Weird Postscript: Criticizing Dem Damned Dems

What's the difference between openly-biased journalism and dishonestly-manipulative advocacy?

One of the subjects in my last piece was the criticism of the Obama criticism of black men for wayward voting, as expressed by Sabby Sabs on her RBN podcast. My main point in that was that her means of expressing her thoroughly predictable view was through mis/disinformation, basically a bunch of lies stuck together using the glue of emotionalism and black speech stylization.

In that part of the article I mentioned that her RBN partner Nick Cruise had been on Glenn Greenwald’s show last week, to talk about the Harris agenda for black men. I hadn’t watched it, but I have at least attempted to do so now, and I think the beginning of that discussion is sufficient to establish a few things about intentions and the two people involved:

I included that last bit by Glenn because he expressed his personal opinion on immigration, which is entirely consistent with the mainstream or Dem left general view of open immigration as good, that rooted in the decades-long Jewish efforts to overthrow the old immigration limitation “quota” system established in the early 1920s that lasted until 1965, when a new act changed the system and swung open the big brown door. It’s clear that he doesn’t really agree with the true left or labor position that open immigration runs counter to worker interests by constantly expanding the labor supply with workers who are likely to be more easily managed/exploited by employers. What has always made that position somewhat wobbly, though, has been the internationalist nature of the true left - borders shouldn’t protect the relatively better-off prols.

In his intro Glenn said something that I didn’t realize, that RBN apparently was established in part specifically to criticize the “Democrat” Party. I have never heard Sabby express this predetermined mission, which would undermine the credibility of what she’s doing. Nick confirms that in his opening statement, and it does make some sense - the party has been the home of blacks since civil rights, in part because it’s also been the primary home of Jews since at least the end of communism’s viability in the US, and these two ethnic groups are tied together by the century-old Black-Jewish Alliance. RBN including Sabby by all indications grew out of the Obama presidency, the Sanders candidacy, the ultimate failure of both, and specifically to enable a “black agenda”. What’s the point of a black president if he doesn’t favor black people?

Glenn’s question is about a black platform unveiled by the Harris campaign, and I know nothing about that. My guess would be that Nick’s thumbnail about weed and crypto is somewhat less than accurate. Note that his agenda items include opposition to cop cities and bombing Africa, which sound like parts of a personal black agenda to me, as well as opposition to neoliberalism and Zionism, which sounds like opposition to a Jewish agenda. Then the heat slowly rises as he gets into the economic plight of the black proletariat, ending it with, “What is a real actual black agenda? They have none.” I think we know what he was getting to there.

One more quickie in the same zone of black anti-Dem activism. I started listening to a debate between KKK (Krystal, Kyle & Kompany) and BJ Gray, basically on the line between the two versions of progressivism on the left, those being progressive Democrats and anti-Dem post-progressives, related to voting in an election featuring Trump as the ultimate litmus test. The video is actually over a year old, which I didn’t realize until they started talking about Biden in the race, but that made it more interesting to me given that this debate would be unlikely to happen today considering how far apart the two sides now are.

It got heated right out of the box, and here is where BJ turned the subject from Biden’s pro-labor accomplishments to the matter of college debt relief:

So the first thing I’ll say is that I am opposed to student debt bailouts, especially blanket debt forgiveness. The reasons for that are that it’s hugely expensive, that it’s a middle class/upper middle class benefit and not working class, and it’s a program which benefits the less-responsible over the more responsible, it rewards bad behavior. I have not followed the matter at all since it was an issue in the 2020 election, but I’m happy to hear that Biden was at least trying to means-test the program.

That said, there are two things that BJ said which grabbed my attention. The first was when she said she received a qualification form from the government, which I assume means she has student loans which would be impacted one way or the other. So she has skin in the game. The second was when she talked about HBCU graduates having all debt removed. That doesn’t mean all blacks, I assume, since non-blacks now attend what used to be BCUs, but I also assume it does mean overwhelmingly black. So now we’re talking about a black agenda item. As in giving blacks preferential treatment on a matter that has nothing to do with race.

Now, I don’t have any idea if she’s even aware of what she said, this graduate from Harvard Law who apparently applied to have taxpayers assume her debt. But if she is, I also think she knows she’s not going to get any pushback on that from KKK, because they’re millennial leftist whites who have completely absorbed the rules of Cultural Marxism, and she’s black, a member of the longest-standing victim group. Oh, and a woman to boot. Boo.

Oh, and she said Biden was either stupid or engaging in a conspiratorial effort to have the program fail because he tried to means-test it, which is claiming there is no legitimacy in taking that approach. No, the only legitimate way to approach the problem is to wipe out ALL student debt, even that held by millionaires (who aren’t what they used to be) and people like herself and Kim Iversen (who also has talked about her annoying student loans), whatever their rosy financial condition might be. And KKK won't push back on that because it was Beloved Bernie who ran on wiping out all student debt and not doing something as dastardly as means-testing eligibility. And no one can question the Bernie agenda, they all agree on that.

Next - in their last livestream the Grayzone guys also addressed the matter of men with (and without) black jobs, and I found that to be considerably more interesting - to start with, I could easily managed to listen to the whole thing, which I can’t say about the Black and Green Show. Here Max wades into the topic:

The selection of Jake Sullivan as his face on the deep state is a compromise - it’s not Brett McGurk but it’s also not Tony Blinken. Where Sullivan qualifies as Solomon’s baby is his ethnicity - according to Wikipedia he was Jewish until sometime last year, when he became Irish. My guess is that he’s both, but decided that crypsis was the better part of valor and so started burying his ethno-history trail, or it was done for him. Max has said he’s a gentile, so is going along with that neocon cover story.

Then he claims Jewish voters don’t care about Israel, surely citing a polling article in the Forward that he’s mentioned before. But Israel isn’t a concern for the average Jewish voter because they must be totally comfortable that both parties will simply do her bidding. Not being worried about Israel related to the election doesn't mean they don’t care about Israel, those are different things.

Next he openly talks about the Jewish donor class, which is so close to a redundancy. But then he can’t help himself by throwing Christian Zionists into the donor class mix, which I think is a serious stretch. White trash don’t give much, a few coins in the hat and they’re good.

Inconsistent start, Max, which side are you going to come down on?

Before moving on with Max and Aaron, I want to address the McGurking of US foreign policy one last time. I just saw this clip from MR from a couple weeks ago, with guest Ryan Grim from Rising Points, etc., and he and Sam kinda put a bow on McGurk:

The key part of that came from Grim: “I think the reason he’s getting more attention now is that it’s so clear now that we have this permanent foreign policy that is immune from political pressure and immune from elections. And we need some way of understanding that, and so it’s like, ‘It’s Brett, it must be Brett’.”

That’s just so perfect as an absurdist way to not label it neoconservatism and so to avoid talking about Jews. Look, there’s that dumbass goy Brett again, let’s throw him under the bus.

Then Sam goes on to quote neocon puppet Rice and mention none other than the waspy Paul Bremer, which reminded me of an intro paragraph from the wiki on neoconservatism:

Many adherents of neoconservatism became politically influential during Republican presidential administrations from the 1960s to the 2000s, peaking in influence during the presidency of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prominent neoconservatives in the Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Paul Bremer, and Douglas Feith.

So there are Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and Abrams, four core Jews who worked in Dem Sen. Scoop Jackson’s office in the early ‘70s, the nursery of neoconservatism, and would come together again in the ‘80s on the GOP side under Reagan and yet again in the ‘00s under Bush the Lesser to craft the Iraq war. What was Bremer doing in the ‘70s? From his wiki:

During the 1970s, Bremer held various domestic posts with the U.S. State Department, including posts as an assistant to Henry Kissinger from 1972 to 1976. He accompanied Kissinger on shuttle diplomacy missions to Israel, Syria, and Egypt to resolve the Yom Kippur War in 1973. He was Deputy Chief of Mission in Oslo, Norway, from 1976 to 1979, returning to the United States to take a post of deputy executive secretary of the Department of State, where he remained from 1979 until 1981. In 1981, he was promoted to executive secretary and special assistant to Alexander Haig.

So a foreign service careerist like McGurk, just more Republican. No one with a brain seriously labels Bremer an actual neocon, not even in his own wiki does it say that. He would leave government work at the end of Reagan-Bush and go work for Kissinger & Associates; Henry was Jewish but he weren’t no neocon. Bremer came back into government in 2003 after the neocon crowning achievement of fomenting the Iraq war to run it (badly) from the green zone. On 9/11 he had been working for insurance brokerage giant Marsh & McLennan; his office was in the north tower just above where the plane hit.

So yeah, he’s the perfect precursor to McGurk, a goy face on Jewish neoconservatism, a compromised gentile guy caught in the crosshairs because no one will really talk about the blue blob.

The real Dr. Strangelove was proto-neocon Albert Wohlstetter of the RAND Corp and the Univ of Chicago, where he mentored Wolfowitz; Perle dated his daughter in high school. Here on Netflix that’s the Jew Daniel Ellsberg talking about his co-ethnics at RAND:

Back to Grayzone on the dark side - after dubiously saying Harris has lost five points in the cumulative polls because suburban Republican swing voters have gone to Trump, they being the target of the Harris campaign, he does the usual post-progressive thing on enlisting support from the Cheneys, etc. and shows an ad clip that features John Bolton (from open-source news clips). After trashing the general centrism strategy, Aaron raises the matter of Obama the black-man spanker. Or is it the black man-spanker?

So there is the usual alternative-view history of Obama the white-African who grew up in Hawaii (and Indonesia). The one part of that which shows compliance with the contemporary black victimization line: “He was not a descendant of slaves, he didn’t know what that was like”. What if it’s like nothing? I have no idea where my ancestors were or what they were doing during the US slavery era. Do people today who had ancestors living in serfdom in Europe at that time have an indelible mark on their soul?

It seems like the more tangible history is living under institutional segregation, particularly in the south, which is living memory if not lived memory. But even that was over by the time Obama was coming into maturity. His black experience was definitely a lighter version of that in America in his time, but what probably matters most is the extent to which he really absorbed that after moving to Chicago, an absolute center, maybe the center, of the post-slavery black experience in America. Electric blues at Chess Records to Don Cornelius on Soul Train.

The bit from the Garrow book about the white woman he rejected in order to marry a black woman is apparently heavily twisted. She was Sheila Miyoshi Jager, a Japanese-Dutch woman, and he asked her (and her parents) to marry him twice and was turned down both times, the second time just before he left Chicago to go to Harvard Law. Interestingly, her Dutch grandparents were named “the righteous among the nations” by Yad Vashem, for helping hide Jewish children from the Germans. Save the Jew, reject the negro.

He also was working as a community organizer before he met Mi’chel’le and while he was living with Miyoshi Jager. He met Big Mi’ch while working the summer in Chicago after his first year at Harvard.

It might be when Max berates Obama for telling black guys to pull their pants up that I see the biggest gap between our views on the Obama matter. Defending the cultural peculiarity of wearing your jeans below your ass which is to me the absolute symbol of the self-destructive stupidity of modern black life, the wardrobe of gangsta hip-hop culture, is a concession, an outright pandering, to that high level of contemporary black cultural stupidity.

When he says all they have is this condescending “identitarian” politics, he’s right, but only from a left perspective - the mainstream left over the last 30-35 years since the exile status under Reagan-Bush had been reduced to the remnants of Cultural Marxism: political correctness, social justice warfare and identity politics. Because Clinton embraced Reagan’s neoliberalism, which is Max’s economics, and neoconservatism, which is his wars. And all of that was the consequence of emerging Jewish political and cultural power.

His offense at code-switching Barack and Kamala isn’t his to be felt, that’s a matter for blacks to accept or reject, it’s their fucking code. He ends with his opinion that they, the Obama/Harris-led Dems, should face a reckoning, which really is the Sandersnista post-progressive in him talking, the disgust with the Clintonite Dems that overrides any concern for negative consequences. But it’s expressed as an exasperated personal opinion and not a mission statement, which is how people like Sabby and Greenwald express it. And that’s a significant difference to me.

More:

After the usual declaration that Obama wasn’t the black president he promised, which as a concept can also be viewed as effectively an anti-white president who gives blacks preferential status, and instead was mostly just another Clintonite president, Max gets to the heart of the matter - Obama was just another proxywarrior puppet of the Jews. But Max uses the new post-10/7 version of code-switching, which is to replace “Jew” with “Zionist”.

Finally, Aaron makes the modern version of the WEB DuBois / Marcus Garvey comparison:

Aaron does his typical crypsis thing of masking Jews under the coverage of whiteness, but Max as usual uncovers that, going straight to his J-peeps in the form of Springsteen and the despicable Spielberg. Then he uses hyperbolic rhetoric in claiming that Jesse was covered in MLK’s blood, which isn’t literally true - he was down on the ground floor when MLK was shot on the 2nd floor balcony walkway. His general narrative is that Jackson couldn't be allowed to rise by the powers-that-be so they undermined him, but, just like Sanders, that ignores the actual will of the people. The reality was that Jackson could never have led the Democratic Party, unless in the process it became a truly minority party with no chance of achieving any power.

That was in part because he was perceived as “too black”, but it was also because he was in reality too black. He was part of the New Left entourage around McGovern in 1972 that sealed that candidacy’s fate, and the indelible image was of his coalition of delegates challenging and replacing the Daley-led Illinois delegates on the convention floor, which also was the image of Big Labor walking away from the Dem campaign. Four years earlier in Chicago Mayor Daley could be seen center-front screaming “Kike!” at CT Sen. Abe Ribicoff speaking of Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago outside. Young future mayor Richard Daley is also in this photo, but is Bill Daley Jr, future Obama chief of staff, also there?

When Jackson ran in 1984 it wasn’t to win but rather to impact the Party’s agenda to include essentially a “black agenda” in the platform. He made his mark, but it wasn’t close to threatening to win:

Ultimately that all led to an election disaster for the Dems almost as great as the McGovern disaster, Mondale losing to incumbent Reagan by more than 18 percentage points.

In 1988 Jackson did better, but still got less than 30% of the primary vote in what was a very weak field of candidates. I had supported Hart in 1984 and he came into the process as the front-runner, but he got taken out by lapgirl Donna Rice and the Monkey Business scandal. That was enabled by the Dukakis campaign, and in many ways he ended up being the weakest Dem candidate of my lifetime, in my opinion. But at least he did better than Mondale, only losing to VP Bush by eight percentage points.

I ended up supporting Gore that year, and he might just have won the nomination if it wasn’t for Jackson: on that year’s Super Tuesday Dukakis won six states and both Gore and Jackson won five, the Jackson Five all being in the south, Gore’s stronghold as a moderate from Tennessee. Gore still would have lost to Bush, in part because he was only 39 years old then, the same age as Shady Vance is now.

But back to Jackson, he ultimately became a divisive figure in the party at a time when it was struggling for legitimacy beyond that. The change in Cultural Marxism that took place starting in the ‘90s made a black candidate a viable option strategically, as did the growing distance from the civil rights and black power era. But there was a kind of toe in the water other than Jackson before that, thanks to Jimmy Carter, and that was Andrew Young. Who, like Jackson, was down on the ground floor at the Lorraine Motel when MLK was shot.

He had been elected to the House, was Carter’s UN Ambassador, and later mayor of Atlanta. He made a successful transition from civil rights black activist to party politician, one that Jackson never made. There’s an interesting subplot included in his political transition in his wiki:

In 1970, Andrew Young ran as a Democrat for the 5th District seat in the US House of Representatives, from Georgia, but was unsuccessful. After his defeat, Rev. Fred C. Bennette Jr. introduced him to Murray M. Silver, an Atlanta attorney, who served as his campaign finance chairman. Young ran again in 1972 and won. He later was re-elected in 1974 and in 1976.

Silver was of course a Jew, and became Young’s Rahm Emanuel, his link to Jewish campaign donations and influence. His parents were born in England and emigrated to Georgia, and his father Wolfe was among other things a bootlegger, following Jewish tradition from the Paradisus Judaeorum. Silver was among other things president of B’nai B’rith, I assume of the Savannah or Georgia chapter.

Young never ran for president, but he was the kind of black figure who in the late 20th century could have been taken more seriously as a viable option than Jackson. Ultimately the actual push for a black candidate from the Cultural Marxist pipeline didn’t happen until this century and the complete takeover of the party by the Jews, and that achievement was followed by a push for a feminist women candidate (Killary) and a homosexual candidate (Buttiplug). Now we have a multi-hued woman who was basically anointed without objection (post-progressives don’t count) - the system has reached full maturity.

Max ends the segment with Obama knowing what the truth is but unwilling to say it, because he’s still a proxywarrior puppet. Max is rather vague about what that truth is, but the surface suggestion is that it’s about Zionism, when what it really is about is Jews.

I can take this presentation more seriously that one by Sabby or Greenie/Blackie, even though there are some rocky factual moments in it and I don't quite agree with much of it. Because it’s done by journalists with a transparent viewpoint and not done by shadowy activists with the intention of dishonestly influencing listeners.

Let’s get back to Greenwald, picking up from where I left off:

Now, that was almost incoherent. Part of Glenn's narrative is that blacks want the same things as everyone else (from “a material perspective”) and the Dems are forcing identity-based politics on them. But Cruise’s complaint was the lack of a real black agenda, and you know that what lies at the heart of that is reparations, the mother of all ethno-specific boondoggles.

Cruise again mentions cop cities, which is using an Atlanta label for a new police and fire training center to create a euphemism for increasing militarization of police, that in turn a euphemism for “defunding” of the police. If you do a search for the term you’ll find relatively radical organizations who are all in on police abolishment, that of course arising from BLM and particularly since Floyd in 2020. Is that part of a black agenda? How many non-blacks across the country are for ending all policing and the creation of effectively law-enforcement anarchism? How many blacks are actually for that?

One can certainly be opposed to current methods of policing and the militarization training received in these expensive new cop cities and otherwise (I am), but is that Cruise's position? It is not, because he’s a revolutionary black negro. Is he more Jesse Jackson when King was killed in 1968 or Panther Fred Hampton when he was killed in 1969? I don’t think there’s any question.

And he says the ADL thinks young blacks are the biggest threat to Zionism, but is that just an overblown redefining of their disgust with Ye and Kyrie?

On immigration, Greenwald again makes his claim that if you go back a couple decades the GOP right (again its face being Cheney) knew immigration was a blessing to businesses, but the left knew it hurt workers and so opposed it. What he doesn’t do is to go back six decades and the overthrow of broad immigration restrictions, that effort led by Jews, whether in DC that was Dem congressman Emanuel Celler or GOP senator Jacob Javits, both of New York. That was a milestone moment in the revolutionary era of Cultural Marxism, based on the notion of cultural relativism, that culture and cultural impact doesn’t matter, in fact it's an illegitimate concern, it’s racist.

Cruise comes back with the immigration crisis being caused by US foreign policy and wars, overt and covert, which is driving all these people across the border from everywhere across the globe. So, what, tens of millions of Mexicans have come here over the last half century as a function of US foreign policy toward Mexico, and specifically sanctions? Hundreds of thousands of tech-trained Indians have come here over the last quarter century because of US foreign policy toward India and the resulting hardships? All somehow caused by the Dems over just the last 15 years? Seriously?

Finally, on the subject of Indian immigrants, one of the MSM talking points last week was surrounding an article in the NY Times by Neal Katyal, which was about Trump’s plans to challenge and overthrow the election if he loses.

This seems to be very much an emerging storyline, the Steal II planned by Trump and his ‘Tards and the efforts on the other side to combat that, in part by elevating it, one assumes in turn with the hope that this might impact the actual voting.

So who is Katyal? From his wiki:

Katyal was born on March 12, 1970, in Chicago, Illinois, to immigrant parents originally from India. His mother, Pratibha, is a pediatrician and his father, Surendar, who died in 2005, was an engineer. Katyal's sister, Sonia, is also an attorney and teaches law at University of California, Berkeley School of Law. He studied at Loyola Academy, a Jesuit Catholic high school in Wilmette, Illinois. He graduated in 1991 from Dartmouth College, where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma Nu fraternity and the Dartmouth Forensic Union. Katyal then attended Yale Law School.

So this is a now-typical story, of an Indian minor player in contemporary politics whose parents arrived with some money and an education-derived skillset shortly after 1965 and the beginning of open immigration.

But let’s get to something really important:

Katyal is married to Joanna Rosen, a physician. His brother-in-law is Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

Jeff Rosen went to Harvard and Oxford, and graduated from Yale Law a few years before Katyal. Here is a bit of his wiki:

After graduating from law school, Rosen served as law clerk to Chief Judge Abner Mikva of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Rosen was the commentator on legal affairs for The New Republic from 1992 to 2014. He then joined The Atlantic, as a contributing editor. He was a staff writer at the New Yorker, and he is a frequent contributor to the New York Times Magazine.

First Mikva, who I have encountered before. He served as an Illinois representative in the House in the ‘70s before being nominated by Carter for the court of appeals (Carter also nominated co-ethnics Bader Ginsberg and Breyer, who Katyal once clerked for), and was also White House counsel under Clinton, who placed Ginsberg and Breyer on the SCOTUS. More:

In his later career, Mikva taught at the University of Chicago Law School, the Georgetown University Law Center and the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. He mentored future President of the United States Barack Obama and future United States Attorney General Merrick Garland (who also succeeded him on the D.C. Circuit) during their early years in law.

Finishing off this profile:

Mikva was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the son of Ida (Fishman) and Henry Abraham Mikva, Jewish immigrants escaping from pogroms in Ukraine. Mikva and his parents spoke Yiddish at home.

Back to Rosen, here is the journalism section of his wiki; note earlier the Jewish-slanted rags he wrote for:

Rosen has written frequently about the U.S. Supreme Court. He has interviewed Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justice Ginsburg credited his early support for her Supreme Court candidacy as a factor in her nomination. "...she sent me a generous note, fanning my hopes of becoming a judicial Boswell. (You planted the idea, she wrote, I'll try hard to develop it.)" His essay about Sonia Sotomayor, then a potential Supreme Court nominee, provoked controversy for its use of anonymous sources in relaying criticisms of Sotomayor's record on the Second Circuit, however, other media outlets, including the New York Times, had relied upon similar sources. In an opinion piece published after Kagan's nomination hearings and before the Senate's vote on her confirmation, Rosen encouraged Kagan to look to the late Justice Louis Brandeis as a model "to develop a positive vision of progressive jurisprudence in an age of economic crisis, financial power and technological change." In 2006, the legal historian David Garrow called him "the nation's most widely read and influential legal commentator."

So here we see his helpful support of co-ethnic Jewish nominees Ginsberg and Kagan, and not so helpful criticism of Hispanic nominee Sotomayor. Brandeis was of course the first Jewish Supreme Court justice. And we see Obama biographer Garrow here, who also wrote about King and civil rights and the struggle for reproductive rights, and in the ‘80s was a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, the party that rebounded when Sanders ran for president.

Katyal’s politics, at least his legal politics, aren’t left wing, rather he is very much what the Dems have so clearly now become, the party of the American political center, which is really center-right:

Katyal has described himself as an "extremist centrist". He endorsed President Donald Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court in an op-ed to The New York Times… In addition to Gorsuch, Katyal spoke highly of Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In multiple tweets that were cited by Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in favor of Kavanaugh's confirmation, Katyal praised Kavanaugh's "credentials [and] hardworking nature", and described his "mentoring and guidance" of female law clerks as "a model for all of us in the legal profession".

So a closer look at this guy who has emerged as a spokesman for the Dem side of the election integrity issue battle has revealed what seems almost inevitable at this juncture, that he’s brown face surrounded by Jewish influences, including in his own bed. It’s the Indian half of Kamala, and not the black… er, negro half that is of such concern in post-progressive world.

I’m not trying to say his concern is not legitimate, I think it very much is. But what gets revealed as the reality of this election is once again that on one side we see the establishment which when one peels off the cover one finds the Jewish ethno-establishment, and on the other side we see this billionaire charlatan operating with no real concern for democratic institutions that may not be resilient enough to survive his egotistic era. In other words, Ashkenocracy with clear ethno-objectives versus ego-based chaos with no clear and concrete objectives at all.

In the end we may all end up being prols with black jobs and no fucking agenda.