ukraine. Then, she disregarded reality altogether and brazenly claimed that Joe Biden's actions of emptying the country's oil reserves "alleviat[ed]" the country's current economic crisis. That's funny, considering the last time we checked here at Ending Politics (two minutes ago), the U.S. was still in the middle of an economic meltdown, complete with inflation, failing banks, and near-record-high food and gas prices. Near the end of emotional rant, she claimed the Republicans were holding a "false" hearing. We're still not quite sure what she meant by "false."

After she was finished grandstanding, the chairman of the committee corrected her on the timeline, informing her and putting on the record that gas prices were well over 40% before Russia invaded Ukraine.

This was by far one of the funniest and most ridiculous house subcommittee hearings in history, mostly because of the abhorrent behavior coming from the Democrat House Representatives (which has become far more commonplace lately).

We highly recommend you treat yourself to some free entertainment and watch the entire hearing, which is full of great laughs. We've taken the liberty, as always, of iFraming the video below, courtesy of the Forbes Breaking News YouTube channel.

Janet Yellen Flummoxed On Social Security Issue At Senate Hearing

Thu, 16 Mar 2023 23:27:37 GMT

Janet Yellen humiliated herself during her testimony in front of the Senate on Thursday.

It's quite common knowledge in 2023 that the federal government's longstanding social security welfare program is in trouble, and in fact is estimated to become insolvent in less than 10 years.

Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen appeared in front of the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday, and appeared absolutely flummoxed when questioned about the social security insolvency problem by Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA).

Yellen's lack of knowledge and preparedness on such an important issue was actually pretty funny, and made the interaction quite entertaining; but nonetheless, the social security problem is quite serious, as it will potentially allow millions of recipients to slide into poverty after it becomes insolvent.

"Um, Madame Secretary, the President keeps saying he does not wish to have cuts in uh, in social. Is he aware that when the program goes broke in 9 years, that there'll be a 24% benefit cut for those who're current recipients? Is he aware of that?" asks Sen. Cassidy to the Treasury Secretary.

"Well, it's clear that social security..." says Janet Yellen, attempting to dodge answering the simple yes or no question.

"But is he... I apologize for the interruption but I have limited time. Is the President aware, that when social goes broke in 9 years, under current law, there's a 24% cut in benefits for people who are currently receiving?" asks Sen. Cassidy again.

"If we don't do anything about it, I think that's about right," responds Janet Yellen, attempting to dodge answering the question again. "But... the President will want... wants to strengthen social security..." During her testimony, Sec. Yellen never actually said whether or not President Biden knows that current law mandates a 24% cut in social security benefits if the program were to ever go insolvent.

"In the $4.5 trillion dollars in taxes the President has proposed, are any of those taxes going to shore up social security? I actually know that answer. The answer is of the $4.5 trillion in taxes he has proposed, not a dime is going to shore up social security," says Sen. Cassidy, answering his own question before Yellen is able to respond. Yellen doesn't attempt to refute his statement on Biden's tax proposal.

"He cares very deeply [about social security beneficiaries]," says Janet Yellen, after some back and forth. "He stands ready to work with Congress..."

"That's a lie," Sen. Cassidy snaps back at Yellen. "Because on a bipartisan group of Senators has repeatedly requested to meet with him about social, so that somebody who is a current beneficiary will not see her benefits cut by 24%, we have not heard anything on our request. And we've made multiple requests to meet with the President. Now, I know you can't comment on that - I realize that - but that is a fact. And if you've been told to say he stands ready to meet, I will tell you there's absolutely no evidence because we have not gotten our meeting."

At this point, after taking quite a metaphorical beatdown from Senator Cassidy, Sec. Janet Yellen had quite an embarrassed, confused look on her face, and never actually refuted anything he said during the conversation.

At this point, their discussion breaks down into a brief conversation about whether or not servicing the current debt, along with the ever-growing budget deficit, and fixing the social security shortfall is even possible by only raising taxes on the top 2% of income earners. Of course, anyone who's paying attention knows this is completely impossible even where we stand right now, much less what the debt and deficit will look like 10 years from now.

"Now if-if-if we doubled our debt-to-GDP ratio, then - just theoretically, if you will on a side of our conversation, if we doubled our debt-to-GDP ratio, what effect would that have on the economy?" asks Sen. Cassidy.

"So... um... right now, in the President's budget proposal..." stutters Sec. Yellen, attempting to respond.

"Now, what I asked you is just the theoretical, independently of the budget proposal," interrupts Sen. Cassidy, at this point visibly agitated.

"I don't see why we would need to double the GDP ratio..." says Janet Yellen, with the stupidest, most disingenuous response ever given in a Senate hearing. Either she was playing stupid, being incredibly disingenuous, or the Secretary of the Treasury legitimately didn't know that if we continue to spend money that we don't have, the way we are now, that eventually we will in fact double the debt-to-GDP ratio.

"But if we did - you're an economist - if we did, what would be the effect upon the economy?" repeats Sen. Cassidy, still agitated.

"Well, we tend to raise net interest costs..." Janet Yellen began to respond, in attempt to dodge the very simple, straightforward question.

"Would it be a negative effect on the economy? Of course it would be," says Sen. Cassidy.

"Of course. Yes," says Janet Yellen, finally responding to the most elementary question Cassidy asked during the entire hearing.

Sec. Janet Yellen took such a verbal beatdown during the hearing that it's hard to not laugh at her. Seeing the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury so flummoxed by American fiscal policy is both entertaining and sad at the same time. The clip of the entire interaction is available on Senator Bill Cassidy's YouTube channel, but as usual, we've taken the liberty of iFraming the clip below for your enjoyment.

'Scream VI' Is Stupidly Entertaining, And Jenna Ortega Is A Goddess

Wed, 15 Mar 2023 02:24:02 GMT

Anything Jenna Ortega touches seems to turn to gold.

Every once in awhile, a special actor or actress' career seems to blossom into something truly amazing, when almost no one really expected to. Then, everything he or she appears in seemingly turns to gold, and is loved by critics and the fans alike. It happened to Paul Rudd. It happened to Ryan Reynolds. Now, the same thing seems to be happening to 20-year-old actress Jenna Ortega.

I should really preface this article by saying that on its face, Scream VI is a pretty stupid movie, as you might expect. But it's also surprising in a lot of ways. Scream VI does not deserve to be anywhere near as entertaining as it is.

Jenna Ortega, herself is one of the reasons why this movie is so entertaining, be-it undeservedly. She steals the show with her character, Tara Carpenter, who canonically is the little sister of Melissa Barrera's character, Sam Carpenter, the other standout performance in the film. But with all of Jenna Ortega's appearances in horror movies over the past couple years, and her role as the creepy yet lovable Wednesday Addams in Netflix's Wednesday, she seemingly now carries the title 'scream queen' of the new generation, and there's no competition anywhere in sight. Ortega is a great actress, she's beautiful, and her image just seems to fit like a glove on the screen of a horror film, and has the perfect girlish scream to accompany it .

But as far as Scream VI goes, as you might imagine, even with all its stupidity, it makes for the perfect Friday-night trip to the movie theater with your girlfriend. You'll get exactly what you expect, a slasher flick with lots of blood, gore, and killing. And like any Scream film, you'll get your twist at the end when you find out exactly who the killer(s) is/are.

The music in this movie is really good. The original score was composed by vets Brian Tyler and Sven Faulconer, but also has a few original pop tunes which are absolutely fantastic, and their catchy yet haunting melodies will certainly grab your attention while you're watching the film. And despite them having a modern, poppy sound, the tunes fit very nicely into a slasher flick.

Surprisingly (and thankfully), there's actually not too much wokeness in this film. It does carry over some of the wokeness from the last film, Scream (2022), but it's only there to serve as a continuation of the story in the sequel to the 'requel,' as the characters cleverly and canonically call it in the actual films (if you haven't seen them yet, this reference will make far more sense after you watch them). There's really not much added to it this time around. Maybe Hollywood is starting to take the hint on that front, but I digress...

The ending twist of this movie felt a bit forced, as you might expect for the sixth entry in a franchise that probably should've ended after the third one, at the latest. But that said, it actually was more unpredictable than the last few. (Spoiler alert, kind of) I was actually only able to predict just one of the killers this time around... The writers also did a good job this time of making one of the killers too predictable , in a very clever way which, if you've seen the other Scream movies, you'd probably eliminate as a suspect early on in the film, because the killer wouldn't be this obvious. The writers know how Scream fans think after seeing five of them; they know you know the formula, and they cleverly used that to their advantage...

And of course, no great horror movie would be complete without beautiful women. Samara Weaving looks literally fantastic in her small bit-part at the beginning of the film. Her dress wraps around her body perfectly. Melissa Barrera also looks amazing, as she did in the last film. And then, there's Ms. Ortega. I'm going to lay my cards out on the table here, and say what we're all thinking: Jenna Ortega is hot. She's far and away the sexiest woman in the film, and you'll have a pretty difficult time keeping your eyes off her. The Scream producers sure do know their demo - according to Variety.com, 53% of the opening-weekend audience was male, 67% in the 18-35 age bracket , and 100% was all-eyes-on-Jenna.

In my opinion, this film is worth a watch on the big screen, even though it probably has little rewatch value. Take your girlfriend, buy her popcorn, enjoy your Friday night. She'll thank you for it. Just pray she doesn't get mad when she catches you ogling at Little Miss Ortega.

Dr. John Campbell Shows New Data Proving Masks Never Worked

Tue, 14 Mar 2023 00:54:05 GMT

The data is in... and it proves that mask-wearing during COVID was completely worthless.

Dr. Fauci was telling the truth... back when the establishment wasn't pressuring him to lie.

Many of us remember when Dr. Anthony Fauci first addressed the nation regarding mask-wearing at the very beginning of the pandemic, and he said that masks wouldn't stop the spread of the virus. He was telling the truth at the time, and stating what most of the medical community already knew about masks - masks are specifically meant for medical professionals to wear during surgery to protect the patient from droplets from the medical professionals' noses and mouths. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less; and they certainly weren't meant to stop the spread of viruses.

For some reason, even there barely any convincing evidence to suggest wearing masks stopped coronavirus from spreading in the first place, this became a hot topic in the political arena - which is pretty ridiculous, considering this was not, and still isn't, a political issue in any way whatsoever.

This didn't stop many people, unsurprisingly on the left, from not only advocating that mask-wearing be legally forced on the population, but also advocating that those who violate these edicts be kidnapped and thrown in the cage. So much for the "anti-authoritarian left."

There was, however, some data at the beginning of the pandemic to suggest that wearing N95 masks did potentially prevent some spread of the virus. But according to the newest data, we can safely assume that probably wasn't true either.

Dr. John Campbell does a very thorough deep-dive of the latest data on his YouTube channel, which due to his objective and non-biased coverage of the coronavirus pandemic, has accumulated close to three million subscribers at this point. We've taken the liberty of iFraming his deep-dive of the data below.

"Wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness, according to the plain English summary," states Dr. John Campbell, as he reads the summary directly from the study. "Moderate-certainty it makes no difference [...] I was wrong all that time," he continues, as he reads the data summary. Dr. Campbell did for the first couple years of the pandemic advocate that people wear masks to slow the spread of the virus. During the video, he apologizes in good faith to his audience multiple times for stating objectively incorrect information during the height of the pandemic.

"So the medical/surgical masks are basically useless. What about the more sophisticated ones, are they any better?" Dr. Campbell asks, as he continues to read the data summary in his video.

"We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness," reads Dr. John Campbell. It seems from the most accurate data we have using close to a dozen randomly controlled trials, we can't even be sure that N95 masks worked at all either. Keep in mind, N95 respirator masks were almost completely unattainable for most people throughout the majority of the pandemic's duration, but even if they had been, it's not clear whether or not they would have made any bit of difference whatsoever. The data summary does go on though with the data analyzers' best assessment of the data, which Dr. Campbell reads, "Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference [...]".

"So, all this money spent on PPE," states Dr. Campbell as he chuckles, "all the lucrative contracts awarded by the government, probably made essentially no difference to anyone."

The study doesn't even delve into whether or not cloth masks made a difference, as there's already been so much data that's come out during the pandemic that cloth masks are completely ineffective , and in fact probably caused more damage than they prevented .

"I got it wrong. I misinterpreted the evidence at the time," says Dr. Campbell again, apologetically, near the end of the video. At least he has the courage to admit it and apologize. After all, we all make mistakes. Some more than others. And some of us, including Dr. Campbell, don't advocate people be arrested when they disagree with us.

"Let's hope Dr. Fauci now apologizes. Let's hope the Department of Health, the U.K. Health Security Agency now apologizes. Let's hope the FDA and the CDC apologize. Let's hope President Biden - he was a great mask advocate - let's hope the now apologizes. Our prime ministers have worn masks over many occasions, let's hope they now apologize for misleading the public, or at least advocating interventions which are not supported by the evidence," says Dr. John Campbell, as he begins to wrap up his video on the subject.

"This is how science progresses," says Dr. Campbell. "You have to admit you're wrong, you have to change, you have to move on." Good advice from a very wise man.

Today, science has prevailed. The truth has prevailed. Honesty and integrity have prevailed. For those of you that were rude to people for not wearing masks, threatened to call the police on them, belittled them, advocated for their arrest, etc., ask for forgiveness. And forgive yourself. We all make mistakes. There's nothing wrong with being wrong now and then, as long as you have the courage to admit it after-the-fact and apologize, as Dr. John Campbell does in his video.

"For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H. L. Mencken

The study Dr. John Campbell references during his video can be read here .

Democrats Are Mad At Taibbi and Shellenberger Because... Reasons

Sun, 12 Mar 2023 04:25:56 GMT

The Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are mad at Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger for... reasons.

There was quite a clown show on Capitol Hill on Thursday in the House Judiciary Committee hearing when all the Democrats on the committee scolded Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger for telling the truth.

This particular hearing actually turned out to be a lot stupider than your run-of-the-mill house judiciary hearing because of the ridiculous and immature behavior of the Democrats on the committee.

Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger, both left-leaning individuals, and Shellenberger a Biden voter himself, wrote a riveting series of articles exposing Twitter's shady anti-free speech behavior over the past couple years, which for some reason, made the Democrats very angry!

The purpose of the hearing, led by Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jim Jordan (R-OH), was to investigate federal government influence on Twitter's censorship, shadow-banning, and account termination of dissenting voices on Twitter.

For the past couple years, Twitter has been primarily targeting right-wing and libertarian voices for censorship, account termination, and shadow-banning, but has also targeted various anti-establishment left-wing voices as well.

Some of the most entertaining moments of the hearing came from Democrats trying (poorly) to outsmart journalist Matt Taibbi into revealing his sources of information from his reporting on Twitter. Taibbi, who is clearly sharper than any Democrat politician on the committee, didn't fall for their tricks, and expertly pummeled them during their lines of inappropriate questioning about his journalistic sources. Of course, trying to intimidate Taibbi into revealing his journalistic sources would be a violation of Reporter's Privilege, but the Democrat committee members pushed forward with their inappropriate lines of questioning anyway. One particularly entertaining moment came when Taibbi sparred with Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX), during which she actually tried to tell Matt Taibbi who his sources were (claiming his source was Elon Musk). When she's finished her inappropriate line of questioning with Matt Taibbi, she then turned to Michael Shellenberger, to whom she hilariously asked if he was in a journalistic "threesome," which was followed by many chuckles from Taibbi and Shellenberger, and the members of the peanut gallery. We've taken the liberty of iFraming a video clip of the moment below, courtesy of the Forbes Breaking News YouTube channel.

Much like the example above, many of the minority members' lines of questioning were similar in nature, pressuring Taibbi to reveal his sources, and many of them spent a good chunk of their time talking at Taibbi and Shellenberger, rather than questioning them. One such example was when time was yielded to Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA), one of the single-stupidest and most disingenuous members of the House of Representatives, who spent a good chunk of his time whining about... you guessed it, Donald Trump. Rep. Connolly then, during his time, also attempted to mischaracterize the purpose of the hearing by claiming the only reason they were having the hearing was for the Republicans to claim that the left was trying to control speech on the internet, and Taibbi respectfully corrected him; then Rep. Jim Jordan, who at this point was visibly frustrated, told Connolly that he seemed to not understand that the purpose of the hearing was to protect the 1st Amendment, as it's probably unlawful for the federal government to try to weaponize a private company as a tool to censor speech. We've taken the liberty once again of iFraming this funny exchange below, again courtesy of the Forbes Breaking News YouTube channel.

And yet another similar line of hilarious but inappropriate questioning came from the ranking committee member Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI) (who by the way, is a non-voting delegate in the House because she represents the Virgin Islands, which thankfully isn't recognized as a state in the U.S.), who spent a good chunk of her time asking stupid and irrelevant questions that made absolutely no contextual difference in the hearing whatsoever. Some of her questions consisted of the time period of when the 'Twitter Files' were from (as if it would make any difference whatsoever when the federal government attempted to weaponize a private company against free speech), more inappropriate inquiries into who Taibbi's and Shellenberger's journalistic sources were, and whether or not they've had "conversations with Elon Musk." Rep. Plaskett, much like her colleagues, also spent a good chunk of her time talking at them , claiming that there might have been millions of files handed to them at Twitter, a point which Shellenberger and Taibbi respectfully corrected her on, as well as claiming that "user data" may have been given to them somewhere within the files (which, despite no evidence of that, even if it was true, they didn't report on it, so it's irrelevant), and when Taibbi tried to respond to Paskett about the ridiculous, idiotic point she'd brought up about user data, she told him "[she] didn't ask him a question." HA! This hilarious exchange is iFramed below, again courtesy of the Forbes Breaking News YouTube channel.

There are so many more examples of idiotic lines of questioning from the minority committee members in the hearing just like the ones we've outlined above, that it would be irrational to outline every single one (because it was at least half the entire hearing), but we've taken the liberty of iFraming the entire hearing at the close of this article so you can grab some popcorn and watch the three ring circus yourself! It's still unclear as to why the Democrats were (and still are) so mad that Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi dared report the news to the American people, but at least their anger and stupidity provide us with some quality entertainment! We recommend you take an evening to watch the entire hearing yourself, because it's certainly a riot!

The Democrats Have Absolutely No Solutions For The Debt Crisis

Fri, 10 Mar 2023 01:53:49 GMT

The Democratic Party gets mad about resistance to raising the debt ceiling, but they never offer any real solutions to addressing the national debt.

The national debt has been a hot political issue for more than a generation, but it still continues to get worse.

As the debt gets worse, and America comes closer and closer to an almost-inevitable default, the Democratic Party gets mad that they face resistance from their opposition to raise the debt ceiling (which in all actuality, they don't; Republicans have made it clear they're not opposed to raising the debt ceiling, but they'd first like to see some sort of plan that would begin to address our debt problem).

This is one of the few things the Republicans get right in our society. Sovereign debt is a problem - it stunts economic growth, and it puts unnecessary pressure on tax payers to service it, especially in times of rising interest rates, in which we're in right now, when the interest on servicing the debt gets higher. And who pays said rising interest rates on the national debt? Again, it's the American taxpayer. It's money taxpayers are forced to give to the government to pay off debt that most of them really didn't want in the first place, and they get no value for in return.

It's common knowledge that Democrats are more often than not the ones that vote for spending money we don't have, without mind for future suffering it may cause (although it's certainly obvious that both parties are guilty of this), and then whenever we come close to hitting our debt limit (which is all the time), the Democrats whine that we're doing some sort of disservice to the American people by not raising it (at least as of late). There's never a word about the disservice Congress does to the American people by spending money the American people don't have, and how much money we're wasting to service it, or the very little value the American people get in return for all the money they give the government (or in the case of when the government prints it, the loss of value of the money and rising cost of living we have to endure).

And then when the rare (but possibly good) idea is proposed that American just default on its current debt, the Democrats lose their minds. " Look at all the money we've borrowed! You don't go to a restaurant and eat a filet mignon entrée and then skip out on the bill after you've already eaten it," they whine, using the stupidest analogy imaginable, while ignoring it's usually Congress that "orders and eats the steak" when the more-fiscally responsible American people didn't even want to "eat out" in the first place.

And then, when the solution is inevitably proposed that Congress stop spending money the American people don't have, they get mad about that too. Do you see the Catch 22 here? We can spend, spend, spend, and ignore the looming debt crisis the U.S. inevitably will face, and we have to raise the debt ceiling every time we hit it, because we can't default on our debt! It's quite a nice little scam the Democrats (and a good chunk of Republicans) have concocted, and the American people are stuck suffering in the aftermath. We can't even get the people putting us through all this pain to take a pay-cut to ease the tax burden for the American people. If anything, they'll whine that their high-6 figure salary isn't enough for doing almost no work, and then pass laws increasing their own salaries. Only the government could get away with running such a scam, and only the stupidest of the American people could justify the actions of these criminals in good faith - or in other cases, perhaps bad faith or just complete disingenuousness (cough, Sam Seder, cough).

Not to mention, we shouldn't ignore the fact that all this borrowing is enriching their good friends in the military industrial complex, unnecessary government agencies (some deserve no funding whatsoever because they literally create no value for society), and other special interest groups. But that's really what it's all about isn't it - enriching their elite friends so they'll donate back to their campaigns, so they can get re-elected and keep their high-6 figure paychecks to keep doing nothing all day and still live the high-life? Hmmm... I think we just might be on to something here...

Both parties are guilty of this, but at least the Republicans occasionally pretend to care about the national debt. At least they bring up the issue at their Congressional and Senate hearings. It's the Democrats that only get mad when the issue is even addressed....

Establishment Is Mad At Tucker Carlson For Playing Video Footage

Thu, 09 Mar 2023 02:32:06 GMT

Imagine being mad at someone just for playing unedited video footage on a TV show.

Allow me to preface this article by saying I condemn anyone that got violent or destroyed any public property at the capitol building on January 6th.

Having said that, it's becoming clearer and clearer by the day that the majority of people that were protesting at the capitol that day were doing just that - protesting. Nothing more, nothing less.

Some might say that entering the capitol in and of itself is some sort of crime. This is an absurd claim by any reasonable standard. The people that entered the capitol building that day were American citizens who pay for the upkeep, security, and utilities there, through their tax dollars. And they have every right to go into a building they are forced to pay for. Period. End of story.

A few nights ago, Tucker Carlson played video on his show Tucker Carlson Tonight of protesters on January 6th peacefully protesting, touring the capitol building, and not rioting. For God only knows what reason, this has absolutely infuriated the establishment. We're not kidding about this. This may sound absurd to the average, level-headed individual, but the establishment Democrats (and a good many Republicans) are actually mad at Tucker Carlson for simply playing unedited footage on the January 6th "insurrection" (which was really nothing more than a large protest in which a small few people committed malicious destruction of property) on his show - footage the same angry bureaucrats and politicians are currently claiming the public already had access to anyway . Whether or not they're lying about that doesn't actually matter, as the American people in fact own the 40,000 hours of video footage that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy provided Tucker Carlson's staff access to. The American public owns it, and the American people have the right to see it. This is undebatable. You can't refuse to provide the American people access to something they own, regardless of whether it's access to a building they're forced to pay for, or access to video camera footage from inside a building they're forced to pay for.

For some ungodly reason though, the bureaucratic and political establishment on Capitol Hill seems to disagree with that sentiment. How? How could they possibly disagree with such an obvious fact? They really don't believe that the American people should have access to watch video footage from the inside of a building they're forced to pay for? To even fathom such a thing seems absurd. But it's quite clear they truly believe the American people shouldn't be able to watch that footage.

So that begs the question: why? Why don't the Capitol Hill bureaucrats and politicians want the American people to watch that video footage? Are they embarrassed about it? Are they hiding something??

Well the truth is, yes, they are in fact hiding something. Or at least they were trying to. They were trying to hide the truth of what happened that day. The Capitol Hill establishment composed a special narrative about the incident on January 6th. And that composition doesn't actually reflect the truth of what happened. And they've been lying about it for so long - several years now actually - that when the American people see the unedited footage of the capitol building from Jan. 6th 2021, they'll know that nearly all the accusations these bureaucrats and politicians made about the "dirty Trump insurrectionists" are entirely false. The vast majority of these men and women were simply protesters, who believed at the time that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen from them. Whether you agree with them or not about the results of the 2020 presidential election is irrelevant; they have the right to protest and they have the right to a voice. This right is protected constitutionally by the 1st Amendment. This is objective fact, and clearly a very inconvenient one for the political establishment on Capitol Hill, because they've been lying about these people for the last two years, claiming that they were committing "insurgency" on the capitol building (whatever the hell that means).

And so, the political establishment is angry at Tucker Carlson, for simply playing unedited video footage on his show. But perhaps the most hilarious demonstration of anger from any of these politicians and bureaucrats, comes from one, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, whose ridiculous rhetoric will have any level-headed individual laughing his or her ass off after watching the clip we've taken the liberty of iFraming below, courtesy of the Forbes Breaking News YouTube channel.

"Contempt of the facts!" exclaims Chuck Schumer, just seconds into the clip. "Disregard of the risks!" he says. "And knowing full-well he was lying !"

HAHAHAHA!!!!

Contempt of the facts?!?!! How, Chuck??! All he did was play unedited video of the incident. The video footage are the facts, literally. Unless your claim is that Tucker Carlson's staff doctored the footage somehow, how can you possibly claim his playing of the video footage is "contempt of the facts"?!?!

And disregard of the risks?!? What risks?!?! The risks that people might see you for the fraud that you truly are?!?! What other risks could you possibly be talking about, Chuck!??!

And "knowing full-well he was lying" ?!?! Lying about what exactly ?!? Again, all he did was play video footage of the incident. The video tape doesn't lie - so how can you possibly accuse Tucker Carlson in good faith of lying?!?!?

This is so laughable and ridiculous that watching the single video clip above alone is probably more entertaining than the entire first season of The Last Of Us on HBO Max.

Again, all this anger from the political establishment on Capitol Hill is only due to the fact that their own lies have been exposed. The video doesn't lie, and the political establishment's entire narrative of the "January 6th Insurrection" has now collapsed, thanks to Tucker Carlson Tonight 's brief January 6th special, on which C arlson played the unedited footage of the incident. Thank God we have at least one honest individual in the mainstream media.

Texans Should Vote To Secede From the U.S.

Wed, 08 Mar 2023 02:03:19 GMT

Lawmakers in Texas have filed a bill that would allow Texans to vote to secede from the U.S.A.

Texas lawmaker Rep. Bryan Slaton (R-Houston) filed a bill yesterday that, if passed by the state legislature, would allow Texans to vote to secede from the United States, according to his Twitter account.

If this passes, Texans should take the leap and vote to secede.

Texas' statehood doesn't benefit anyone involved. Most liberal states want them gone, considering it's a huge state which provides lots of electoral votes for the Republican candidate every presidential election cycle, and the majority of people in Texas clearly don't like the control that the increasingly liberal-leaning United States of America has over their state.

In fact, it would benefit everyone involved far more than not for Texas to secede. The "Texit" movement has been picking up steam for years, and it's now reached the tipping point, with SurveryUSA reporting that 66% of Texas voters favor secession from the United States .

Some new outlets have reported that Texas actually cannot legally secede . Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is, a government can do literally anything it wants to, regardless of what the federal government says. The marijuana legalization trend happening all over the country is proof of this. Marijuana is explicitly against federal law and remains a Schedule I substance, and yet most states have (rightly) ignored this law and created some sort of regulated market for the substance in their local jurisdictions. The federal government has done almost nothing about this (short of raiding some locally-owned dispensaries in the early days of legalization), because they really can't. There's nothing they can actually do to stop a state from violating federal law, short of starting a civil war with said state. Seems highly unlikely.

The same goes for state secession. The federal government can claim and write laws until the cows come home in attempt to prevent a state from doing anything it doesn't want it to do. But at the end of the day, if the citizens of a state want something, all they need to do is elect the politicians who tell them they'll enact the changes they'd like, or in the case of Texit, vote on behalf of the law itself. Much like state marijuana legalization, the only thing the federal government could actually do is sic its military on that state, which is already highly unlikely, and would undoubtedly be extremely unpopular with the American people.

That said, because the Democratic Party has become so pro-war over the past decade, it's certainly possible (although still unlikely) that (with the help of the talking heads in the mainstream media) the establishment could convince the Democratic constituency that going to war with a state that wants to secede and killing its citizens is in fact a good thing. There definitely are enough stupid people inside the Democratic Party establishment that will believe anything that MSNBC tells them, and MSNBC happens to be the most historically pro-war cable television network (besides perhaps the first twenty-some years of the existence of Fox News), so it would almost certainly be the first network to condone a federally-initiated civil war against a seceding state.

Texas should take the risk. Although evil, it's unlikely any American politician is evil enough to declare war on one of the states just for seceding. This is a very low-risk gamble for Texas, with a huge upside for everyone involved.

AOC Is Mad At Biden Because He Won't Veto An Anti-Crime Bill

Sun, 05 Mar 2023 03:58:42 GMT

Imagine wanting more lenient criminal penalties for murderers and rapists.

Some democrat lawmakers had their panties' in a bunch on Thursday after hearing that Joe Biden didn't intend to veto a bill that House Republicans passed which would rescind a D.C. law that gives more lenient penalties to violent criminals.

Yes, we're not joking - they're mad because Joe Biden doesn't want to veto an anti-crime bill. Of course, Biden signing the bill is the choice that he should make, considering America is currently in the middle of a terrible violent crime wave , and not to mention the fact that giving more lenient criminal penalties to murderers and rapists is obviously completely fucking idiotic; but for some reason, being soft on violent crime seems to be the Democratic Party's typical modus operandi these days.

Leading the charge against Biden's refusal to veto the anti-crime bill is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has an extremely stupid take on a very important issue, as per usual.

Biden tweeted on Thursday ( which we've embedded below) that even though he supports D.C. statehood (something that is actually more-than-likely unconstitutional, according to many scholarly interpretations of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. constitution), he doesn't support lowering penalties for violent criminals.

But Rep. Ocasio-Cortez apparently wasn't satisfied enough with Biden's support of likely-unconstitutional D.C. statehood but opposition of lenient violent crime laws in D.C.. " This is outrageous! It should be all or nothing!" AOC rationalized.

She quote-tweeted Biden with the response we've embedded below.

"This ain't it," tweeted AOC. We're not quite sure what the Congresswoman was referring to by "it," or why she felt compelled to use the Southern-slang word "ain't" instead of the grammatically-correct "isn't" but we digress...

She argued a pretty absurd non-sequitur in her tweet, claiming that if the POTUS truly supports D.C. statehood, then he should obviously veto the anti-crime bill. Of course, this argument makes absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever, but we should expect that from Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, who even though is probably a smart woman from what we can tell, often offers outrageously ridiculous and ignorant commentary on socio-political and economic issues.

Another cowardly lawmaker, who was too scared to even identify his or herself, told The Hill: "“F****** AMATEUR HOUR. HEADS SHOULD ROLL OVER AT THE WHITE HOUSE OVER THIS. The White House f***** this up royally.” It's unclear whether this was spoken or emailed to The Hill, as it was reported with the caps-locked and the letters in the word "fuck" asterisked out.

As usual, the Democrats in D.C. were acting so childish and unhinged that they gave us some pretty interesting content to laugh at them over. Thanks, morons!

Joe Biden Told The Country About His Sexiest Nurse Porn Fantasy

Fri, 03 Mar 2023 00:59:17 GMT

We must be living in a simulation...

In what was quite possibly the creepiest speech in all of presidential history two days ago, Joe Biden told the whole country about the kinkiest nurse porn fantasy he's ever had.

Joe Biden claimed in a disturbingly toned voice, that "[the nurse] would come in and do thing's that I don't think you'll learn in medical school-nursing school." That very creepy quote was followed by roaring laughter at the audience, and I'm not sure whether they were laughing at what they thought was a joke out of the president's mouth, or laughing at him for brazenly saying something so creepy.

"She'd whisper in my ear," claimed a cognitively-diminished Joe Biden. "She'd lean down [...] to make sure there was a human connection." I truly thank God he didn't say it was so he could get a good look down the top-front of her scrubs, which admittedly, when I heard the clip, was what I initially thought he was going to say.

We've taken the liberty of iFraming the short, disturbing clip below, so you don't have to go searching for it.

It's been very clear Joe Biden has been in a state of rapid cognitive decline since he began his presidential campaign back in 2019.

We're now at a point where his condition has worsened so much, he's now telling the country about his creepy nurse porn fantasies during what was supposed to be a speech about healthcare.

President Biden's cognitive condition is clearly in free-fall at this point. This is becoming a great concern to many, including us here at Ending Politics . In theory, being the POTUS is the toughest job on the planet, and it's extremely concerning that a man who is in this sort state is manning that position. It's even more concerning when you remember that Joe Biden's single most important responsibility as POTUS is acting as the Commander in Chief. What would happen if our country was attacked by a foreign military? How would Joe Biden react? It's scary to think about.

The David Pakman - Sam Seder War Was Hysterically Funny

Thu, 02 Mar 2023 00:01:37 GMT

The Pakman/Seder war is funny and unbearably stupid at the same time.

I love watching lefties tear each other apart - I think it's hilarious. One of the funniest examples of this of all time was watching David Pakman and Sam Seder tear each other apart on YouTube.

It's difficult to figure out exactly when, why, and how the war between these two started, but based on our research here at Ending Politics , it seems like it only started because Sam Seder believed David Pakman had effectively stolen his "backdrop" style from his show (We know, we know, it's fucking absolutely ridiculous). Why Sam Seder gives two shits about this at all deserves an investigation and article all-its-own, but I digress... Both of these guys are so tremendously stupid it's hard for me to determine whose side I'm on in this little scuffle they're having.

We've taken the liberty of iFraming a silly but funny video that sums up the beginning of this little "war" below. It's certainly much longer than it needs to be - as in true Sam Seder fashion, he drags out a joke that's really-not-all-that-funny in a video about 4 or 5 times longer than it should be.

But this war expanded hilariously when Sam Seder started to believe that David Pakman was purchasing subscriber bots for his YouTube channel. Much like the former, how Sam Seder could possibly care so much about something so minuscule deserves another investigation and article all-its-own, but I digress once again...

In the following clip which we've again taken the liberty of iFraming below, Sam Seder claims that "something fishy going on" with his "subscriber numbers," and then he illustrates on a piece of paper how he believes David Pakman's subscriber count should increase graphically. Sam Seder then insists someone should "investigate" David Pakman's YouTube channel subscriber numbers. Again, why and how Sam Seder could possibly give a shit about any of this is a mystery, but he certainly seemed quite angry about it.

Sam Seder then goes on a short, unfunny rant at the end claiming that David Pakman "slandered" him, which in all actuality, I can't determine whether he was joking about or not, given Sam Seder's frequent disingenuousness, as well as the fact that his jokes are never actually funnier then anything else he says. If he wasn't joking, and genuinely believed what Pakman said was slanderous, then I wonder just how easily Kyle Rittenhouse could win a defamation lawsuit against Seder for his irresponsible coverage of the Kenosha incident over the past couple years .

One of the funniest parts of the clips above though, is when Sam Seder claims that if he were to invite David Pakman onto his show, David Pakman would "steal" his subscribers. After thorough research here at EP, we're still not quite sure how one YouTuber can "steal subscribers" from another, as it's completely possible for one person to be subscribed to both Pakman's and Seder's channel simultaneously. But even if there wasn't, a "subscriber" is of course in no way a piece of property Sam Seder could legally claim belonged to him, therefore making it impossible to "steal" one. Didn't Sam Seder go to law school? What the fuck do they teach in law school these days?

But perhaps the funniest part of this YouTube "war," is that David Pakman, for some reason, actually took all this seriously enough to respond to this childish nonsense. We went ahead and iFramed one such clip from the David Pakman Show below for your entertainment.

On a side note, I almost spit my coffee all over my laptop screen when Pakman claims Seder's behavior is "very Trump-ian." HA!

And on yet another side note, the stupidity of the progressive-left never ceases to amaze me, as one mutual fan of theirs left a comment on the video above while he was blowing massive amounts of copium up his nose, because his two all-time favorite YouTubers were... GASP... feuding with each other! Yes, zipp930, the world as you know it is coming to an end! " No, this can't be real," zipp930 thought, " It's impossible for two super-smart progressives to ever dislike each other! "

I found this entire childish feud between Seder and Pakman to be absolutely hilarious, and I still can't fathom that two people could fight over such ridiculous nonsense, but here we are, able to watch all of it right on YouTube! I love watching the progressive regressives tear each other apart - it absolutely never gets old!!!

'Cocaine Bear' Is Highly Entertaining With Lots Of Cheap Thrills

Tue, 28 Feb 2023 23:13:05 GMT

'Cocaine Bear' is a fun action film with lots of cheap thrills and comedic relief

'Cocaine Bear' is a fun thrill-ride with lots of comic relief that will make for a great date night out with your significant other. A warning in advance: this article may contain some spoilers.

Simply put, the film follows a mother and a couple drug dealers that venture into the woods looking for her daughter and her friend, and their boss' lost cocaine, respectively.

Ice Cube's son, O'Shea Jackson Jr. as "Daveed" was definitely the film's standout performance, along with the late Ray Liotta playing "Syd White," the primary supporting character.

This film has a ton of cheap thrills, which usually consist of the primary titular antagonist, a bear that's very high on cocaine, violently tearing people apart.

There were several very memorable action sequences in this film, all of which are hilarious. From a failed police officer turned park ranger accidentally blowing the brains right out of a teenager's head while trying to hide from the bear, to an environmentalist getting his leg torn off and dropped dozens of feet from a tree, to the same park ranger being inertially thrown from a speeding ambulance to a violent death that ends with her bloody corpse smeared all over a nearby country road.

The bear's behavior while jacked up on cocaine is absolutely hysterical. By the end of the movie, the bear had ingested enough cocaine to kill Pablo Escobar a couple dozen times over. Some of the best laughs in the movie come from watching the wild-eyed bear ingest cocaine, which we learn early on in the movie that she clearly loves (we also eventually learn that the bear is in fact a female, after she crashed and passed out with her vagina on the face of "Eddie," one of the main characters).

It's also hilarious to watch two teenagers try cocaine for the first time in their lives. I enjoyed a belly-aching laugh after hearing "Henry," the male teen, recommend his friend "Dee Dee" try about "a teaspoon full" of cocaine, while trying to sound like an experienced drug user in order to impress her. Taking his advice, Dee Dee pulls out a heaping scoop of cocaine out of the brick kilo they found in the woods using Henry's pocketknife, attempts to orally ingest it, and spits out most of it due to the bitter taste of it which she clearly didn't expect.

And, one of the most memorable scenes starts around the beginning of the third act, when an interestingly comedic standoff between drug dealers Daveed and Eddie, and a detective looking to bring down Syd White, after they arrive at a suspected landing point of one of the cocaine-filled duffel bags... which is of course eventually interrupted by the bear, who at this point is very intoxicated, as well as Syd White himself.

This movie is a thrill-ride until the last moments, when the ending scenes seem to play out satisfyingly well... and almost... touching, in a way. Do yourself a favor and go see it, as it will serve as a great end to your work week this Friday night.

Dr. Fauci Should Be Held Accountable For Lying About COVID Origins

Tue, 28 Feb 2023 01:31:48 GMT

Dr. Fauci is a disgraceful liar.

The headlines have completely blown up this week, after the U.S. Energy Dept. concluded that the coronavirus that has run rampant across the globe for the past few years likely originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China.

This finding comes years after the "lab leak theory" (as it's known colloquially) was branded as a "racist conspiracy theory" by the mainstream media and many on the left.

Despite the fact that this "lab leak theory" is now all but proven, the many mainstream media talking-heads still have yet to apologize for their despicable attacks on their fellow Americans, as well as one Dr. Anthony Fauci, former (and now disgraced) head of the NIAID and frontman for the coronavirus task force, whose dishonesty over the past few years created yet another rift in the ever-expanding political divide in America.

Despite the fact that figuring out where the coronavirus originated should not be a political issue in any way whatsoever, Dr. Anthony Fauci used his power to influence the mainstream media to weaponize the "lab leak theory" against their right-wing political opponents, despite it not actually being an exclusively right-wing hypothesis. In fact, for years now, many prominent left-wing figures have hypothesized that coronavirus came from a lab including Bret Weinstein, Jon Stewart, and Jimmy Dore.

But the "lab leak theory" was weaponized by establishment left-wing media; at the beginning, probably to discredit Donald Trump and weaken his chances for reelection, but then continued most likely to prop up Dr. Anthony Fauci's legitimacy as Chief Medical Advisor, despite rapidly increasing pressure and scrutiny from his opposers, most-notably Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who also happens to be a medical doctor. Rand Paul's scraps with Dr. Fauci during the Committee of Health hearings have become quite popular on YouTube, normally due to Dr. Fauci's child-like temper loss.

But Rand Paul's questions for Fauci during these hearings were appropriate and necessary. Dr. Fauci, at the time, was advocating for continuous economy-crushing lockdowns, unnecessary mask-wearing and vaccine mandates. And, he continued to hide his knowledge of a probable coronavirus lab leak, where the coronavirus most likely originated . He also provably committed perjury at these senate hearings, claiming that the NIH was not funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, a claim that has been refuted by the NIH itself . Dr. Fauci's temper tantrums were uncalled for, and only raises further suspicion of wrongdoing. Why would he get so mad if he'd done nothing wrong?

But most egregiously, Dr. Fauci denied knowledge of a probable lab leak in Wuhan, which he'd been privied to at the beginning of the pandemic in his briefings, which were almost certainly intentionally kept private due to his own self-interest in the briefings. Dr. Fauci undermined the American public's trust in him when he tried to cover his own ass, as well as his good friend's Dr. Peter Daszak, in their unscientific and biased efforts to disprove the highly credible lab leak theory . Even though we have documented evidence this, Dr. Anthony Fauci has abdicated his responsibility to apologize and set the record straight, perhaps because he knows coming clean about his wrongdoings would open him up to potential criminal & civil liability. This shouldn't matter though, Dr. Fauci has a civic duty to tell the public the truth, and to admit his mistakes when he makes them. He's disgracefully failed to do both of these and should be held accountable for his actions - not only for his initial wrongdoing of funding illegal gain-of-function research in Wuhan and then perjuring himself in front of Congress, but also for weaponizing the mainstream media and American-left against his dissenters for hypothesizing (probably correctly) that the coronavirus originated in a laboratory in Wuhan.

Climate Change Activists Don't Seem To Care About East Palestine

Sat, 25 Feb 2023 03:23:43 GMT

In the aftermath of the catastrophe in East Palestine, climate activists are still nowhere to be found.

At the time of this writing, it's been almost 3 weeks since the catastrophic train derailment in Ohio, and the disaster has been absolutely devastating to the environment and citizens of East Palestine and beyond.

Perhaps the biggest environmental casualty has been the Ohio River water that runs through East Palestine. How much this disaster will pollute the rest of the Ohio River is still unknown, although it's likely that everything that runs downstream from where the event occurred will be affected in some way.

Currently, the mainstream media has been running interference for the government's pathetic, sub-par response to the disaster, claiming that "more testing is needed" to determine whether or not East Palestine's water supply has been affected , even though we already have photographic evidence of water that has been polluted from the hazardous chemicals released from the train derailment.

Of course, it's an absolutely absurd claim that "more testing is needed" to determine whether or not East Palestine's water was polluted when we have photographic evidence of pollutants in the water, but mainstream news outlets like ABC have no issue pushing this sort of offensive propaganda on behalf of the United States government. Interestingly enough though, it seems to be mostly left-leaning people and news outlets making excuses for the U.S. government's poor response to this environmental disaster. Traditionally, the American left has been far more politically active for environmental issues than the right. So why are they making excuses for the government's poor response to this?

Personally, I can only surmise that the American left has been unexpectedly silent on this issue because the disaster and poor response to it happened on a Democrat president's watch, and not a Republican's. I can't even imagine how vocal the American left would have been had all this happened on the watch of former POTUS Donald Trump. My bet is that ABC certainly would not have claimed that "more testing is needed" to determine whether or not East Palestine's water supply was polluted if it happened during the Trump presidency. In fact, my bet is that they would've used the exact photos in their newscasts that environmental activist Erin Brockovich posted to her Twitter account earlier today (From our research, it seems Erin Brockovich is the only popular environmental activist to visit East Palestine, or even mention the incident at all).

But of all the mainstream climate activists who have accumulated quite a large amount of wealth and fame specifically for their vocal stances on climate change, the loudest silence seems to come from 20-year-old Greta Thunberg, who according to Finty, has accumulated an estimated net worth of $1 million, presumably exclusively from her vocal stance on climate change. At the time of this writing, not only has Greta Thunberg not visited East Palestine, but has been completely silent on the issue. We cannot find a single statement from her made anywhere on the internet regarding the disaster. Interestingly enough though, she was able to make a statement regarding money allocation to climate change efforts 10 days after the catastrophe , with no mention of the incident whatsoever, according to The Hill. But hilariously (or not so hilariously), she did find time while making her statement to complain about governments not allocating enough resources to climate change in their COVID-19 relief packages (which were meant specifically to keep small businesses and families afloat during government-mandated lockdowns). This made her silence on the disaster in East Palestine all the louder. We reached out to The Greta Thunberg Foundation for comment, and as of this writing, we haven't heard back. We will update this article if/when we do.

But the single-most offensive climate activist silence came from the Joe Biden administration itself. Many of his cabinet members also happened to be his political opponents for the Democratic nomination just a few years earlier, and all of whom ranted and raved about environmentalism during their campaigns. Turns out when the rubber hits the road, none of them actually care very much. In fact, earlier today, Joe Biden told the White House press that he had no intention of visiting East Palestine at all.

Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg has visited East Palestine though, granted extremely late. He didn't even arrive in East Palestine until yesterday, 20 days after the disaster occurred. Buttigieg's appearance in East Palestine was also extraordinarily offensive, as he avoided some questions from the press altogether, and his press secretary (the secretary of the secretary) actually insisted a reporter turn off her camera before she'd offer a statement to her , claiming she thought the reporter questioning her on camera was "a little bit aggressive."

When Secretary Pete Buttigieg did offer a public statement to the press, it could only be described as vague and political, at best. He said "we've been here from the first hours of the incident..." We're not sure what he means by "we," because it took him a good 20 days to arrive in East Palestine after the incident. Then, Buttigieg's team had the gall to put this incredibly offensive video clip on his Twitter account, which we've taken the liberty of posting below.

We should also note that Secretary Buttigieg pushed the blame entirely on Norfolk Southern (the logistics company that owned the train that derailed), and took no responsibility for the extremely dangerous condition of the railroad tracks in Ohio , despite Congress passing a one-trillion-dollar infrastructure bill in November 2021 (of which, a good chunk actually wasn't allocated to infrastructure).

It seem s that the climate change activists' silence on the disaster in East Palestine is entirely political. It's too much of a coincidence that their silence on a major environmental disaster just happens to come at a time when it would be extremely politically-inconvenient for them. The more time that goes by without hearing from the climate activists regarding this disaster, the more apparent it becomes that they're only interested in advocating for environmental well-being when it involves spending money for the cause (especially when the federal reserve has to print it to meet their political demands), or when it's politically convenient for the Democratic National Committee.

Kotaku's Ashley Bardhan Is Dead Wrong About RE7's Ethan Winters

Thu, 23 Feb 2023 02:51:19 GMT

What the fuck is Journalist Ashley Bardhan even talking about?

Ashley Bardhan, gaming journalist over at Kotaku.com, which covers God-knows-what, authored the most idiotic article ever written this past October , claiming (in a very wokeist fashion) that Resident Evil 7 's Ethan Winters and Silent Hills James Sunderland are not only the "same boring protagonist," but also inherently terrible people - and of course, these interpretations are completely incorrect and idiotic, at least as far as Ethan Winters goes.

Now admittedly, there are many interpretations of Silent Hill's James Sunderland, because of his character's backstory and what he experiences during his time in the fictional town of Silent Hill (and why), so we'll ignore Bardhan's interpretation of him in this article and focus completely on Winters, whom she is provably wrong about on all fronts.

For those unfamiliar with Resident Evil 7 and Resident Evil: Village , Ethan Winters is the protagonist of both games, which tell the story of him of his family members being taken from him in a series of tragic circumstances completely beyond his control. In 7 , his wife tragically goes missing while traveling for work before she mysteriously emails him three years later asking Ethan to "come get her" in Dulvey, Louisiana. (Spoiler) We find out later on in the game that it wasn't actually his wife who sent him the email. And in Village, his daughter is kidnapped and his wife murdered right in front of him by former RE protagonist Chris Redfield. (Another spoiler) We find out later that he has good reasons for doing this.

Now that we're all caught up, we can disprove Bardhan's idiotic and poorly-written article. Sorry to "mansplain" to you, Ashley, but you need a good, metaphorical slap-in-the-face with some facts and logic.

As far as Resident Evil 7 's plot goes, we wouldn't be able to empathize more with Ethan Winters even if the writers had somehow been able to make him more innocent and compassionate. Ethan Winters waited for years, hoping to hear anything, to be given any clue or sign, that his wife might be alive, even though everyone else has presumed her dead. He didn't fall in love with, or even date any other women during this time. He just waited and waited, in hopes that one day she might miraculously turn up alive. Then when after three years, when he finally was given that sign, he courageously ventured into a terrifying, abandoned plantation, in which we find out very early on in the game that terribly violent and scary things had happened. Then, even after finding his wife possessed inside the farm house in the middle of the plantation, and violently attacking him, he still didn't give up on her, and risked his life trying to find her in this house of horrors. He encountered black mold-monsters, a terrifyingly violent and strong possessed man, and even woman that could turn into an arachnid - and he never gave up. He fought through hell on earth in hopes that, somehow, he'd be able to beat the odds and bring home with him the woman he loved more than anything.

At the beginning of Resident Evil 7 , we learn very quickly that Ethan Winters is no fighter. Unlike many video game protagonists, he had no prior combat training, no similar experience to this, and he was evidently terrified of what he was up against. It didn't matter - he courageously pressed onward, searching for the woman that he was still very much in love with, even though he hadn't seen her in years. And by the end of the game, (spoiler alert) we'd witnessed a true underdog story - and saw Ethan Winters realizing the full potential he had inside him all along - he was a badass, who would not let anyone or anything stand in his way of saving his wife.

But badassery in the world of wokeness is the most unforgivable sin, especially for men, whom Ashley Bardhan very clearly hates. As Bardhan herself puts it, "I wish their games would give me anything to admire or empathize within these men we spend hours playing as." I suppose fighting through hell to save your estranged wife isn't particularly admirable, according to Bardhan. But what about saving your kidnapped daughter? Well, apparently, that's not particularly admirable either.

In Resident Evil: Village Ethan Winters once again fights through hell on earth (albeit on a different part of the Earth) to find his daughter after witnessing her kidnapping and the murder of his wife, whom he'd risked his life to save years earlier.

This time, he faces hordes of mold-spawned lycans, and people-turned-science-experiments including a ten foot tall vampire woman and a man who can control metal, just to name a couple. Even though for the player, Resident Evil: Village might not be as dark and scary as RE7 was as a video game, but one would expectedly be far more scared in the former if one was actually living the situation, as the enemies are faster, far more dangerous, and there are many more of them. Understanding this makes Ethan Winters even more admirable. But even after being thrown a curveball, and finding his daughter already severed into 4 pieces in jars, he still presses onward through this living hell, on the off-chance that some sort of mold-magic might be able to resurrect his daughter from her ill-fated death.

But Ashley Bardhan is convinced that this is all some sort of poorly-written, toxically-masculine protagonist whose role really should have been replaced by his "more interesting" wife. Wow, Ashley, your opinion objectively sucks. But please, forgive me for "mansplaining" the last couple Resident Evil games' protagonist to you.

Ethan Winters gave his family everything he was, and that includes his own life, (spoiler alert) as he sacrificed it at the end of RE: Village to ensure that the mutamycete hivemind that caused all this in the first place was completely destroyed. Boring! claims Ashley Bardhan. Sorry, not admirable, empathetic, or interesting! claims Ashley Bardhan. We should've been able to play as his wife instead! claims Ashley Bardhan.

Absolutely shocking.

On a final note, to you personally Ashley, and I know you will read this eventually, because you're far too narcissistic to avoid reading an article written about you - there are actually many more statements in your article that don't even make sense at all. "I believe Ethan [... is ...] capable of accidentally inflicting death and venereal disease upon an entire continent." Uh... what? What in fuck's name are you talking about, exactly? What venereal disease are you talking about here? This makes absolutely no sense at all. Unless, (spoiler alert) you're claiming that Ethan Winter's mold-infection we learn about at the end of RE: Village can be sexually transmitted; and I see no evidence for that, as Mia and Ethan clearly had sex after the events of RE7 to conceive Rosemary Winters, and Mia wasn't reinfected by the mold. Not to mention, I had to do some serious mental gymnastics to come up with that scenario a minute ago just to attempt to make sense of your statement.

Also, "I suppose men like Leonardo DiCaprio have been doing it for decades and we still reward them with more movies and 24-year-old girlfriends ." What the fuck? The last time I checked, 24 is way older than the age of consent in the country we both live in. Why does that piss you off so much? Are you bitter ? And what in fuck's name does this have to do with Resident Evil? Leonardo DiCaprio can date whoever the fuck he wants to, and you really shouldn't care. Why don't you go find a handsome guy to love who's much older and richer than you, if you're truly that jealous of his girlfriends?

"In her 1993 book New Maladies of the Soul , in exploring “who still has a soul,” psychoanalyst and critic Julia Kristeva writes that “held back by his aloofness, modern man is a narcissist—a narcissist who may suffer, but who feels no remorse.” WHAT THE FUCK?!?!? I'm not even going to attempt to make sense of that paragraph, or the one that follows. Although... it's interesting how you chose a passage about narcissism... projecting, much?

And finally, "Columbus, who was famously too stupid for spatial awareness..." Even though this sentence is far from the most grammatically eloquent I've read in my lifetime, I'll attempt to address what I think is your grievance here. Just so you know, Columbus running into the continent we now call North America is arguably the most important event in scientific history. If you don't understand why, I'll direct you to this clip of Neil DeGrasse Tyson explaining why on the Joe Rogan Experience . Maybe that will fix your ignorance.

Ashley Bardhan, please quit your job, you fucking idiot. Sorry again for "mansplaining."

Is The United States Of America Collapsing?

Fri, 17 Feb 2023 01:53:00 GMT

The U.S.A. appears to be in a slow state of collapse.

It becomes clearer and clearer every day that goes by that the United States of America is in a slow state of collapse.

So how did we get here?

This will be a question that economists, historians, and political scientists will debate for generations, after the fateful day when the U.S.A. finally does collapse. If you're reading this on the day this article is posted, it will almost certainly happen within your lifetime.

Lesser-of-two-evil voting has always been a naturally-occurring problem within our duopolistic political system. Many people in the United States, regardless of their knowledge (or lack there of) of social issues or economics, have always voted by simply picking the candidate that had either an "R" or "D" next to their name, and their decision of which letter they choose is usually dictated entirely by which letter they've been picking their entire lives prior. This has created a problem in our political system, in which a truly shitty candidate is always guaranteed to win, because there is an artificially-created duopoly in our political system, and because most people are content with living in an authoritarian country (a natural consequence of lesser-of-two-evil voting), as long as they feel "safe" in the given moment they happen to be standing at their local ballot box. And because a truly shitty candidate is always guaranteed to win, we're in turn always guaranteed to be governed with truly shitty policies.

This leads me to my next point: The truly shitty policies that we're guaranteed to be governed with has led us to a point where our country is facing a debt crisis. We're now well over $30 trillion in debt, because of frivolous spending to fund the policies of a government that hasn't been good at allocating resources for over a century.

What exactly have we spent thirty-trillion dollars on? We've certainly spent a good bit of it involving ourselves in conflicts overseas in which we had no business being involved. George W. Bush (whom I'd still consider the single-worst president of my lifetime) had no issue throwing trillions of dollars into searching for non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Whoops, turns out we were wrong! claimed Bush after-the-fact. Sorry, too late; that money's already been spent - and it went right into the pockets of corporations like Lockheed-Martin and Raytheon. Wow, Lockheed-Martin and Raytheon have created so much value for our economy! What do we have to show for it, you ask? Well, lots of dead bodies overseas, and a lot of dead American soldiers, for starters!

And of course, there's been plenty of other wasteful spending. Our huge welfare state (the biggest in the world), the creation of welfare states in other countries (from which, our country sees no benefit from whatsoever), the drug war (probably the most detrimental unconstitutional police-action our country has ever engaged in), and of course, we cannot forget the recent War on the Invisible Enemy: COVID-19. What a success our War on Coronavirus turned out to be - drug & alcohol addiction skyrocketed, a suicide count we'll never truly know because our government still won't release those numbers (and likely never will), stolen education from our children ( which will take a half a decade to recover from ), a country completely divided, and over five-trillion dollars spent ... and the end-game is we're all going to catch the coronavirus anyway. Wow, now that was money well-spent!!!

And this is a great segue into my next point: the debt-crisis will be the catalyst for what will really be the collapse of the United States of America, a dollar crisis.

I believe that the death of our country will be hyperinflation, the same as all the complex societies that came before us. History repeats itself, because for some reason, humans don't seem to learn from their mistakes. I've written before here at Ending Politics about the policies of the U.S. Central Bank, and how their reckless money printing will turn us into Venezuela before most people can even figure out what's happening. The policies of the federal reserve have made a select few people very rich at the expense of the rest of us, and the U.S. government's propaganda machine has done a fantastic job of convincing the American people that everything's just fine. "We want money-printing!" claim the talking-heads on MSNBC (as well as Fox News, whenever it happens to be convenient f or good ol' Rupert Murdoch), and American citizens believe them, because they know the people telling them this make several million dollars a year. "They're rich and wealthy, and they're on TV... so they must be smarter than us!" say the voices inside American citizens' heads, completely unaware that every dollar the federal reserve prints steals the value of the money they're earning or have already saved. The elites have been quite good at playing the game this way, because they know the vast majority of the American people don't understand what's going on. Economics isn't necessarily a complex subject, but it's quite boring and requires some studying - things Americans simply don't want to do anymore.

But what the American people fail to understand is, once the dollar finally collapses, everything around them will quickly either cease to exist, or become far too expensive for them to afford. A loaf of bread, a roll of toilet paper, or even a dozen eggs ( which we're learning right now is one of the first commodities to become too expensive ) will suddenly become far too pricey for anyone, simply because there are more dollars chasing the same amount of produced goods.

Currently, there's no visible light at the end of the tunnel. We keep digging ourselves deeper and deeper into this hole without ever thinking about what sort of irreparable damage this could cause us in the future, and this will be what causes the American empire to collapse.

Could We Have Medicare-For-All In The United States?

Sat, 11 Feb 2023 01:03:05 GMT

"There are no solutions, there are only trade-offs."

-Thomas Sowell

Comedian Jimmy Dore once spoke to former POTUS Donald Trump through the television screen on Tucker Carlson's talk show on Fox News, and told him "if you give the American people healthcare, you will get your face on Mt. Rushmore."

Jimmy Dore was probably correct. The data is clear; it does seem the majority of the country believes all Americans have access to healthcare, and that it should be paid for through our taxes.

But would it actually work out the way we want it to? As the great economic thinker Thomas Sowell once said, "there are no solutions, there are only trade-offs." I believe Thomas Sowell's sentiment about the economy is correct.

On the other hand, scumbag politicians like Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would like us to believe that the American people will just be able to purchase medicare-for-all without any adverse economic effects or quality disruptions. To most reasonable people, this seems pie-in-sky, and they're right. It seems pie-in-sky because in fact, it is pie-in-sky.

That doesn't mean we can't have medicare-for-all in this country - we actually very well could, but it would come at a price, as well as lots of "trade-offs" - the sort Thomas Sowell spoke about. The idea that we can all just hold hands, vote for medicare-for-all, and usher in the utopia is an absolutely absurd concept, and everyone that's thought about it for longer than 5-second timespans knows that.

To have medicare-for-all in this country, we have to understand first that a lot would change in America's healthcare industry. The first thing that would change is we'd most likely experience a major quality decline in our healthcare. Currently, the most vocal medicare-for-all advocates don't understand that the reason why the U.S.A. has the best quality healthcare in the world, is because there currently exists a profit-incentive that makes it that way. Large corporations invest sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D to design, research, develop, synthesize, and then manufacture new medicines that cure sometimes the rarest and deadliest of diseases. And what these very vocal medicare-for-all advocates need to realize is that there's never any guarantee for these companies that this very-expensive R&D will be fruitful. There's risk behind any investment, and that includes research and development investments for healthcare and pharmaceutical companies. This is also part of the reason why the U.S. federal government has been so hesitant to shorten the patent periods for newly-invented medicines. These long patent periods give pharmaceutical companies extra incentive to invest into R&D to create these medicines. The longer the patent period, the longer it guarantees a company that is successful in creating an extraordinary new medicine to collect huge amounts of residual return-on-investment after-the-fact. These (possibly somewhat-corporatist) laws are some of the biggest reasons America has been able to have the best quality healthcare in the world for so long. Take away these laws, and the amount of capital investment in pharmaceutical and technological R&D will decline, and in turn, there will also be a qualitative decline in America's healthcare system.

Now, does that mean America will immediately go back to the stone age of medicine? No, of course not. But there will be a drastic slowdown in progress, and if Americans truly want medicare-for-all, that's a trade-off they will inevitably have to make. There's that word again.

Keep in mind, these same profit incentives also inspire the best and brightest of people in our society to attend medical school. It also incentivizes them to pick a specific, highly-niched field of medical expertise, whether it be breast cancer research, virology, or laser eye surgery, as well as a litany of others. Take away that profit incentive for the individual doctors (which you will in a medicare-for-all system), and you'll take away more of that world-renowned quality in healthcare we have here in the United States. Does that mean we'll run out of doctors the day after we switch over to a medicare-for-all system? Again, of course not. But there will be a drop of quality, and this is something the current Bernie Sanders-loving medicare-for-all advocates seemingly don't understand.

The trade-off we'll make for this drop in quality would be universality. We'd take everyone in whenever they were sick, and we'd work as hard as we can to treat them - but you should know that ten years after we make the big switch, we won't be able to see what we could've had as far as medicines and medical technology with the "old-fashioned" patent-protected profit incentives we have now.

Now some might say we wouldn't have to sacrifice those things, because the government could just pay these profit-incentivized companies to do the same work they're doing now! But how much would that cost? Government contracts and partnerships don't work the same way as free-market contracts and partnerships do. Ask any CEO of a company that primarily does its business with the government... they'll all say the same thing - the secret behind their big successes is padding those fat government invoices! It's all but guaranteed that having a medicare-for-all system like the one I've described in this paragraph would be completely unaffordable for the American people, even through taxes. And even if it was, we certainly wouldn't be able to afford that, plus all the other social welfare entitlements we're paying for right now. Even if we decided to ditch all the other social welfare programs in favor of a medicare-for-all system such as this, we'd still probably be paying much heavier taxes than we are right now.

Medicare-for-all in America is certainly possible. We could do it, but it would come at a cost, and it would come with trade-offs. Those who believe otherwise are just being naive; either that or they don't actually believe it at all - they're just lying. It's quite possible though that medicare-for-all may even be the better choice for the American healthcare system, but it would look much different than it does right now, and you shouldn't let some lying, charismatic politician fool you into believing otherwise.

EndingPolitics.com Sub-Reddit Banned From Reddit.com

Thu, 09 Feb 2023 01:56:50 GMT

The establishment hates us.

It seems like it was only yesterday when our u/EndingPolitics handle was banned from the r/Economics sub-reddit on Reddit.com for posting an (accurately written) article that the other users didn't like and made them very upset. :'(

But over the weekend, our exclusive r/EndingPolitics sub-reddit was completely banned from Reddit.com. We'd made it specifically so that Reddit users could easily find and join it to easily get updates from our blog without having to directly visit our homepage every day, and only used it as such.

But the moderators over at Reddit.com, who clearly have large sticks (or maybe fat logs) lodged firmly in their anuses, weren't having any of it! We can only picture in our minds a fat, disgusting Reddit moderator with pulsating white-head acne all over his face and sweat pouring down his forehead, so much so that it's fogging up his nerd-glasses, crushing in anger his freshly-chugged 12 oz. can of sugary Mountain Dew: Code Red screaming "fuck these EndingPolitics.com assholes!" and then violently throwing down his ban-hammer on our sub-reddit.

It's noteworthy that our sub-reddit had only a small few members at the time, and was only used to post links to our new blog articles. No other user was allowed to post to the sub-reddit, and we'd never posted anything else to it besides blog links. We should mention though, that currently our u/EndingPolitics handle does still exist, although we cannot post anything from it at the time of this writing.

This all begs the question: why was our sub-reddit banned exactly? What rule did we violate here?

These are great questions, and ones to which we currently do not have answers. We attempted to reach out to the Reddit moderators for the answers to these questions, and for any comment for this article, and at the time of this writing, we've not heard back. We can only speculate of course, but we believe they've not responded because of their own blatant cowardice (prove us wrong if you're reading this, Reddit mods!).

We're surmising on this as well, but we believe our sub-reddit ban probably has something to do with the anti-establishment content we write on our website. We surmise that the Reddit.com overlords just don't like it; they hate that we're telling the truth here, and are doing anything they can do silence us. We'll just ban them... that should shut them up!!!!

Well, unfortunately for you Reddit mods, unlike Reddit.com, you don't own EndingPolitics.com. You can ban us from your site, but you can't ban us from writing articles here on our site. You can certainly try if you so choose to waste your time. You can contact our hosting provider if you're smart enough to figure out how to do that (something tells us you're probably not), but even if our hosting provider caves to you (and we highly doubt they would), you still won't be able to shut us up. We'd just switch hosting providers to an overseas company, one that you have absolutely no influence over whatsoever.

On another note, the Reddit.com overlords even had the gall to remove a blog link from our user profile , calling it "spam." Spam on our own profile page??! That's quite a stretch, don't you think, Reddit-mod scumbags?!?

On some level though, we're almost honored. The fact that Reddit.com is this terrified of us reaffirms that we're doing a great job exposing the establishment. We can only hope Reddit.com's efforts backfire; and that this creates some sort of Streisand effect, drawing even more organic traffic to our website.

Until then, fuck you Reddit scum. You're a bunch of fucking cowards.

The Most Ridiculous State Of The Union Address Ever

Wed, 08 Feb 2023 03:26:24 GMT

Well... that sucked.

The clock strikes 9:02, and Joe Biden isn't anywhere to be seen. I made sure I was in front of my laptop at 9 o' clock sharp, as that's the time and place any reputable news website anywhere on the internet told me to be.

For some reason, I'm nervous. Why? It's only the stupid State of the Union. Where the hell is Joe Biden?? Why isn't he on stage yet?!?! Finally, after what seemed like an eternity in only a 4-minute timespan, Joe Biden appears on the House floor at 9:04 PM, and starts shaking hands with all the scumbag politicians we all love to hate.

This is going on for awhile. Why hasn't he gotten on stage yet? Why is he making small talk with all these politicians when he's supposed to be giving the highly-anticipated State of the Union address?? This is annoying. Just get in front of the goddamn podium.

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. It's 9:09 and Joe Biden still hasn't started speaking yet. He's still just shaking hands with people and all the shitbag politicians are cheering for no reason.

Finally, Joe Biden starts talking right just before the clock strikes 9:10. He starts with a joke. Something about his wife going to a football game that he's "not allowed to go to," or something. What the fuck? That's not funny. It doesn't even make sense. Why is everyone laughing?

At 9:12, Ol' Uncle Joe is still introducing people. He introduces Nancy Pelosi as the "greatest speaker of the house [we've ever had]." What the fuck? I didn't even know this bitch was still alive. Where the hell did she come from?

9:14 PM. Joe Biden is claiming that the Democucks and Republicucks are working together? On what, exactly? Starting foreign wars? Giving the American peoples' hard-earned money to Ukraine? Pretending to pardon federal marijuana offenders who weren't sitting in federal prison in the first place ?? What the fuck?

9:16 PM. Joe Biden is talking about the middle class, which he hates. He's going on about rust belt factories, manufacturing moving overseas, building an economy from the bottom-up, blah blah blah, all the usual horseshit.

Joe Biden says we're at a "near-record unemployment" rate. First of all, a "near-record"? So what? Who cares about a record we haven't made yet. Second of all, these unemployment numbers are rigged, just like every presidential candidate (correctly) always claims to jab at the sitting president.

9:19PM. Joe Biden blames his and Trump's inflation problem on a "pandemic" (as if a virus could walk into the federal reserve, influence its chairperson, and print trillions of dollars) and on Vladimir Putin (who also has absolutely no control over the American central bank).

9:21 PM. Joe Biden promises the American people that the "supply chains will begin in America." Really, Uncle Joe? And how do you plan on doing that exactly? Are you going to order all American companies to manufacture their products in America? And even if that is in fact your cockamamie scheme, how do you plan on enforcing such a mandate, exactly? What a bunch of nonsense.

9:23 PM. Joe Biden claims we're gonna fix America's infrastructure. Uhhh, what?!?!? Your congress, Joe, passed the "Infrastructure Act" back in 2021, and our infrastructure still sucks ass. Are we going to pass another worthless infrastructure bill that won't actually fix our infrastructure?!! What the fuck is Joe Biden talking about?!?! "I'll see you at the groundbreaking!" exclaims Joe Biden. What a liar. What a moron.

9:26 PM. Joe Biden says something about "cowboys in the sky." What the fuck is going on here? What the fuck is this guy talking about?!!?

Joe Biden then returns to his infrastructure spiel. He claims every piece of infrastructure is going to be made here in America. Oh nice, that sounds really affordable.

Then, he claims we're going to get high-speed internet to every person in America. Is there anyone even left in America that doesn't have high-speed internet that actually wants it?? If so, how many, and where do they live exactly?!?? He must be talking about the five people that live in Grafton, New Hampshire.

9:30 PM. Joe Biden says we have a prescription drug cost problem. Okay.... That may be true . But what are you going to do about it, exactly ? We've heard this same spiel about drug prices in America since the early 90s... and these shitbag politicians still haven't done anything about it. Sounds like more bullshit with no action. Joe Biden then brags about capping the cost of insulin for seniors at $35. Oh great, I forgot it's only seniors in this country that have diabetes! And wait a minute, aren't all seniors in this country on Medicare?!? Did Medicare not cover the cost of insulin before the price cap?? What the fuck is this guy talking about??

9:36 PM. Joe Biden brags about tax credits for electric vehicles. Oh nice, because that's what on the American peoples' minds right now, climate change! Not how they're going to put their next meal on the table with our biggest inflation problem in decades. It's climate change we're all worried about!!! I suppose Joe Biden thinks the American people are going to spend the food money they don't have on a $40,000 Tesla. Joe Biden's a very smart guy!!!

9:37 PM. Joe Biden says the golden buzz-sentence. Pay your fair share!!! Ya can't utter that phrase in Congress without roaring applause from every Democrat in the room!

9:41 PM. Joe Biden tells what might be his biggest whopper of the night - that he decreased the deficit by $1.7 trillion dollars! Nice job, Joe! Thank you so much! You lowered the deficit that was risen during a pandemic that your own party actually cheered on for three years, keeping us locked down, passing insane spending bills, and justifying it by pretending it was dangerous to children!

9:45 PM. At this point, I'm starting to get a headache from all this nonsense and disingenuousness. Oh god, please let this stupid SOTU address end soon.

9:52 PM. Joe Biden says we need more education. He claims the rest of the world has caught up to us (which he says as if it's a bad thing)! He says "12 years of education isn't enough!" Then immediately follows this remark with free pre-school. Free pre-school, Joe? How exactly is free pre-school going to prepare the American people for the work force?!? Also, instead of adding more years of socialized education, why not just modernize and improve the worthless curriculums we teach our young people in school right now?!?
This would essentially be cost-free by the way, as the currently-employed Directors of Curriculums all over the U.S. could easily do this during their 8 hour workdays. Trust me, we're never going to have that easy conversation in this country though... because it wouldn't cost any money.

10:00 PM. Joe Biden refers to Tyre Nichols as "Tyler." Jesus fuck, dude.

10:04 PM. Joe Biden says "semi-automatic pistol." Huh?? Are there any pistols that aren't semi-automatic in 2023?? Then after talking about "semi-automatic pistols" for two minutes, Joe Biden follows up his point by yelling "Ban assault weapons!" What the actual fuck??!?

10:14 PM. Joe Biden roars about big-tech "collecting data on our children!" How dare these big tech companies!?! How dare they advertise products to children?!?! Oh wait, Mattel, Hasbro, Kelloggs, and Lisa Frank did that for generations on Nickelodeon and Joe Biden never said a fucking word about it.

10:17 PM. My vision's blurring. My head's pounding. I can't do this for too much longer. The political disingenuousness is too much for me to take.

10:19 PM. "Democracy, democracy, democracy!" says Joe Biden. But wait... oh no... democracy is being challenged.... or at least it was ... on January 6th! "Hate and extremism!" yells Joe Biden. Then he asks Paul Pelosi to stand up... what the fuck?! Was Paul Pelosi even near the capitol on January 6th?? Doesn't he live in fucking California?!?! What the fuck is Joe Biden talking about right now?!! What the fuck is even going on right now??!!?

Screw this. I'm going to bed.

Has Masculism Replaced Fourth Wave Feminism?

Tue, 07 Feb 2023 02:56:23 GMT

Masculism may be the new gender philosophy of the counterculture.

For decades, those who called themselves "feminists" were considered intellectuals, and for good reason. They stood for something real. They stood for equality of opportunity for women, the same opportunities that men had. And they were right to stand for such a good cause.

But sometime in the early 2010s, "feminism" became something else. Those who called themselves "feminists" didn't stand for what the traditional feminist movement stood for. Instead of equality of opportunity, they stood for equity in opportunity. Instead of women's rights, they stood for intolerance of men. Instead of being intellectual, they became annoying and offensive. It seemed a new form of feminism had replaced the once highly-respected movement - and so it came to be known as: Fourth Wave Feminism.

Fourth wave feminism sucks. Those who (have the gall to) call themselves fourth wave feminists usually fit a pretty ugly stereotype: An angry, blue-haired, and usually rapidly-aging woman who's probably at least a few pounds overweight, and most-likely hasn't been laid in years, and they hate men, even if they don't exactly know why. But they were told to hate men in their lesbian basket weaving classes in their private liberal arts colleges, and so they do, and more than you could ever possibly imagine. They hate everything about men. They hate ambitious men. They hate men that go to the gym every day. They hate men with high testosterone levels (especially the last one).

But out of this terribly-annoying new-age gender philosophy, a new gender philosophy seemed to blossom. It's the antithesis of fourth wave feminism in almost every way imaginable, and it's known as masculism (or masculinism for the vernacular).

Surprisingly, a large portion of people who consider themselves "masculinists" are actually women - and usually the same type of big-hearted women who would have once considered themselves feminists (of the first & second, and some, even the third wave). Many of these women have noticed that a lot of men (particularly in the younger generations) are seemingly in a state of crisis. They've noticed that women outnumber men in higher education by about a 20% differential. They've noticed that the American court system is stacked against men in civil divorce cases. They've noticed that the vast majority of domestic violence shelters do not accept men into their facilities at all. They've noticed that men become drug-addicted and commit suicide at dramatically higher rates than women. They've noticed that today's men in western society are lost, and their hearts hurt for them.

America needs more of these women, to stand up for the lost masculine souls of western society. And unlike masculism's fourth wave counterpart, which doesn't allow men anywhere near it (unless they're the weakest of the weak - the sort of man that agrees to take the woman's last name in marriage), these women are welcome in the masculist movement.

Most surprisingly though, is these women that consider themselves masculists seem to be far-more counterculture then their fourth wave feminist counterparts, whom for the most part, seem like your run-of-the-mill establishment #VoteBlueNoMatterWho Democrats. Women who consider themselves masculists, however, seem to vibe closer to the punk rock movement of the '70s. You're far more likely to find a masculist woman to be against the war on drugs, vote for an anti-authoritarian candidate, and wearing a vintage Nirvana tee shirt than their fourth wave feminist counterparts (and dare I say, the masculist women are generally-speaking far more physically attractive too). This should come as a surprise to many, as it used to be feminists that would be the more counterculture than the non-feminists. This is not the case today in the 2020s.

Traditionally, it's supposed to be the younger generations that consider themselves the "counterculture." But right now, it seems that the fourth wave feminists still outnumber the masculists - although I don't think that will be the case for much longer. In particular, the more younger-generation women that ditch fourth wave feminism (and in turn, lose weight and begin living healthier lifestyles, because they'll be happier overall) for masculism, the more this new counterculture phenomenon will begin to tip the scales. Also, the larger the masculist movement becomes - much like the feminist movement of old - the more stable our society will become, and men's rights will be recognized once again; and this will create a domino effect in the rest of western society. Courts overseeing civil divorce proceedings will begin to view men and women equally. Men will start to return to secondary education. Men will become the primary bread-winners of households again, and their suicide & drug addiction rates will decline. And women will be happier also, because they will once again have partners who are masculine & confident, and who are deserving of their love & respect.

The Branch Covidians Have Begun Apologizing For Their Wrongdoings

Fri, 03 Feb 2023 02:49:28 GMT

Do they even deserve our forgiveness?

Nearly three years after the "Two Weeks to Slow the Spread" campaign began, we're now able to take an objective look back at the past few years, and determine who was truly right and who was embarrassingly wrong.

It's quite clear now that the dissenters, the people who spoke out against lockdowns, mask mandates, and COVID-authoritarianism were right (regarding just about everything they said), and the Branch Covidians, who for three years, mentally masturbated to locking down the global economy, Third Reich-style forced vaccinations, and the generalized suffering of innocent people, were very clearly wrong.

But almost three years in, many of these Branch Covidians have realized the error of their ways and surprisingly, have begun to apologize.

For instance, one of the original Branch Covidians, CNN analyst Dr. Leana Wen, joined the side of good close to a year ago now and came out as a conscientious objector to the Branch Covidian religion. But Dr. Wen found out very quickly that the one thing you're not allowed to do as a left-leaning individual is question that which shalt not be questioned, the great religion of Branch Covidianism. Enter all the puritans that now want her cancelled for her wrongdoing of questioning that which shalt not be questioned.

But after Dr. Wen went on CNN a couple weeks ago and claimed (accurately) that the CDC was over-counting COVID deaths, lefty heads began exploding. How dare you even suggest that not every single death counted in this country in the past three years was primarily caused by COVID-19, Dr. Wen?!!

Dr. Wen wrote this article in the Washington Post a couple weeks ago which accurately suggests that the CDC is being insincere about how many people are actually dying from COVID, and not being honest about how many COVID deaths might be secondary causes or completely incidental.

Little cuck Benjamin Mazer almost shat his pants a couple weeks ago after Dr. Leana Wen appeared on CNN to tell the truth, and wrote this ridiculous tweet:

You need to call me, Dr. Wen!!! We need to have a little talk!!! We don't need to speculate, because we have publicly-available data!!! It's noteworthy that we actually don't have the data he asserted we have in his tweet, as fact-checked by Saagar Enjeti of Breaking Points .

Then MSNBC's Saturday night cuck, Mehdi Hasan, who's probably the single-most intolerable man on network television on the planet and rarely says anything that can be taken seriously, chimed in with his garbage take on Twitter:

To be fair, one has to give Hasan some credit, as he used some of the greatest insults you can ever call someone who leans left politically: RIGHTWINGER!!! COVID DENIALIST!!! CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!!

Of course, the rest of his take is absolute garbage. And he incorrectly states that what Dr. Wen said on CNN was "debunked" by an angry little man named Jeremy Faust; but after a close inspection of this "debunking," he actually doesn't debunk what Dr. Wen says in his article - and even sometimes concedes that she's correct. For example, this is a quote directly from Faust's "debunk" article : "As you can see above, [over-counting COVID deaths] has happened at some times during the pandemic (albeit not often)."

But Dr. Wen isn't the only former-Branch Covidian to see the light. Kevin Bass, who is a PhD student and medical researcher, and former-Branch Covidian, wrote a great piece in Newsweek about a week ago, in which he admits and seeks repentance for his wrongdoings. "I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives," wrote Bass.

Yes, Bass was incorrect, but I think a man that has the cojones to admit when he's wrong deserves respect. Especially after being particularly adamant about an incorrect assumption, it can be tough to admit being wrong afterwards.

Bass also wrote, "I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural vs. artificial immunity , school closures and disease transmission , aerosol spread , mask mandates , and vaccine effectiveness and safety , especially among the young."

So all this leads us to the big $64,000 question: Do we forgive the men and women who were so wrong about COVID? Bass was correct when he wrote that at least some of their incorrect assumptions cost ed lives. But lives weren't even all it costed. It costed our children's education and mental well-being. It costed economic pain and suffering. It costed businesses and livelihoods that will never reopen. How do you forgive people who costed us so much?

I think the right answer here is, some of them deserve forgiveness and some of them don't. Who will get it and who won't should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Does Dr. Wen deserve forgiveness? I would say almost certainly. On the other hand, does Dr. Fauci deserve forgiveness? I would say almost certainly not.

David Pakman Made A Fool Of Himself On Patrick Bet-David's Podcast

Wed, 01 Feb 2023 04:35:21 GMT

David Pakman is absolutely insufferable.

David Pakman went on Patrick Bet-David's podcast today, and spent a good bit of the time being annoyingly disingenuous.

One of the most disingenuous moments of their debate was when Patrick Bet-David pressed Pakman on taxes in the United States , and Pakman said anything he could think of to avoid actually engaging in a sincere conversation about it. At one point during this conversation, Pakman (poorly) tried to outsmart Bet-David by asking him a series of insufferably disingenuous questions while Bet-David was providing Pakman with examples of wasted tax dollars in the United States, which we've taken the liberty of time-stamping in a video clip here . The series of ridiculous, disingenuous questions started with Bet-David telling Pakman (correctly) that the American people keep giving the federal government massive amounts of money (and allowing them to borrow it from foreign governments as well) with no accountability of where all the money is going and whether or not what it's being used on is necessary. Pakman laughably asked Bet-David, "what money are you talking about?" as if Pakman was too stupid to realize Bet-David was talking about American tax payer dollars as well as borrowed funds from foreign governments. But this was only the beginning of this absolutely absurd line of questioning from Pakman. Once Bet-David answered his question, Pakman

then moved the window of their conversation to what government programs he was talking about. "Name one [program]," said Pakman, disingenuously. Once Bet-David gave Pakman the examples of the military amongst other social welfare programs, Pakman then moved the window of the conversation yet again to "What I don't understand is what you mean by 'there's no accountability.'" At this point, Bet-David started to become visibly frustrated with Pakman's disingenuity, and said "The fact that you don't know where I'm going with this is an issue." I should say though, in my own opinion, it would have been an issue if Pakman actually didn't know what Bet-David was alluding to in their conversation. The problem is, Pakman actually did know what Bet-David was alluding to, and was just being entirely disingenuous when he was pretending not to, which is a typical and standard play during debates with establishment shit-libs of Pakman's persuasion (Sam Seder, who we've written about and criticized extensively here at Ending Politics , plays a similarly annoying and idiotic game with people he debates), and my sense is that was why Bet-David was getting so visibly frustrated in the linked clip above.

Selfishly, I'm actually quite glad the debate went like this, because not only does it give me great material to write about on my blog here, but it also perfectly exemplifies why intellectually honest people are so hesitant to debate the intellectually dishonest establishment shit-libs these days - because almost all of them behave exactly the same way David Pakman does during his debate with Patrick Bet-David. We see almost exactly the same behavior from Sam Seder too, whose followers are always praising him as a master-debater (lol)... except he's not. He's just so disingenuous in exactly the same way Pakman is in the linked clip above that most content creators would rather avoid the headache and find someone else to talk to.

Anyway, Pakman's disingenuous, stupid games might work on some dumb, low-level Republican politicians, but they're guaranteed to fail when he attempts to use them on an intelligent individual like Patrick Bet-David, who's built a booming small business and podcast from scratch with nothing but hard work and brainpower.

But Pakman then doubled down on his disingenuity even after Bet-David had already answered his questions, by asking him once again, what program he was "displeased with" (despite Bet-David had already given him several specific examples). Bet-David, still visibly frustrated, then offered to pull up a list of government expenses that they could go through line by line, if Pakman so desired. Unsurprisingly, Pakman never took him up on that offer.

Then in the heat of their debate, when Pakman started to look really bad, he attempted to pivot his way into a different argument (that he believed he might be able to win) by claiming that "Donald Trump did a great job of blowing up the deficit." The problems with this pivotal "debate strategy" were, 1. Bet-David never claimed that only the Democrats were running up the debt, and 2. Bet-David never claimed to be a Trump supporter.

One of the funniest moments of this debate was when Patrick Bet-David asked David Pakman what percentage of his income he would actually feel comfortable paying, which took David Pakman almost a full minute to answer. He started by beating around the bush (as he did through most of the debate) with a joke about Abe Lincoln's tax rate, then claimed "he wasn't a high tax guy," then "I don't want to get too much into my personal finances," followed by "I don't like that almost half my income goes to taxes" (David Pakman apparently didn't factor in all the other taxes he's forced to pay like sales tax, gas tax, property tax, etc.), and then finally landed on the completely-arbitrary number of "31%," which of course, such a tax rate would still create quite a hardship on the vast majority of the American people.

Admittedly, I felt quite bad for Patrick Bet-David while I watched this debate. David Pakman's disingenuity was completely intolerable, and there were so many more moments like the above examples we could through here, which I won't as to be respectful for you, the reader's time, and you can also watch the debate on YouTube yourself if you're interested. If you decide to indulge yourself, then good luck. You'll probably need some ibuprofen.

Sam Seder Fans' Heads Explode From EndingPolitics.com Article

Tue, 31 Jan 2023 02:13:40 GMT

Beware of the Sam Seder cultists...

We must be doing a pretty good job over here at EndingPolitics.com HQ, because we're seemingly able to really piss people off over the littlest of things!

Thousands of Sam Seder fanatics' heads exploded last Saturday afternoon after Sam Seder himself gave our most recent article about him major publicity on Twitter, after we tagged him in a post with a link to the article. Even though he claimed in a comment on our tweet (and probably lied) that he didn't read our article, just his commenting on our tweet (and then tens of thousands of his followers seeing the comment) was enough to send his cult members into a major frenzy!

With a cup of coffee in-hand and scrolling through all the sub-comments on our tweet from Sam Seder's fanatics, I could almost taste the cultists' tears pouring down their faces as they frantically and angrily jumped to Sam Seder's defense for daring to insult their charismatic leader. Some of these comments had me in stitches, and nearly had me spitting my coffee all over my laptop screen from my hysterical laughter.

On a side note, the free publicity Sam Seder gave us led to the single-heaviest day of web traffic we've ever had to our new, little website so far.

Anyway, some of these angry, unhinged, vitriolic sub-comments on our tweet were extraordinarily entertaining to read. But the most entertaining part of all this though, is just how pissed off so many people could get over a little blog post from a new and relatively-unknown website (or at least it was relatively unknown, before we posted our single-most visited blog article on our website ever the other day). We've taken the liberty of posting some of this gold below, which I'm sure at least some will eventually be deleted once Sam Seder's cultists begin to feel the shame of the temper tantrum they threw on Twitter over nothing.

Now granted, we all know already that Sam Seder's followers aren't exactly the brightest crayons in the box, so maybe we should just completely ignore the comments that don't even make sense (like @jah_soljah's comment above for example), but most of this idiocy is just far too entertaining to ignore.

Perhaps some of the funniest comments though, were the ones claiming that we were other content creators...

I've also noticed these "progressives," despite claiming to be the defenders of the weak and downtrodden, actually seem to hate blue-collar working people; for instance, take a look at this gentleman's comment below criticizing plumbers (the same people that have probably kept his house from flooding on multiple occasions, as well as unclogs his toilet pipes when he shits large bricks)...

Like I said, all of the comments from his cult followers are gold. I could sit here for hours reading all these. Some of these are funnier than others, but all of them provide some level of entertainment.

It's also worth a mention here that when you create content online like we do here at EndingPolitics.com , the few haters your content will inevitably create are all the proof you need that you're doing a good job. If you don't have haters, you're not trying hard enough - or your content sucks. Haters will also provide you with motivation, and sometimes, like in this case, even some inspiration to create more content.

All that said, I guess I should end this piece by thanking Sam Seder for the free publicity and web traffic, as well as his followers for visiting our website! We're now one step closer to site monetization, something that many anti-establishment websites will just never be given the privilege of these days. For once, we can gratefully and sincerely thank the establishment shills. Thanks guys! -TF

Sam Seder Is A Painfully Unfunny "Comedian"

Sat, 28 Jan 2023 05:52:29 GMT

God, this guy is completely intolerable.

We love making fun of Sam Seder and his incredibly boring show here at EndingPolitics.com . That's certainly no secret, but we just can't stop, because he continues to provide us with endless amounts of material to create content about.

For those that don't know, Sam Seder has claimed to be a comedian in Boston on a variety of occasions , even though no one, including us, can find any evidence of him ever doing standup comedy anywhere on the internet. And even if he has and there's just no existing video of any of it, he definitely hasn't made a real career out of it, because he certainly doesn't do any standup comedy routines now.

Because of his ambitions to become a comedian, he dropped out of law school and began doing his best to become funny, which he clearly was never able to do . In fact, from what we can tell, the only reason Sam Seder has been successful in entertainment at all was because of his friendship with real entertainers like H. Jon Benjamin, Sarah Silverman, and David Cross, all of whom were always far more famous and successful than he was. Because of his friendship with real successful comedians, he's been able to make a career for himself riding on their coattails (as well as being a leftist, and of course Hollywood always loves a leftist). For example, Jon Benjamin gave him a job on his hit Comedy Central cartoon, Bob's Burgers (but surprisingly or not surprisingly, wasn't ever able to land him an appearance on Dr. Katz Professional Therapist , on which Benjamin was a co-starred, presumably because Jonathan Katz, the show's creator, didn't think he was funny enough).

These days, Sam Seder's "comedy bits" primarily consist of pretending he's Thanos (pictured with the glove above) - supposedly to make fun of Tim Pool for claiming utilitarians are primarily the bad guys in comic book movies, to which Sam Seder claimed "[he] didn't care." Why is this funny enough to create an ongoing joke over? Well, we're not entirely sure, but we do know Sam Seder finds it hilarious, because he spent his money on a Thanos glove so he could take a selfie wearing it to put on his Twitter account. Those familiar with the situation are more likely to laugh at Sam Seder for thinking it's funny rather than laugh with him at his own unfunny joke, as evidenced by @dirtbagleft1's comment on his Twitter post, who apparently feels the same way we, and everyone else does.

Posted above is @dirtbagleftist1's Twitter comment on Seder's Thanos glove picture, which we think is way funnier than the picture itself!

We agree with @dirtbagleftist1. Sam Seder is incredibly unfunny, and when he makes his poor attempts to try to be funny, he fails miserably, and comes off as cringey at best, and pathetically annoying at worst.

On another note, we find it fascinating how Sam Seder hates comedian Jimmy Dore so much (whom he talks about more often on his show than we do Seder here at Ending Politics), who coincidentally has been able to build a successful standup comedy career using political source material. Unlike Sam Seder, Jimmy Dore does tour his standup comedy routines, which Sam Seder has always wanted to do, but has been painstakingly unsuccessful at. Ah, yes, it all makes sense now!

Sam, when you sit down and read this article, and we know you will, we recommend you go email the various websites with biographies about you (Wikipedia, Fandom, etc.) and tell them to remove the "comedian" descriptor from your introductory paragraphs. It just doesn't fit - and isn't true either.

One last note, Sam; we found it absolutely hilarious when we read in an article written about an interview that was conducted with you, that while watching the 2000 election coverage with your friend Janeane Garofalo, that you believed the GOP "stole the election" from Al Gore. Stole the election . Hilarious, you fucking hypocrite, you!!!

David Pakman Is Advertising Boner Pills On His Show

Fri, 27 Jan 2023 01:56:48 GMT

LMFAO!

So I was pacing around for a few minutes earlier, thinking about what I wanted to write about tonight. I knew though, that I wanted to write about something a little more lighthearted and silly.

While I was finishing watching a new edition of "Sitch And Adam" on YouTube, I happened to see a clip of none other than soy-boy David Pakman peddling boner pills on his show. And not just any boner pills - but Bluechew , the same boner pills we've all seen advertised on various porn sites around the web.

I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Here was that maniac David Pakman himself, on my screen, with a straight face, doing a live-read for Bluechew boner pills for his own audience. I have to admit, I absolutely lost it and laughed my ass off when I heard near the end of the live-read, "Enter keyword 'Pakman' at the checkout for a free month's supply..."

Now we're no strangers to picking on the insane progressive-left YouTube hosts here at EndingPolitics.com , but David Pakman is so insignificant and boring that he just doesn't show up on our radar too often. But this particular video of David Pakman doing a live read on his show for boner pills was just way too funny to not write an article about.

I think the funniest part of all this is the irony that it was David Pakman's show advertising these boner pills, and not any one of the other various unimportant far-left YouTube shows out there. This says quite a bit about David Pakman's audience; if there's one thing I learned running a small marketing company, it's that advertisers know their demo.

So is David Pakman's audience a bunch of boomer hippies that can't get it up anymore, or a bunch of young soy-boys with such low testosterone levels that they need all the help they can get? I wish I knew the answer, but my sense is it's probably the latter...

I'm also wondering why the hell David Pakman needs to advertise boner pills on his show. My feeling is that's only something a very desperate YouTuber would do. But what about stooping to the level of advertising the same shit that's advertised on porn sites all around the internet? There's something about it that just seems disgusting and slimy to me.

Enjoy this funny screenshot from his website below.

Fin.

'Plane' Will Be Remembered As One Of The Great Action Movies Of Our Generation

Wed, 25 Jan 2023 03:29:38 GMT

'Plane' is almost a masterpiece.

Warning : Minor Spoilers Ahead

EndingPolitics.com puts our big seal of approval on the new action-thriller 'Plane' which opened in theaters a little over a week ago. This truly is one of the best action films you'll have seen in quite a long time.

The action kicks off in this movie almost immediately as Capt. Brodie Torrence, his crew, and a plane full of passengers experience some major turbulence on their flight to Tokyo, right before lightning strikes their plane and they lose almost all power on board. Capt. Torrence, a very talented pilot with quite a bit of flight experience, then performs a successful emergency landing on a small island outside of the Philippines.

But when the crew and passengers step off the plane, they soon realize that this island is inhabited by a couple of separatist factions locked in the heat of a civil war, and needless to say, these militants are not friendly. There's no government here. No police. No court system. Just the passengers and crew of stranded Flight 119 and the separatist militants.

With a very limited supply of food and water, Capt. Torrence and Gaspare (who was in police custody onboard the plane being extradited to Tokyo on a murder charge) venture off to scavenge the island for supplies and to try to find any sort of long-range communications system they can use to call for help. At first, Torrence is reluctant to de-handcuff Gaspare, but he's clearly the toughest crew member, and he certainly doesn't want to leave the suspected murderer alone with the rest of his crew by the plane. This turns out to be a very wise decision though, as we soon learn that Gaspare is former military and is an expert in combat, and that Gaspare has the potential to be a very useful ally to Capt. Torrence on an island inhabited by dangerous separatist militants.

The story is simple and straight-forward: Ensure the survival of the passengers and crew of lost Flight 119 and get off the island as soon as possible. Because of the simplicity of the story, it's quite easy to immerse oneself in the dialogue and relationships between the characters on-screen.

And as it turns out, Capt. Torrence has a daughter whom he doesn't get to see too often but clearly loves very much, and the short conversations they're able to have with each other via long-range communication throughout the movie are some of the best moments, and really help develop the Capt. Torrence character into one that's very likable and easy to care about. Gaspare and Torrence's developing-friendship and trust is another great relationship dynamic in the film.

This movie is necessarily violent, and some of the most intense moments are when Torrence and Gaspare have to kill the enemy militants. This is another great dynamic at play in the film. Torrence, who we learn very quickly is quite the badass himself, still hates killing people when he has to, and we see his guilt onscreen whenever he does. Gaspare on the other hand, is a trained combatant and has no problem taking the lives of his enemies, which he's very clearly done many times before... and is umm... very good at, to say the least.

The acting in this movie is fantastic. Gerard Butler gives an A+ performance as he does in every movie he's in, and Mike Colter who plays "Gaspare" has the other big standout performance in the film.

'Plane' is action-packed, suspenseful, thrilling, and will keep you on the edge of your seat with your eyes locked on the screen the whole way through. I found myself completely immersed in this world while I was watching the film, rooting for the good guys, and my heart beating a million miles a minute every time Torrence and Gaspare turn a corner on this island they do n 't know at all, wondering if another violent separatist would be standing there ready to kill them if they get spotted. It's also even heart-warming at times.

For these reasons, EndingPolitics.com gives this film a big thumb's up and three and a half out of four stars. You need to go see this movie. You'll love it just like you loved all the action movies of old, before cinema started to suck.

What Would Minting A Trillion-Dollar Coin Do To Our Economy?

Tue, 24 Jan 2023 02:09:38 GMT

You know what they say about things that "sound too good to be true..."

The "Nobel laureate economists" are at it again - yes, the same ones who three years ago told us locking down the economy would have no significant impact on it - those Nobel laureate economists.

These days, it's hard to take anything that these economists say for much more than a grain of salt, since they've been so wrong about every major economic prediction in most of our lifetimes. And yet, for some reason, there are those who still take these morons seriously.

Paul Krugman, for example, who admitted recently that he was in fact incorrect in regards to one of the most important economic predictions of this generation , now wants to tell us that minting a trillion dollar coin won't have any bad effects on the economy, and that all minting 31 $1 trillion dollar coins would do is resolve our debt crisis in the United States. By the way, it's noteworthy that Paul Krugman was one of the "economists" that dreamt up this cockamamie scheme in the first place.

But would this really solve our debt problem? What would the governments of other countries think or do once they see us minting trillion dollar coins to solve a sovereign debt crisis? No one knows the answer to such a question, because no government has ever actually been insane enough to try it.

Personally, I believe carrying out such a scheme, at the end of the day, would more or less represent a de facto default on the debt. Here's why I think this: a plan like this wouldn't represent a true debt-payoff. To elaborate, Paul Krugman's idea would simply require the U.S. Treasury to put a coin design in a computer, print 31 of them, and then move them into a big vault somewhere inside one of the many Federal Reserve buildings in the United States... and then, POOF! Our debt is paid off! No more sovereign debt for America! (On a side note, it's pretty silly that one would need a degree in economics to dream up such a scheme - any first grader you drafted to solve such a problem could come up with a solution that's equally as absurd.)

If this sounds a little too good to be true, it's because it almost certainly is. I believe carrying out such a scheme would have almost the same effect on the economy that an actual default would, at least as far as foreign governments are concerned. Once a foreign government realized we did such a thing, they would almost certainly downgrade our credit, or perhaps even refuse to lend us any more money at all. And could anyone really blame them? What would you do if you were the leader of a foreign government, and watched the United States pay off its own debt entirely just by minting a few coins? My guess is you'd stop taking its "Nobel laureate economists" seriously, along with the POTUS, Congress and anyone else who signed on to execute such an absurd idea.

So what affect would minting 31 $1 trillion dollar coins have on the economy? I wouldn't be able to tell you for sure, because no government has ever been quite insane enough to try it, but count on the United States and the Federal Reserve to entertain such an idea before any other country. I can surmise about such a thing though (I did, after all, predict all the current issues we're experiencing right now in our economy three years ago, back when all our "Nobel laureate economists" were predicting we'd be totally fine). And my guess is, at the very least, we'd run into some pretty major issues that would dramatically screw up our economy (even worse than it is now), and Paul Krugman the "Nobel laureate economist" would, once again, be proven a complete moron and completely undeserving of any Nobel Prize he's won.

Paul Krugman, please do us all a favor and resign from your job. But, if you don't want to so you can still collect your hefty paycheck to not create much value for anyone, then at least stop making economic predictions, or giving any "advice" or "insight" on our economy whatsoever.

EndingPolitics.com Banned From r/Economics Sub-Reddit

Sat, 21 Jan 2023 04:13:24 GMT

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!

For those of you that follow our blog regularly, you know that yesterday we posted an article about whether or not Congress should raise the debt ceiling, and went into some detail in the article about the nature of the federal reserve.

Little did we know that such a non-controversial article would have the potential to piss off nearly as many people as it did.

As I sat here in front of my laptop last night, cup of coffee in hand while listening to Zedd's single "Clarity" from 2012 (wow, I'm getting old), running through my standard marketing plan of EndingPolitics.com article distribution across the internet's many social media platforms, I started to receive a barrage of emails from Reddit's email bot around 10 PM EST.

Almost all the emails I opened (which were coming in at record-speed) were users from the r/Economics sub-reddit (on which I had posted the article from last night "Is It Really A Good Idea For Congress To Raise The Debt Ceiling? ") angrily posting comments on the article's thread such as "[I] have no idea what [I'm] talking about," "[I'm] a Q-Anon conspiracy theorist," and "[my] article was very poorly written!"

Admittedly, many of these comments made me laugh (especially the one claiming I was a Q-Anon conspiracy theorist), but some of them just confused me. I honestly couldn't understand for the life of me how such a non-controversial article could piss off so many people.

I opened by web browser and navigated back into the r/Economics sub-reddit where I had posted the article. To my surprise, having only been posted for a few minutes, my article had already received dozens of downvotes and angry comments from the users in the r/Economics community (the vast majority of whom I'm assuming are lefties). Some of them told me for writing such an article, that I was childish and "sophomoric." Some of them claimed I had no idea what I was talking about. Some of them just hurled juvenile insults. For those claiming that I had no idea what I was talking about, I commented back asking exactly what it was I said in the article that they thought was incorrect; surprisingly or not surprisingly, these Reddit-Keynesians either never commented back or couldn't actually articulate what it was I said they thought was inaccurate.

I should note that not all the r/Economics users were upset about the post. Some of them were quite receptive to the article, and actually thanked me for educating them, and some even told me that I'd taught them things about the Federal Reserve that they didn't know before.

That said, the vast majority of the feedback in the comment section I received was negative, despite much of the negativity being completely unjustified, and some of it just came from a place of blatant ignorance.

Then, after over an hour of engaging with the angry Reddit-whiners, asking them to articulate their positions to no avail, and much more back-and-forth, the r/Economics moderators removed my article from the sub-Reddit. I was shocked. I couldn't believe that an article would be removed from a sub-reddit that was supposedly meant for real intellectual discussion just because the users didn't like what I wrote in the article.

Upon noticing that my article had been removed completely, I then messaged the moderators asking why they removed my article from the r/Economics sub-reddit. When they returned my message, they were only able to provide me with some vague response about "violating Rule III." After reading the rule, the only way I could possibly even imagine having violated it was a brief mention of "self-promotion" hidden somewhere in the middle of the text of the "rule." But self-promotion?? All I did was post an article I wrote in an economics forum to start a discussion on the titular subject!!!

I then (justifiably) accused them of only removing my article because [I personally believed] they didn't like the content of it, to which they just blocked me from messaging them again, and then flat-out banned u/EndingPolitics from ever posting in the r/Economics sub-reddit again.

After the whole situation was over, I couldn't help but chuckle at what had actually just occurred. Here I was, just doing my job as a blogger and posting an article into a relevant social media group, and I was banned from the social media group for doing so! What the actual fuck?!?

That said, this situation almost makes me smile. The fact that this website is pissing so many people off, I think in some way proves that I'm doing great work! I certainly shouldn't expect everyone in the world to appreciate that I'm facing off against the establishment and telling the truth here. I'd say if there weren't at least a few people getting pissed off at what I'm writing here at Ending Politics , I should be trying h arder!

As I wrap up this article, I'll leave a link to the deleted sub-reddit here (in hopes at least you'll still be able to pull up the post and see the comment history) so you can read just how stupid some of these establishment-shills are, and how little they actually know about the American economy and the federal reserve.

Cheers, everybody!

-TF

Is It Really A Good Idea For Congress To Raise The Debt Ceiling?

Fri, 20 Jan 2023 02:01:51 GMT

Should we really raise the debt ceiling just to go further into debt? That doesn't sound like a smart idea.

For the last two days, mainstream media pundits have been having an aneurysm over “republicans not wanting to raise the debt ceiling,” which first of all, isn’t even accurate, as there are plenty of republicans who have no issue raising the debt ceiling at all (cough… Mitch McConnell cough…). But is a fight against raising the debt ceiling actually a bad thing ?

I’d argue, no. In fact, raising the debt ceiling further would just be another instrumentation of the state to postpone what we all know will eventually happen: the inevitable default of the United States’ debt. Why does the American political establishment, and particularly the elites, always want the debt ceiling raised?

The answer is because the elites of the world are making piles of money off not only the devaluation of the American dollar which artificially skyrockets the value of their assets, but also off monetizing the United States’ debt. Many ordinary people either don’t know or don’t understand that the Federal Reserve actually has many private investors. These investors are paid dividends by the Fed for the “stock” shares they own of the entity. Who are these investors? Well, the answer is: nobody really knows. .

One thing that we do know, though, is that a number of foreign entities own a good bit of the United States’ debt, including the Chinese Communist Party, which owns about 1/30 ^th of the U.S.’ debt alone. Does the American public really want such an entity to have such influence over our economy? My guess is probably not, but the American people probably don’t actually know enough about the United States’ debt to even realize it’s happening.

So why not just default on the debt? The elites tell us it would completely destroy our economy… but would it really? “Defaulting on the national debt” really only means that the U.S. doesn’t actually have the economic resources to pay back its debt – which in all actuality, it doesn’t – and therefore will cease to make payments on it. Would that really hurt the economy ? It would certainly relieve a good bit of the tax burden on the middle class, which is paying vast amounts of money just to keep up with the debt interest payments. Defaulting on the debt would also certainly require Congress to reevaluate what it currently spends (or wastes) money on. Would cutting the amount of money the American people give to Lockheed Martin and Raytheon every year really hurt the U.S. economy? My guess is probably not as much as the elites are telling us.

And yet another reason the elites don’t want us to default on the debt seems quite obvious when thinking abstractly: the “private investors” of the United States Federal Reserve don't want us to. If we cannot repay the debt, a lot of these “investors” would lose out on the money that the American people “owe” them. No one, including the richest of the rich want to take a loss on a big investment. But that’s exactly what a debt default would do, make these “private investors” actually experience a loss on a large investment, something that I assume many of them have been “lucky enough” (or have always been privately-informed enough of upcoming market changes before they happen, I surmise) to have never truly experienced before.

I think we should allow the United States to default on its debt, allow these “private investors” of the Federal Reserve to take their losses and feel the pain of making very risky and lousy investments, and start to rebuild our economy on a new foundation – a foundation that’s built on real risk-taking without government intervention after-the-fact on behalf of the 1%, a true meritocracy, living within our means, and responsible Congressional spending.

Let’s hope this turns out to be a fight the republican dissenters actually win this time.

Did The McCarthy Speakership Vote Prove Sam Seder Wrong On #ForceTheVote?

Thu, 19 Jan 2023 02:13:58 GMT

It doesn't matter what Sam Seder thinks about Jimmy Dore. His lack of support for #ForceTheVote destroyed his credibility amongst the progressive left.

We’re no strangers to ripping on Sam Seder here at EndingPolitics.com… but he just makes it so easy. If he doesn’t like it, he should stop being such a disingenuous moron.

It’s been a couple years since the progressive-left split on the #ForceTheVote movement, an idea to force a house vote on the medicare-for-all issue before progressives representatives would cast a vote for Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for Speaker of the House, a way of holding her house speakership position hostage. The brain-child of comedian Jimmy Dore, the idea garnered huge support amongst progressive-leftists as a means to determine which house representatives had the cojones to stand up to the establishment-wing of the Democratic Party and actually cast a vote on behalf of the benefit of the 99%. The purpose of the idea was to expose any “fake” progressives that were currently serving in Congress as a means to hold them accountable.

According to a poll conducted by The Young Turks, who spoke out against #ForceTheVote and holding the house progressives accountable, the idea was far more popular than not even by their own audience’s opinion.

Regardless, many establishment-left YouTube commentators still spoke out against #ForceTheVote, despite the idea being extraordinarily popular amongst the progressive left, most notably Sam Seder of The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder YouTube channel, who seemingly disliked the idea from the very start, but could never really articulate why.

Seder’s main arguments against #ForceTheVote seemed mostly irrelevant to what the purpose of the idea actually was: to expose members of Congress who wouldn’t vote for a policy that is fundamental to their entire progressive movement. For instance, Seder spent quite a bit of time on his YouTube show talking about how medicare-for-all would never get passed using this method anyway, which of course was not the intention of the #ForceTheVote strategy at all. But much more of his nonsense was exposed during his infamous debate with Briahna Joy Gray on her show, most notably when he proved to his own audience (many of whom were watching the debate live) that he had no idea how the house speakership vote actually worked – he claimed that to win the house speakership, Nancy Pelosi would have needed a plurality of the votes, which is provably false and not how the speaker of the house is elected. Then once he humiliated himself on the livestream, he basically changed his entire argument to something that can be summed up as “I don’t like Jimmy Dore.”

On a brief other note, one of the funniest arguments to come out of this debate was Seder’s assertion that Jimmy Dore’s #ForceTheVote strategy somehow “disempowered” the progressives in Congress. DISEMPOWERED?? What in fuck’s name are you talking about, Sam?!

But Seder’s ignorance was exposed full-fledged (perhaps a couple years late) just a couple weeks ago when the house republicans took a page out of Jimmy Dore’s book, and successfully held Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s (R-CA) house speakership position hostage by refusing to vote for him unless a plethora of specific demands were met. McCarthy caved to a good bit of the republican dissenters demands, proving that the #ForceTheVote movement could’ve been an effective strategy for the house progressives, if they’d only had the cojones to use it.

This victory for the congressional republican dissenters effectively discredited any argument Seder had about the #ForceTheVote strategy, as the republicans proved it an effective means of pressuring house leadership into situations that may make them politically uncomfortable.

Seder still hasn’t admitted he was wrong to this day, and hilariously he read a comment live on his show from one of his audience members a couple weeks ago making the same stup id claim that Seder had made previously about the strategy: that medicare-for-all wouldn’t have been passed anyway! Granted, Seder’s audience members certainly aren’t the brightest crayons in the box, but this blatant and ongoing misunderstanding of what the #ForceTheVote movement was trying to accomplish from Seder and his audience proves just how dimwitted they all actually are.

So here we are, years after the progressive Democrats’ opportunity to “force the vote” has long passed – and quite possibly won’t present itself again for many more years to come – and we now have proof that the #ForceTheVote strategy could’ve worked quite well for the progressive wing of the democratic caucus, had the only had the guts to try it. I would imagine that Sam Seder, The Young Turks, and soy-boy David Pakman would probably feel pretty stupid now, except they don’t, because they have no shame.

'M3GAN' Is A Modernized 'Child's Play' Remake... And It's Really Good

Wed, 18 Jan 2023 02:19:07 GMT

M3GAN is the modernized remake of Child's Play we've all been waiting for...

M3GAN revolves around a little girl named “Katie” whose parents are killed in a car accident in the first scene of the movie. After recovering in the hospital from her own injuries, the little girl goes to live with her aunt, who works as a toy inventor for Hasbro’s biggest competitor.

Katie has trouble adjusting to this new world she’s living in without her parents, and just as it seems like all hope is lost for this little girl’s future, her aunt “Gemma” finishes the design prototype of Funki’s (the toy company she works for) newest creation, M3GAN, a 21 ^st century AI toy that can carry out full, life-like conversations with its users.

The titular character starts out almost touchingly, saving Katie from a potentially depressing rest of her life and we witness her artificial-mind become seemingly quite fond, protective, and even genuinely caring of her new playmate Katie; but then the doll takes a very dark turn at the end of the first act, when the doll murders Aunt Gemma’s neighbor’s dog after witnessing the dog biting Katie.

After the first act, tension builds quickly throughout the rest of the movie, keeping your eyes wide open and locked on the screen, your body leaning out of your seat, anxious to find out how much more evil this AI doll is going to become.

The story of this movie is quite simple, and therefore allows its audience to immerse themselves into a world where an AI is truly capable of anything, regardless of how dark or evil it may be.

The characters and their relationships with each other are quite dynamic, particularly Gemma and her niece Katie, which is rocky throughout the film but satisfyingly resolves by the end of the movie.

This movie is highly entertaining, and even quite thrilling and scary at times. It modernizes the Child’s Play movies quite well, and actually may even be better in ways, and certainly more realistic. Drawing on some themes from The Terminator , this film almost serves as a warning to us about the future of AI, and what could happen if an AI-being were to become too aware of itself and too smart, which may give you a feeling of uneasiness that Child’s Play really never could.

Judging the characters, story, themes, acting, and cinematography of the film, we at EndingPolitics.com give M3GAN thumbs up and 3 out of 4 stars. This film will certainly make for a great date night with your significant other – and perhaps even a nice night out with your family, if your kids are mature enough, but don’t bring the really little ones.

Ian Freeman Doesn't Deserve To Go To Prison. Here's Why.

Tue, 17 Jan 2023 02:29:35 GMT

Ian Freeman may have broken the law... but he harmed no one.

Let me preface this article by saying I in no way condone what Ian Freeman has been accused of. I would never recommend anyone break the law – not because I care what the law is, but because I’m terrified of the consequences of breaking it.

That said, Ian Freeman was unjustly targeted by the FBI for the “crimes” of selling Bitcoin without the permission of the federal government, and not paying taxes on the profits he made from the sales.

A couple weeks ago, Freeman was found guilty of these accusations in a jury trial, and now faces what could be the rest of his life in a federal prison.

Unlike Sam Bankman-Fried, who was recently arrested and accused of defrauding tens of thousands of people in a cryptocurrency scam, Ian Freeman has not been accused of defrauding anyone. He hasn’t been accused of stealing from anyone either, or harming anyone in any way for that matter.

So why was the FBI so upset about these “crimes” Ian Freeman was committing? It’s noteworthy that hundreds of thousands of people sell Bitcoin every single day without the permission of the federal government, and my guess is quite a bit of them don’t pay taxes on any capital gains they made on their investment. So why are they targeting Ian Freeman?

The simple truth of the matter is that the FBI and these federal prosecutors care not about Ian Freeman selling Bitcoin and not paying taxes on the sales he made. The truth is: they just hate Ian Freeman.

This isn’t the first time the FBI has targeted Freeman. Five years before the FBI’s raid on Ian Freeman’s Free Talk Live studio in 2021 to find evidence of “illegal Bitcoin transactions,” they had raided his studio claiming that someone had “accessed child pornography” from the Free Talk Live studio’s computers. It should be noted that a couple weeks before the raid in 2016, Free Talk Live broadcasted on nationally-syndicated airwaves that the FBI had been running multiple child pornography websites, and that the federal organization could quite possibly be the largest distributor of child pornography on the planet. Perhaps even more coincidentally, the FBI justified the raid at the time by claiming that the Free Talk Live’s studio IP address was logged on one of the child pornography websites the FBI itself was running. No evidence of child pornography was ever found on the seized computers from the Free Talk Live studio, and no charges were ever filed.

It wasn’t until five years later, in 2021, that Ian Freeman’s radio studio (located in his home in Keene, New Hampshire) was raided again and he was arrested for the “crimes” of selling Bitcoin without a government-issued permission slip and not paying taxes on the profits he made from the sales.

It seems as though the FBI went on a years-long fishing expedition trying to arrest Ian Freeman for literally anything that they could get away with. It’s also noteworthy that most of the initial evidence of the “crimes” he was accused of were found on the provenly-unnecessary seizure of the Free Talk Live computers five years earlier, on which once again, no evidence of child pornography was ever found.

Ian Freeman was never accused of defrauding anyone. He was never accused of running a cryptocurrency pump-and-dump scheme, never accused of stealing money from anyone, never accused of harming anyone in any way whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is the FBI and the federal government just hate Ian Freeman. They hate him, and his nationally-syndicated radio show, Free Talk Live. Freeman’s radio show has created hundreds of thousands of libertarians and federal government-skeptics over the course of a couple decades of its broadcast, and this is the real reason why Ian Freeman was targeted for prosecution and incarceration. That should shut him up!!!

The federal government’s prosecutors are now requesting the overseeing federal judge lock Freeman away in a federal prison for the vast majority of the rest of his life, after his guilty verdict was passed down by a federal jury. Does Freeman deserve such a punishment? Most would say probably not, and yet the federal government’s prosecutors are pushing for the maximum sentence anyway.

Ian Freeman currently has a pending appeal of his guilty verdict in a federal appellate court. Let’s hope an appellate judge recognizes the many legal flaws presented during the case, which are outlined thoroughly by Chris Wade at FreeKeene.com .

Ian Freeman doesn’t deserve to go to prison for the rest of his life. Doing so would be a horrible, condemnable injustice.

'Halloween Ends' Is Even More Ridiculous Than You Thought It Would Be

Fri, 21 Oct 2022 03:40:48 GMT

What the hell is this movie even about?!

You probably didn't even think it was possible, but this movie is even more absurd and ridiculous than you thought it would be.

WARNING: Very minor spoilers ahead (and one's you probably don't even care about).

Firstly, we're still not even sure what this movie is supposed to be about. This movie seems to have two plots: The return of Michael Myers... and the return... or creation... or something... of another Halloween killer?! We don't even know.

Sure, if you like a Halloween-season slasher flick... it's fine... we suppose. But as a standalone movie, this is really bad.

The best part about this movie is the slightly-more-intricate ways that Michael Myers - or the other guy, whatever the hell his name is - kills people . It sort of makes sense though, given that's literally the only reason anyone would even bother watching another entry in the Halloween saga these days. The most memorable scene was probably when the other killer (we know, don't even ask; just go see it yourself if you want to know more) kills a man and then cuts out his tongue onscreen.

The writers even attempted to insert some sort of love story sub-plot into this film - granted in a really stupid and fucked up sort of way. It doesn't work well. It doesn't even get any sort of resolution in the film, just that one of them gets killed near the end of the movie (of course; how else would such a thing get resolved in a Halloween film?).

We didn't think it was even possible... but this most-recent entry in the Halloween saga seems to be even worse than Halloween Kills , which of course was the worst entry in the series to date... well, up until now.

If there's a glimmer in this, at least they seemed to be able to end this pile of cinematic vomit for good... or did they? We think a lot of people thought after Halloween H20: 20 Years Later , that we'd put the lid on these god-awful movies forever. But nope, the producers managed to find an absolutely ridiculous way to undo literally everything they'd written in that movie in an absolutely ridiculous & absurd fashion in Halloween: Resurrection . We're not saying that's certainly going to happen again this time... but you probably shouldn't get your hopes up. As long as these shitty movies continue to make money, these producers will continue to fan the flames.

If Joe Biden were a real populist, he'd ban Danny McBride from writing any more horror movies. He'd make it law.

Is 'Smile' The Scariest Movie Ever Made?

Wed, 12 Oct 2022 02:29:13 GMT

This movie is absolutely terrifying.

Get ready to have a few nightmares. But after you see Smile , you just might not ever want to sleep again.

This movie is a perfect psychological horror... quite literally.

What do you do when your therapist goes absolutely insane? When the only person in the world you're truly supposed to be able to trust turns into a psychopath... you're completely alone. And alone is the last thing you'll want to be after you see this film.

It's actually a bit surprising how simple the plot of this movie is. This was a great artistic choice though, because it allows the audience to sink in and feel the fear directly flowing from the dialogue and the strange goings-on in each scene instead of getting distracted by a complex story line.

The story in a nutshell is simply this: After a very successful psychotherapist witnesses a young woman brutally commit suicide right in front of her, she goes completely insane herself... or does she? The audience struggles throughout the first half of the film trying to decide whether or not Rose Cotter (the main protagonist, played by Kevin Bacon's beautiful daughter, Sosie) is actually experiencing what they're seeing on the screen, or if it's all happening completely inside her head. Either way though, one thing's for sure - what she's experiencing is absolutely terrifying, and the audience experiences that terror right alongside her the entire way through.

The few jump scares that pop up occasionally throughout the film will certainly have your girlfriend jumping out of her seat, but the psychological horror in the film is what will truly give you nightmares.

This movie is gory, but every drop of blood is necessary. The gore in this film isn't in done in the taste of some post-Golden Age of the Halloween saga - fashion - it's there to scare you, not to make you laugh, and it works. And it's the same with the brutal violence in this film. There's no violence here that isn't intended to absolutely scare the shit out of you.

The brilliant cinematography and creepy soundtrack add even more eeriness to the film's already-terrifying atmosphere. The camera angles will leave you questioning reality in the same way the main protagonist does onscreen.

This film is absolutely horrifying from beginning to end, and we here at Ending Politics highly recommend it. If we were Siskel & Ebert, we'd g ive it two big thumbs up. And i t'll make for a great date-night with your girlfriend or wife . Make sure you leave the kids at home though - they don't want to see this.

And now for the big question that's on everyone's mind (who's seen it so far): Is Smile the single-scariest movie ever made?

The Young Turks' Rashad Richey Smears 12-Year-Old Children As Racist

Sun, 11 Sep 2022 01:50:09 GMT

TYT Networks' hosts have been "progressively" losing their marbles...

In a shockingly deplorable act of divisiveness, TYT Network's "Indisputable" host, Dr. Rashad Richey, actually smeared twelve-year-old children as racist on a recent edition of his show.

Richey deceptively took photographs out of context of a little league world series game to tell a fabricated story of racism for YouTube clicks and to pander to The Young Turks' progressive-leaning audience.

In the photograph Richey deceptively used to spread a racial narrative, the teammates of a young black child were putting white cotton balls on his head.

Without context, this may appear to be a racist act. But with context, it was completely harmless. Firstly, there were actually several children on the team that had white cotton balls put in their hair by their teammates, and none of it had anything to do with racism.

The reason why the little leaguers were putting cotton balls in each other's hair was to honor a competing Hawaiian player that had a dyed-white mohawk, who their whole team believed to be a great baseball player.

It's currently unclear whether or not Richey deceptively took this photo out of context to sow further political and racial division in this country, or if he just irresponsibly didn't do enough fact-checking before he reported the story on his show. Either way, this sort of journalistic malpractice is disgusting and reprehensible.

Richey's original 'Indisputable' segment can be viewed in its entirety here .

The child's mother assured the media that the little-leaguers were having fun and that there was no "ill-intent," as reported by The Daily Mail .

Rashad Richey has not yet issued a retraction on his show, despite a myriad of media outlets reporting the truth on the incident.

We reached out to Dr. Rashad Richey for comment, and as of this writing, we have not heard back.

Unhinged Majority Report Cohosts Talk About Killing Donald Trump On Their Show

Sat, 03 Sep 2022 04:11:25 GMT

The cohosts at the Majority Report have gone completely off the deep end...

We've thoroughly enjoyed covering the decline (in viewership... and sanity) of The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder here at Ending Politics , but nothing we've written about them so far involves anything particularly dark... until now.

On a recent Thursday edition of "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder" (which usually has a different lineup of hosts), cohost Emma Vigeland shockingly began talking about her fantasies of MURDERING Donald Trump in the middle of the show.

Yes, we're not joking. Emma Vigeland & Co. actually went off on an unhinged rant about their sick fantasies of murdering the former POTUS.

In this short clip, Vigeland talks briefly about large, heavy gold furniture toppling on the former president, right before she takes it a step further and actually suggests poisoning him with anthrax.

Her rant was so insane that her cohost Brandon Sutton actually appears shocked at first - speechless that his cohost would take the conversation to such a sick, dark place. But after producer Matt Lech brazenly chimes in with his own disgusting jokes about murdering the former president, Sutton rejoins the conversation with his own sick remark about poisoning Donald Trump with anthrax, saying they should "[spray] him like a carwash."

You can watch the brief unhinged rant here .

We reached out to the cohosts at "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder" and Sam Seder himself for comment. We didn't hear back from any of them.

We should also point out the hypocrisy of YouTube for allowing such a clip to remain on their platform. It's almost certain that had a conservative commentator said such a thing about the current POTUS on their platform, the video would've been removed immediately, and a strike would've been placed on the offending channel.

We also reached out to YouTube for comment, and as of this writing, we have not heard back.

While watching the decline of "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder" YouTube channel has been entertaining, clips such as these are almost certainly a violation of YouTube's TOS, and worse, is pretty disgusting and offensive to watch.

Student Debt Forgiveness: Left-Populism Or Democrat Midterm Strategy?

Wed, 24 Aug 2022 23:26:19 GMT

Even if this is struck down legally, it's still a great midterm strategy for the Democratic Party...

As expected, today Joe Biden announced that he was cancelling (some) student loan debt.

His plan will forgive up to "$20,000 in debt cancellation to Pell Grant recipients with loans held by the Department of Education, and up to $10,000 in debt cancellation to non-Pell Grant recipients," according to WhiteHouse.gov.

What Joe Biden failed to mention today though, is that his plan is almost certain to be legally-challenged, as it is undoubtedly unconstitutional, and it's unlikely that a conservative-leaning SCOTUS would allow this to go through.

But does Joe Biden really care? Either way, he's undoubtedly raked back in some support from younger voters, from whom his support was tumbling down to as low as 21%... up until yesterday.

Regardless of whether or not Biden's executive order will hold up, he's put himself and the Democratic Party in a much better position politically as the midterm elections come nigh.

In theory, it could put them in a n even better political position if the conservative SCOTUS shoots it down - as the Democrats could then have an actual issue to run on in November - the fact that the Republicans "are so heartless" that they refused to join the Democrats in cancelling student debt.

This will easily rile up younger voters, progressives, and more social democratic voters, and in turn help the Democratic Party to gain some political traction heading into the midterm season. Anger is one of the most motivating emotions that drives voters to the polls.

The best part is (for Biden anyway), even if his executive order is struck down by SCOTUS, after the midterm elections, he wouldn't even have to reconsider it. He could dump his entire plan to cancel student loan debt, and suffer no real political consequences for it.... and trust us, his political consultants know this too, and have probably already informed him of this...

Disingenuous Politics: The Fall of Sam Seder

Sun, 07 Aug 2022 03:09:44 GMT

Seder's disingenuity was bound to be his downfall eventually.

Disingenuousness is my single biggest pet peeve ever. I have no problem making that personal statement as I write this article for two reasons: 1) because it's a great, engaging way to begin this article, selfishly; and 2) because I know there are so many people that can relate to that statement that it's relevant enough to include. Disingenuousness can be so annoying that it's at times headache inducing, and usually when one engages with someone who is being disingenuous, a lot of people would much rather just find someone else to talk to.

Which leads me to my first point: Sam Seder is the single most disingenuous creator on YouTube, and for that reason alone, many YouTube creators that would normally otherwise love to have conversations with people of his political persuasion, would rather just not engage with him at all. A perfect example would be Joe Rogan, who even though has guests of all political persuasions on his show, very clearly wants nothing to do with Sam Seder, and has never invited Seder on his show, despite Seder claiming knowing him when they were young and " played softball together when they worked in the Boston comedy scene." (On a side note, we've scrounged the internet and are unable to find any video or even any proof at all Sam Seder ever performed standup comedy in Boston - or anywhere ever for that ma tter, before his live performances for his "Majority Report Live" shows, and the small few clips of these we've found of those just look very similar in style to the standup comedy routines Jimmy Dore tours with, using a laptop and large screen behind him to play videos and make jokes overtop of.)

We've written an article before about how Sam Seder's either brazen lies or disingenuity made him look tremendously stupid after 'allegedly' (for the attorneys) getting every COVID jab and still getting harshly sick from coronavirus after catching it, as he claimed in a tweet. Sam Seder, from what we can tell, has also never informed his audience that the medical-establishment 's definition of what a vaccine is had been changed after the COVID jabs were invented and failed to prevent people from catching the disease. . Probably not a good look from a man who contends to report objective news and current events on his show, but I digress...

Sam Seder's disingenuous smoke-and-mirror debate tactics have clearly been wearing thin on his audience for years, which is almost certainly why his viewership has been in a slow decline over the last half-decade, and as of late, the bottom has started to completely fall out of his debate performances he hosts on his "The Majority Report with Sam Seder" YouTube channel.

Sam Seder stopped hosting debates with high-profile libertarians nearly as often about two or three years ago, but his debate with Yaron Brook last year, in which he allowed Brook to talk for an hour to his audience about objectivism almost completely uninterrupted and un-refuted didn't help his cause, and was one of the first notable signs that Sam Seder may have lost his "debate mojo."

But then a few months later, Seder debated another YouTuber who he'd seemingly been developing a rivalry with named Jackson Hinkle, in which they debated Seder's apparent political loyalty to "The Squad," or the progressive caucus in Congress headed-up by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

During this debate, Seder seemed to begin to lose his temper as Hinkle pointed out several times that Seder had contradicted himself. While Hinkle seemed to stay boyishly humorous during the debate, Seder seemed to become more and more agitated, and then in turn would go off on long tangents and say more things that would contradict other things he'd said previously. The internet seemed to agree that Jackson Hinkle walked away from that debate with a "W," and Sam Seder had taken yet another "L" in the online debate sphere.

And then again just a few weeks ago, Sam Seder debated another YouTuber named "Destiny" about Kyle Rittenhouse. This turned out to be Seder's worst decision yet.

The internet erupted on Seder's smoke-and-mirror disingenuity, and many of his fellow YouTubers made their own videos breaking down the debate piece by piece.

Seder spent most of the hour pivoting from how he'd never actually said anything "factually incorrect" ( something that can be refuted on multiple fronts based on the evidence presented at trial , as well as the fact that Seder could rightfully be accused of "lying by omission" because he continued - and still continues to this day - to omit the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse killed both people in self defense ) , to how Kyle Rittenhouse had once spoken to "a white nationalist" (but could not provide any evidence of the "white nationalist's" affiliation with white nationalism at all during the debate), to a very strange, irrelevant story in which he claimed that once when he lived in L.A., one of his friends had been getting constantly pulled over by the police for "driving a Range Rover" (Seder implied that the police thought a black man driving a Range Rover in L.A. was in and of itself suspicious and that they only initiated the stop for that reason, and therefore unlawfully). Seder then claimed that his friend called the police and "asked for a sticker [to prove] it was his car," and the police officer then "asked him if he was black," and then claimed the police officer told him that because he was black, "there [was] nothing he could do for [him.]"

All the irrelevant tangents Seder took during this debate only made him look like he was trying to avoid actually debating the topic at hand. Seder also never once throughout the course of the entire debate ever presented any evidence to refute that Rittenhouse had acted in self defense.

The internet absolutely ridiculed Sam Seder for his disingenuity and insincerity during his debate with Destiny, and blasted him for never refuting that he'd been deceptively parsing his words to his audience when he spoke about Kyle Rittenhouse, and for never presenting any evidence to refute that Rittenhouse in fact acted in self defense.

There seems to be some correlation between the lack of debates Seder has been having as of late, and the shellacking he takes as of late when he does choose to debate. Maybe Seder recognizes himself that he's been losing his debate-mojo after all these years...

On the other hand, perhaps people just know what to expect now when they debate Sam Seder. When you're disingenuous that often, people catch onto it. People generally-speaking aren't stupid - something Seder seemingly doesn't understand - because perhaps he's spent far too many years talking to an audience that lived in a big disingenuous bubble along with him, and the second he stepped outside it, he realized the world sees him for what he truly is... a disingenuous charlatan.

Netflix's New Resident Evil Series Is Um... Er.... Uh.....

Wed, 20 Jul 2022 22:37:07 GMT

I uhhh.... um....

I still don't know exactly everything I'd like to say about this new series even though I've been digesting it for several days now.

This series is well... bonkers... to say the least...

I almost expected a Walking Dead-like zombie show out of this that would disregard a lot of the already crazy and unbelievable parts of Resident Evil ... (think for example in RE (2002) (the remake of the original), Jill never actually questions why Barry holds a gun to her head, and they walk into the lab to confront Wesker like they're best friends and it didn't happen)

But I think we got something that's - to an extent - maybe even crazier and more unbelievable, if that's even possible...

I'm really not trying to say this show is bad. That's not what I'm saying at all actually. Even though, this show does hold a 25% score from the audience members (who I'm sure are furious over the almost-complete disregard of the source material), a lot of content creators in the greater Resident Evil community have actually praised it - to an extent. That said, the data doesn't lie. Resident Evil is Netflix's #1 show right now, topping Stranger Things which has a much higher rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Which leaves me to explain all this to the anti-establishmentarians, and to be objective about it, and try my best not to piss them (and you) off in the process.

First, I should recognize that Lance Reddick is really good in his role on this show. He plays Albert Wesker (or some version of him, to not give away too much) and he clearly embraced the role - he pulls it off superbly. From the very first moment we hear from him - we get a vibe that this guy is sort of creepy and off - and maybe even has a scarier side that we're not seeing quite yet (this was at least in part of the way Reddick brilliantly played his character). And then we find out as the show continues that he has a very dark past and is involved with some very evil people (to use the titular word) - demonstrably early on in the show to be much more evil than him.

I should also clarify that Albert Wesker is not really the villain of the show - that's the CEO of Umbrella Corporation, "Eveline" (was this a very poor reference to RE7? ), who is the clear primary antagonist of the first time line, which takes place in 2022, three months before "the end" (the second takes place 14 years later, after "the end"). Paola Núñez plays Eveline Marcus and is one of the other standouts, in my opinion. Her character is completely ruthless, completely devoid of almost any relatable humanistic traits - she's easily hatable. I'm sure this character did disappoint some in the culture war, because the writers chose to make her a lesbian. I don't think was necessarily a "woke" choice though. Being a lesbian actually worked quite well - maybe even made sense for this character - as she was an extremely masculine and evil character, and it almost wouldn't have made sense for her character to have been married to a man, so it actually worked quite well in the context of the story. Her character is also involved in an absolutely jaw-dropping twist at the very end of the season that's demonstrable of just how evil and heartless this villain is. I'll leave it at that; I don't want to spoil that for you, as it's one of the most intense moments in the series.

The protagonists of the show are Jade & Billie Wesker (at least in the first timeline) and their relationship with each other as sisters is another great part of the show. The shows spends a good amount of time developing these characters and the relationship between each other, as they navigate "New Raccoon City" in South Africa and slowly uncover more and more of its horrid secrets.

A lot of the hate on this show comes from the disregard of the source material, and I personally believe that's a legitimate criticism. As a huge fan of the Resident Evil series myself, I wish these major studios would just stick to the source material when they write these adaptations (on a different note, I should say I believe Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City is a great B-rate horror movie, and 5 years from now you'll probably see it for how good it is, and it will be a cult classic). I don't believe it's too much for the fans to ask for these major studios to stop bastardizing and changing the stories of our favorite franchises. That said, I wouldn't necessarily call this a bastardization - it's really more like a deep continuation of the story, or maybe even a "spin-off." That's why I think a lot of RE fans that haven't even given this show a chance... should. This show actually does tie in the original source material quite well, in a way that even though might be a little "bonkers" as I mentioned in the first paragraph... it's just bonkers enough to actually pass for a real extension continuation, or spin-off the Resident Evil series.

On another note, there are a lot of tense moments in this show. It can definitely be a heart-pounder at times. You'll see some of your favorite monsters, and even some new ones. I'll definitely give a thumbs up for the music and the soundtrack which is interesting. The theme music is very reminiscent of the Resident Evil video game series and the soundtrack is more reminiscent of the first Resident Evil movie from 2002 with Milla Jovovich; it had a very cyber-punky feel with several Billie Eilish tunes which matched the cyberpunk feel and look of "New Raccoon City" quite well. There're just enough twists in the first season to keep you tuned in all the way through, and you might even walk away feeling slightly entertained. I'm still not even ready to give this an actual letter-grade yet, as I still don't even think I've fully digested it. My best advice at this point: Go watch it yourself and see what you think.

Ben Shapiro & The Daily Wire Are Giving Hollywood A Run For Its Money

Sat, 16 Jul 2022 01:09:35 GMT

...And it seems to be working so far...

As Hollywood continues to anger its audience with box office bombs like the recent Toy Story spinoff Lightyear , which was ripped by critics and the public for being woke and introducing young-adult themes to a child audience, Ben Shapiro & The Daily Wire seem to be trying to fill the void in the market that Hollywood has left wide open.

Recently, The Daily Wire's documentary What is a Woman? proved to be a massive streaming success, with The Daily Wire adding more paying subscribers on its premiere day than any other day since the start of the company.

But The Daily Wire is also venturing into fictional live action movies also, with titles such as Run Hide Fight and Shut In , two thrillers that were both generally critically-praised when they were released.

And most recently, its release Terror on the Prairie starring Gina Carano is popularizing amongst the right for giving Gina Carano a second chance in the spotlight after being cancelled by her own Hollywood colleagues .

And just a few days ago, The Daily Wire announced it was adding a new show to its streaming lineup with Dr. Jordan Peterson, in a press release where management predicts that will hit $200 million dollars in revenue in 2022.

Hollywood has a problem when it comes to the rise of indie films on streaming platforms. As Hollywood continues to lose its audience to sub-par filmmaking, independent media companies like The Daily Wire are coming in to fill the void. Hollywood has come to the end of another generation of filmmaking, and they will soon need to make a big decision...

Top Gun: Maverick - The Return of the "America, F*ck Yeah!" Movie

Thu, 23 Jun 2022 01:14:16 GMT

Top Gun: Maverick is the sort of movie that will not only become a timeless classic, but will also reunite America as a country in the long run.

Top Gun: Maverick at the time of this writing has only been out for a few weeks, and has already written a plus of $900 million dollars in business at the box office (and is rapidly closing in on one billion) - and for good reason. One thing that all of us across all points of the political spectrum seem to be able to agree on right now is that Top Gun: Maverick absolutely kicks ass.

This is exactly the sort of movie our country needs right now - a movie that's gonna bring us all together and chant "Fuck yeah, America!!!" And that's exactly what this movie does - but it does it in a way that isn't cheesy or annoying or cringy - it does it in a way that's relatable, fun and exciting, and dare I say... actually pretty fuckin' cool.

I actually really didn't know quite what to expect when I walked into the theater to see this film. I'm obviously not the biggest supporter of the American military industrial complex, to say the least. I was probably the youngest single-adult attendee in the theater; it seemed like the vast majority of the people walking into the theater were 65+ years old . I didn't necessarily take that as a bad omen though, because I had a similar experience seeing The Lost City earlier this year and was pleasantly surprised with what a good film it was (not to mention Sandra Bullock seems to have aged like a very fine wine). What I was really hoping though was that I wasn't going to have to sit through two-and-a-half hours of post-modernism; and I have to admit, it did not start out very promising, as the pre-show trailers were trash, including one for an upcoming movie in which there is a female-version of Thor , to which most of the audience members under the age of 40 seemed to unanimously "boo" at. I guess Disney-Marvel didn't do too much market research on that one before shooting it.

Anyway, the film actually does start with a promising message from Mr. Cruise himself, thanking the audience for coming back to the cinema, and assuring them this movie was made for the fans. I have to admit, the way he stated it, it was actually a pretty reassuring message - and the film begins quite nicely from there, with beautiful cinematography and music, and then an amazing sequence where Cpt. Pete Mitchell is testing a newly-created state-of-the-art government-funded fighter plane and sequentially hits a speed of mach-10 in a very cinematographically-exhilerating scene.

The movie then picks up with the primary storyline, in which Cpt. Pete "Maverick" Mitchell is given a mission to train 12 elite fighter pilots from the Top Gun pilot training academy to execute a near-suicide-mission in an unnamed country that's breaking NATO treatise law by building a large nuclear armament facility. To execute the flight path at very low-altitude in the short time needed to accomplish the mission would be impossible for any standard naval pilots, so the mission requires best-of-the-best. The story is very straight-forward and simple, which allows the film ample time to follow the characters and their interactions with each other, their rivalries, and how they all have to pull together as a team to accomplish the impossible. This is what makes the movie so amazing, and why it's so inspiring as a pro-America film. It's seeing a group of people with completely different personalities who may not even necessarily like each other at first overcome their differences and work together as a team to accomplish something supposedly impossible that makes this movie worth watching for all Americans in a time when our country seems so divided and polarized... and that's why Top Gun: Maverick marks the return of the "America, Fuck Yeah!" movie. This is the sort of movie that gets all Americans together waving American flags and rooting for their country as a whole.

By the way, on a side note, this movie has an awesome 80s soundtrack, and a movie with a good soundtrack always deserves credit on that front.

Even though I went in not knowing what to expect, I'm so glad I chose to see this movie. I suggest you put all your preconceived notions about the military industrial complex aside for a couple hours to go see this film too. I think you'll be glad you did.

Top Gun: Maverick is how you make a modern movie. Hollywood needs to take note of this. A simple, compelling story, with relatable characters, good cinematography and special effects, and a little creativity sprinkled on top is a winning formula. There's no need to change it up. There's no reason to not give the fans what they want. Giving the fans what they want all but guarantees a major box office success, and this movie is proof of that. There's no need anymore to shove the woke message down the audience's throat. They've already gotten the message, and they're ready to get back to watching some real, action-packed, ass-kicking, heart-pounding, tear-jerking, no-holds-barred Hollywood films again. And if Hollywood's taken the message the audience set them for Top Gun: Maverick, then the 20s may not end up being so bad after all!

Joe Biden Keeps Shifting The Blame For Inflation

Fri, 20 May 2022 00:37:53 GMT

"The Putin Price Hike" is nothing but a failed branding campaign, and big businesses aren't to blame for our current inflation problem.

If I hear "The Putin Price Hike" one more time...

Joe Biden has non-stop blame-shifted for the inflation problem since the very first day it became a political issue for his presidency.

Now to be clear, the inflation we're experiencing right now is not completely Joe Biden's fault. As a matter of fact, it's comparatively very little his fault when you consider the Federal Reserve's policies over the past century, as well as Congress's culpability in their big deficit-spending and all the previous presidents that have assisted in that also; but that said it should not be forgotten that bills cannot be passed without a President's signature (without a supermajority in the House & Senate), and Joe Biden did assist Congress in passing the single-worst spending bill in history .

One of the biggest (and frankly, most annoying) blame shifts Joe Biden has made for inflation is on Russian President Vladimir Putin (who is an authoritarian scumbag and a thug, and one we very much don't like; so there's no need to call us 'Putin apologists'). About 2 months ago, Vladimir Putin initiated a hot war in Ukraine, and the politicians saw this is as a great opportunity to divert the American people's attention away from very important domestic issues like inflation ( which is currently creating major devastation in the lives of the American people ) and holding Dr. Fauci accountable for his shady ( and possibly illega l ) actions over the past couple years, and toward an angry, short Ukrainian dictator who just received a forty-billion dollar slush fund that's going to make sure the suits at Lockheed-Martin and Raytheon get to buy a few really nice expensive bottles of finely-aged wine this weekend, and we here at EndingPolitics.com are absolutely positive that none of that money went right into Volodymyr Zelenskyy's pocket... (Keep in mind, this forty-billion dollar slush fund was approved and passed by Congress during a period of soaring inflation when the American government has zero dollars in reserves to get us through a crisis, much less 3 years worth of crises back to back.)

But seemingly the last thing Joe Biden will blame for this inflation is the Congressional government-spending and money-printing that inevitably follows.

And then, after almost a year of inflation above the Fed's own target of 2%, Joe Biden had the nerve this past April to coin this year-long-plus economy-crushing inflation as " The Putin Price Hike ."

This was absolutely intelligence-insulting to all Americans who'd been paying attention at all to the news cycles - and reality - for the past year.

To be clear, the terrible inflation the United States is seeing right now is due mostly in part to all the money-printing that's been going on over the past couple years, but also in part due to supply chain bottlenecks and bad energy polic y that was very anti-free market throughout the entire history of our country. Vladimir Putin's culpability for American inflation remains practically nonexistent. His invasion of Ukraine is disgusting and reprehensible, but it was the policies passed by American politicians and money printed by the United States Federal Reserve that is causing our inflation, not Vladimir Putin's border war. The Biden Administration continuing to use phrases like "The Putin Price Hike" as an ongoing branding campaign to blindside the American people and obscure Biden's own administration's responsibility for inflation is disgusting and reprehensible.

The other blame-shift the Biden administration has made (as well as a myriad of other Democratic politicians) is on America's big businesses for apparently "jacking up" prices during a period of opportunity where they can blame other factors. This is an unfounded claim, and isn't based in any fact or economic law (or even economic theory for that matter). Not only has this claim come from Jen Psaki's representation of the White House, but also has actually primarily come from economic genius Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) specifically, who has falsely claimed since November 2021 that inflation was a result of "corporate greed," a falsehood that she still repeats to this day (see the embedded Tweet above). Hilariously, she attempts to prove her claim with an article discussing corporate executive pay raises. The biggest problem with using this article to prove her point of course is corporate executives salaries, benefits, and compensation packages change all the time for a variety of reasons - and often times have actually little to do with a company's current profits or revenue.

Just as I'm writing this, Quinnipiac released a new poll that almost certainly spells doom for the Democrats this coming November. The poll has Biden pegged as a disgraceful 35%, only 1 point above Donald Trump's single lowest-point in his presidenc y (which was right at the end of his 4 year tenure). The Quinnipiac poll also has him pegged at a devastating 57% disapproval rating. Rest assured, many of the Democrats that are turning against him in these polls have inflation as the top concern on their minds (and perhaps crime also).

If Joe Biden wants to stop the Democrat's from losing the House and Senate in February, he's going to need to do at least these two things indefinitely: 1) He's going to need to stop blame-shifting for inflation and 2) he's going to need to actually get the inflation problem under control - something that he appears to (at least at the current moment) have very little understanding of, or how to fight.

Matt Binder Already Got Owned Again. This Time It Was On His Own Show.

Thu, 19 May 2022 03:30:18 GMT

Matt Binder isn't having a particularly good week.

They need to change the "Bad Luck Brian" meme to "Bad Luck Binder."

Matt Binder has been having quite a fucked up week, as it seems every time he does a show - whether it be his own or someone else's - he's just been getting owned constantly.

Last night, Matt Binder went live on his YouTube channel to talk about his appearance the night before on Tim Pool's podcast, TimcastIRL.

He spent a good bit of time refuting (outside the presence of Tim Pool of course) Pool's argument from the night before, but something interesting happened sometime around the middle of the livestream (which we took the liberty of timestamping for you on the YouTube link there).

A man who said he'd watched Matt Binder's appearance on TimcastIRL called in and began to ask him about economics.

If you haven't read our article about Binder's conversation about economics on TimcastIRL the night before this event occurred, then you can read it here . To recap briefly, Matt Binder was grilled briefly about inflation and economics, and proved he really didn't know much about the topic. Luckily for Binder, Pool dropped the topic pretty quickly when it became clear Binder was out of his depth.

Binder wasn't as lucky the next night on his own show. The man's call lasted about 15 minutes and he absolutely lambasted Binder's ignorance of American economic policy and how the fractional reserve banking system works, saying that a progressive political talk show host should at least be able to defend progressive economic policies when pressed about them.

But Binder wasn't able to defend them. Binder admitted during the argument that even though he did believe in Modern Monetary Theor y , he actually didn't have any clue how much money the United States Federal Reserve could safely print without causing major issues through the economy.

Interestingly, Matt Binder was smacked down so much during the 15-minute debate that it almost seemed as if the caller knew exactly how Binder would respond to all of his questions. He kept hitting him with question after question grilling Binder on economic policy and again and again Binder didn't have answers, frequently admitting that he was far out of his depth during the conversation.

Hilariously, at one point the caller asked Matt Binder if "Sam Seder would be a better person for [him] to debate" on the subject, to which Matt Binder only responded, "probably."

Matt Binder is a nice guy and I'm not trying to pick on him too much here. But the caller to his show last night made some pretty good points - including the fact that a progressive radio talk show host should be able to defend modern monetary theory when pressed about it, and should certainly be able to articulate how they'd be able to pay for the social welfare programs they claim to support.

Our advice from EndingPolitics.com to Matt Binder is to bone up on economics, and learn to defend the social welfare policies you advocate for. One of the last things the caller suggested Matt Binder do before he was hung up on was to purchase a copy of Ron Paul's End the Fed on eBay. We think that's probably pretty good advice too, at least to get started.

Matt Binder Doesn't Seem To Understand The American Economy

Wed, 18 May 2022 00:28:19 GMT

Matt Binder wasn't able to get too far into a conversation about economics on Timcast...

Matt Binder is a progressive radio host, YouTuber, and cohost of "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder" who appeared on Tim Pool's podcast TimcastIRL last Monday night .

All and all, the discussions were relatively boring, as the vast majority of the time was spent repeating the same questions to Matt Binder over and over again while he consistently danced around what seemed like every single question that was posed to him the entire night.

That said, there was one particular part of the debate that was very telling and well, quite frankly, interesting. We got to hear Matt Binder talk about something very briefly that we almost never get to hear him talk about on his shows - yes, you guessed it! - the ECONOMY.

Now, I want to make myself clear, because I don't think I can overstate this enough: This conversation was BRIEF.

Here at EndingPolitics.com we love conversations about the economy, so once I heard some economic words uttered, my eyes shot up and away from my phone which was basically preventing me from falling asleep during this boring conversation and locked on my television (I love my Roku!). "Could it be?" I thought. "Are they about to talk about something that ACTUALLY affects people's lives???!!"

Needless to say for those of you that have already seen it, I was extraordinarily disappointed when this conversation ended probably less than 30 seconds later.

But why? Why did it end so soon?

Well I'll tell you. It's because I don't think Matt Binder knows what he's talking about when it comes to the economy. Dude knows a ton about racism, homophobia, right-wing extremism, etc. (thinking back, I don't believe he brought up any examples that actually stood out or stuck with me - he may not have even talked about any anecdotes at all), but when it comes to the economy, he has very little to say.

We've taken the liberty of finding the timestamp in the clip for you, so you can skip ahead and listen to Matt Binder's economic ignorance and tomfoolery .

This brief segment starts with Tim Pool putting up on his studio screen a screen cap of the M1 money supply chart. For those of us that have studied economics for a minute, this graph looks sort of scary.

Matt Binder though, seemed sort of puzzled when he saw it, and admitted he "wasn't familiar with it." I suppose he's never actually taken a look at any federal reserve charts in his lifetime, as these things aren't terribly difficult to pick up on quickly if you at least have a basic grasp of the subject-matter.

That said, it seemed for a minute like Tim Pool may have started to get through to this progressive at least economically, because when he ran his pointer over the skyrocketing line that began in 2020, he asked Matt Binder if it looked "shocking" to him, to which Matt Binder actually replied, "sure," seemingly beginning to grasp what Tim Pool was talking about.

But then came the interesting part. Binder never refuted that there does seem to be a looming economic collapse in this country, but then he asked Pool: "What should we do about it?"

Pool replied, "I think we should curtail spending and raise interest rates." This would certainly be a great start, and was certainly a logical thing to say when asked that question.

But then Binder asked something strange and seemingly-irrelevant: "You don't think we should raise taxes on the rich?"

Tim Pool seemed rightfully a bit confused about that question, and began to ask Binder to elaborate on his question. "What do wealthy people pay in taxes?" Pool asked Binder.

Binder stared into space for a moment, then returned with "...not enough."

Pool then asked Binder what we should be taxing wealthy people. Binder gave a strange, and historically incorrect answer: "Probably uhh what we taxed them back in the FDR years.... probably like 97%."

Binder may have been referring to the Revenue Act of 1935 which did raise taxes on the wealthy, but no where close to 97%. The highest official income tax rate on the very wealthiest Americans under FDR was 75%, and Seamus of FreedomToons (who was also present during the debate) rightfully remarked that no one actually paid those (incorrectly cited) taxes anyway; which Seaumus is correct regarding, as there were far more loopholes in the tax laws in the 1930s than there are today.

When Binder mentioned the 97% income tax rate, he could have been referring to a period in the 1950s when the official top tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was indeed 90% (not 97), but because of the loopholes in the tax laws in the '50s, much like the '30s, it was really just another symbolic number that no wealthy person actually ever paid. Binder doesn't seem to understand this.

Even if Matt Binder was correct about the tax rate (which he wasn't), he never explained his theory on how raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans would help to fight inflation. Obviously it would bring in more tax revenue, but that revenue never stays in the Treasury's bank account - it circulates back throughout the economy.

But then came the funniest part. Tim Pool asked Matt Binder specifically how he wanted to tax the wealthy. After a short dance, Matt Binder landed on "capital gains." Tim Pool asked him how much he wanted to tax the capital gains. At this point, Binder must've been a bit nervous, because he came back very quickly with quite a stupid answer: "I just told you. 90%." (Within less than a minute, he'd downgraded his number 7% to 90% instead of 97%.)

This was probably the single stupidest thing Matt Binder had said all night. He clearly has never invested in anything in his lifetime to think that such a plan would ever work in the real world. If any investor in his/her right mind knew that he'd be paying 90 cents on the dollar on his investment returns to the government, he/her would never make the investment in the first place - it would be far too risky with way too poor of a potential upside. Or, and this is the best case scenario, the rich person would make the investment - just not in America - he/she would set the investment up overseas so the American government wouldn't be able to touch it.

From what we've been able to ascertain, Matt Binder host at least two shows about politics, and possibly three. Yet, Matt Binder knows almost nothing about economics. This is problematic for someone who self-defines as a "progressive," as the term originally referred specifically to progressive economics and the people who supported them. If he's not able to engage on the level in an intellectual conversation about economics in America, he probably shouldn't be calling himself a "progressive," or hosting a "progressive" political show. He should call himself a "SocDem" or some other label that has nothing to do with economics - because he knows nothing about it.

Did Sam Seder Catch COVID After Getting Every Single COVID Jab??!

Tue, 17 May 2022 03:34:42 GMT

It sounds like Sam Seder has taken every single available COVID jab, yet caught COVID anyway

On the YouTube show "The Majority Report," Sam Seder (the show's main host) has repeatedly smeared not only political pundits , but also private citizens who refused to take any COVID vaccines .

The problem though is, not only does it seem (and sound) like Sam Seder has taken every single available COVID vaccine (and booster) himself and then got sick with COVID anyway, but also that he appreciates the government-mandated-authoritarianism of forcing people who don't want to take the vaccin e to take it anyway , and also for those who may even have specific medical reasons to avoid it (whom from our research he has not differentiated).

And then, just about 2 weeks before the time of me writing this, Sam Seder caught COVID himself, after taking his precious COVID vaccine along with all his beloved boosters, shattering of course his belief that this vaccine could actually preventing him from catching or protect him from such a disease ( he claimed his experience with the illness was harsh ).

But even after catching COVID himself, and despite being 'fully vaccinated,' Seder has yet to acknowledge just how hypocritical he's been for the past year after catching COVID but exclusively blaming the unvaccinated for spreading it .

As shown in the graph above, Sam Seder's YouTube channel appears to be slowly dying. It would be improper to speculate why, although there does seem to be a noticeable correlation between his channel view count & subscriber decline and his consistently taking the political establishment's position on almost every single issue (including coronavirus, lockdowns, and masks).

It should also be noted that despite Sam Seder's notorious love of debating libertarians, his most recent debate with Ayn Rand Institute fellow Yaron Brook seems to have created a spike in his channel subscribers followed by an almost-immediate crash-back-to-0 afterwards, suggesting that the only content actually growing his channel are his libertarian debates, which he's been hosting far less often. (We'll let you watch the debate her e and decide who won it. For those of you that don't want to, the short recap is Yaron Brook talked for the "Majority" ;) of the hour and Sam Seder refuted very little - if anything - he said. Actually , he really just asked unnecessary questions whenever he spoke and that just gave Yaron Brook even more of an opportunity to elaborate on the points he'd made , instead of Seder actually refuting what he was saying .)

Even though a lot of leftist YouTube channel growth has slowed since 2019, some leftie-YouTube channels have actually been growing, notably Jimmy Dore's channel - whose as of this writing - has grown significantly over the past couple years, recently surpassing 1 million subscribers and quickly gaining on Sam Seder's YouTube-algorithm-favored "The Majority Report" channel.

Anyway, Sam Seder's contracting COVID after his endless preaching of the effectiveness of COVID vaccines (and even making the absolutely absurd claim that the USA reaching 70% vaccination status would end the pandemi c - which as of this writing in 5/22 - is now a complete joke based on the CDC and NIH's flip-flopping and goal-post-moving) on his YouTube channel makes him look extremely silly at best, or like a complete charlatan that knows nothing about medicine, pandemics, or vaccinology at worst. And, to make things worse, Sam Seder has never actually admitted on his show (at least from our research we've conducted here at EndingPolitics.com on his show) that the CDC actually changed the medically-established definition of what a "vaccine" is to fit their own newly-developed criteria of what a vaccine was in response to the questions the public was posing about Big Pharma's shoddily-tested COVID jabs .

At this point, Sam Seder's show "The Majority Report" should be treated as what it is: A propaganda arm of the establishment. His blatant spreading of vaccine misinformation on behalf of the establishment during the pandemic when he literally knew nothing about medicine is reprehensible at best - and could have potentially been deadly for some people at worst. Claiming that taking a vaccine is real protection against contracting COVID - according to the CDC's OWN DATA, at this point - is a lie, and just as much "misinformation" as claiming that hydroxychloroquine is a preventive prophylactic for COVID.

Does The Media Hate Tucker Carlson Because He's Anti-War?

Tue, 03 May 2022 12:41:17 GMT

Regardless of what you think about him, Tucker Carlson is one of the few anti-war voices on mainstream television.

Lots of people seem to hate Tucker Carlson, and for a myriad of different reasons. These vitriolic voices tend to be most heard on Twitter though and not so much in real life. Regardless, Tucker Carlson seems to rub people on the left side of the political spectrum the wrong way. But why?

There may even be some legitimacy to some of the claims of why they don't like him. Carlson shares some pretty controversial opinions on his show; many of which deal in politically-sensitive topics such as the ongoing illegal immigration crisis at the border . But is that the real reason the hate him? The primary arguments Carlson has made on his show in regards to immigration have only to do with immigration-crime anecdotes (with some supporting data) as well as his hypothesis that the Joe Biden-led Democratic Party wants to give amnesty to illegal immigrants to sway elections . These topics really seem rather bland in the white-hot political climate right now. As I write this, the United States is trying to evade a potential nuclear war with Russia, and we're still trying to overcome in some parts of the United States the Fauciism that has destroyed our country over the past two years.

To be clear, most of the vitriol against Carlson comes from the always-raging Twitter mob and the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC. But their anger at him for the aforementioned reason is fake and astro-turfy, at best. The real reason he's hated (by his colleagues in the media; perhaps not so much the Twitter enforcers that haven't ever watched his show) is because Tucker Carlson seems to be the single man in the media who has been allowed to speak out against the current war in Ukraine .

Why do they care, you might ask? Because if MSNBC and CNN are pushing pro-war propaganda on behalf of Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon and the military industrial complex, then that makes the talking heads at MSNBC the pro-war neoconservatives, and it makes Tucker Carlson the actually-more-left-leaning liberal (at least on this particular issue). That drives Joy Reid, Brian Stelter, and the rest of the talking-head morons at MSNBC and CNN crazy. The idea that Carlson could have a cooler, more anti-establishment and anti-war opinion than them drives them absolutely insane - and they hate it. They want to be the cool, anti-establishment journalists and they're not - and never can be because their entire networks are in the pockets of the establishment - and the fact that a "right-winger" like Tucker Carlson could have a more anti-establishment position than them is completely unacceptable. So, they feel the need to attempt to discredit the rest of his opinions by calling him a "racist" so that no one on the left will watch his show.

That effort to drive left-wing viewership away from Carlson's showing is proving futile too - as more Democrat-voters are watching Tucker Carlson Tonight than CNN or MSNBC, even the beloved-on-the-left Rachel Maddow . Seems like MSNBC & CNN will need to start trying harder to discredit Carlson if they want to silence his anti-war views... or at least try to make themselves look cooler than him, for whatever that's worth.

But there's also of course the other big reason: and it's that CNN & MSNBC seem to be literally in the pocket of the military industrial complex. Just a few days ago, CNN published a bullshit propaganda piece claiming war-monger companies weren't making money off this war and that their stocks had settled back down - but this is complete nonsense. As of this writing, Lockheed Martin's stock is still soaring about 30% from January.

CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the talking heads of the military industrial complex should not be trusted. They've already proven over the last 20 years of the Afghanistan war, the last 2 years of coronavirus and now their shady, non-transparent coverage of the Ukraine/Russia debacle is evidence of their complete loyalty to the establishment - and their bogus opinions should be treated as just that - complete bullshit.

The American Duopoly

Tue, 03 May 2022 12:40:28 GMT

Here's the thesis.

There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Some may call that a bold statement, but that’s really the only conclusion any logical person should draw. In fact, it’s certain that the duopoly in American politics has caused a lot more problems than it’s solved. Possibly the worst outcome of this political duopoly has been the creation of a large pool of mouth breathing dullards who vote only by looking at a ballot and making sure they fill in the right bubble with either “R” or “D” next to it, depending on which one they’ve been filling in their entire lives prior.

Unfortunately, because the political duopoly has created this pool of mouth breathing dullards (and there tend to be many more mouth breathing dullards that vote than highly intelligent people who condemn voting in the U.S.), the rest of the logical people in America get to choose between socialism and more socialism in every election. And of course, there are a few people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who would prefer to live in the old United Socialist Soviet Republic than the United States, but they’re probably in the very small minority. But the rest of the mouth breathing dullards within the two party duopoly still want some degree of socialism whether they will admit it or not, including the Republicans.

Republicans have historically made more fiscally irresponsible decisions than responsible ones. The Republicans are usually the ones that are more responsible for the bloated military budgets and are probably more to blame than the democrats for the escalation of the War on Drugs, which has cost the American people trillions of dollars over the last four decades (and lest we forget all the murders and kidnappings committed by the Federal Government in the name of this failed drug war). These people who call themselves “fiscally conservative” are usually not fiscally conservative at all, and actually are usually far more socialist than they would care to admit. How can the Republican Party increase the military budget by 54 billion dollars - a 10% increase from the previous year bringing the total budget to 639 billion - not sufficiently cut spending from other sources, increase the national debt, and still call themselves “fiscally conservative” without shame? It’s socialism.

Of course, the democrats are even more to blame. Under the Obama regime, the national debt increased 9 trillion dollars, theoretically making his administration the most fiscally irresponsible administration in the history of the United States. Obama hypocritically focused his campaign in 2008 on bringing the troops home and ending some of the ridiculous wars our country was fighting in the Middle East, and naturally escalated the violence in the Middle East once he became the president. And, of course, Obamacare has been one of the biggest fiscal detriments to our economy in history.

So, what can we do to end the duopoly in American politics? Short of passing a law requiring a minimum IQ test score before filling out a voting ballot (which requires some degree of utopianism as well), there’s not much one can do in 2018. It’s difficult to get intelligent people to vote in 2018, because most intelligent people are able to figure out that voting is immoral. Most people aren’t sociopathic and don’t want to force their viewpoints upon other people coercively, so they instinctively don’t vote. Forming third parties has also proven to be a tremendous failure in American politics. Even political migrations such as the Free State Project in New Hampshire are proving to be inherently ineffective.

The American duopoly may not be stoppable, but Americans may still have a chance through changing government locally. In theory, even the smallest and most local governments could secede from larger governments around it. All this would require is enough people in a small area that have a true desire for freedom. This seems far more plausible.

Twitter's Suspension of "Libs of Tik Tok" Doesn't Make Sense

Tue, 03 May 2022 11:38:31 GMT

If Twitter is going to suspend people for speech, its application of the rules should at least make sense.

Recently, Twitter suspended one of its accounts, "Libs of Tik Tok." Twitter suspending accounts it considers "controversial" isn't out of the ordinary - but this particular 12-hour suspension outraged many on the political right, as well as many free-speech advocates.

Twitter reportedly suspended the account for "hateful conduct." But there's one pretty big problem: the "conduct" on the Libs of Tik Tok Twitter account was just reposted Tik Tok videos in which far-left-leaning people (often teachers) said incredibly weird (and occasionally relatively-disturbing) things.

One example of the sort of video that can be found on the Libs of Tik Tok Twitter account is below. As you'll see, there's no editing done, it's just a duplication of the original Tik Tok video that was then posted to Twitter. That said, it's also a relatively good representation of the typical personality in the videos, as many of the Tik Tok teacher-personalities often admit to talking to their students about topics that the students' parents may disapprove of.

Regardless of how about what Libs of Tik Tok does, or where you fall on the political compass, we should all agree that suspending an account for "hateful conduct" when all it does is repost videos of other people talking about themselves - regardless of the subject - is utterly ridiculous. To claim that the conduct of the Libs ok Tik Tok Twitter account was hateful for just reposting videos also doesn't make sense in this context, because "Libs of Tik Tok" could just as easily have been the name of a liberal Tik Tok curation account where reposted videos is the content curated for a niche group of left-wing followers (just as many other niche social media accounts do right now). The fact that it just happened to be a right-leaning group should be irrelevant.

One of the biggest problems with this suspension though is the nature of the content in which the Twitter account was suspended for. If you're claiming it's because of "hateful conduct" when the account user is doing nothing except reposting videos in their unedited, raw format, then you must personally believe there's something wrong with the conduct being recorded itself, not the user reposting it. If not, then the Twitter overlords would not be suspending accounts for that reason. In retrospect, it would've probably looked less bad for them if they had just pretended the reason why they suspended the account was merely for copyright infringement of the original users' accounts and reuploading them without permission (I don't want to give them any ideas here).

The bottom line is: If Twitter is going to go around undermining free speech culture in the United States, it should at least do it in a way that makes sense, and not in a way where it leaves a big hole in their ridiculous arguments that we can laugh at them through.

Russian State TV Shows Bizarre CGI of Britain Getting Nuked

Tue, 03 May 2022 11:37:25 GMT

This is a disgusting, terroristic-style threat, and it's reprehensible.

According to WaPo , earlier today Russia aired on their state TV channel, a bizarre simulation of Russia and Ireland being annihilated by a nuclear weapon.

The video is well-produced and the cinematography is reminiscent to something one might see on an episode of Forensic Files or Real Stories of the Highway Patrol.

In the video, a man named Dmitry Kiselev is pictured speaking in a stern tone and apparently warning the people of Britain and Ireland. At one point, he asks "Why mess with Russia?"

While he's speaking, he's cinematically turned into a blurry silhouette against a computer-animated cartoon of a torpedo, then in a terroristically though perhaps somewhat-humorously-Dr. Evil-like fashion, the tsunami explodes underwater, creating a massive tsunami that wipes out all of Britain.

Although certainly threatening, one should keep in mind this came from Russian-state media, and this threat should be treated accordingly. We can never know just how credible a Russian threat actually is - especially one aired on Russian State Television - and more often than not, they should be taken as a grain of salt. One should also note that even though it's conceivably possible, there's no evidence of any nuclear warhead on the face of the earth being able to produce such a tsunami, according to our research here at Ending Politics.