Baselessly accusing people of being Russian agents and weaponizing accusations of sexual misconduct are reputation-destroying cancers at the heart of liberal discourse.
That's what happened to Trump. Despite him being rich and part of the club, many NY elites used to look down upon him (goes back to his grandfather's days) for the way he talked and how brash he was.
Then he became president and people hated him for it. One can say his "exaggerations" were lies. But one has to agree that he would also say uncomfortable things with brutal honesty - like when Bill O'Riely asked him about Putin murdering journalists etc, Trump replied with "We Americans do it too". Democrats weren't angry at Trump for what he was doing. They were angry at him for openly admitting to what they were all doing. That was a bit no no. They prefer to do "bad things" while claiming to be morally superior. That's why I preferred Trump. He at least wasn't pissing one me while telling me it was raining.
The TYT guys accusing Aaron Mate of being a paid shill for Russia or other dictators can be seen as a possible case of projection. In other words, it’s the TYTers who are on someone’s payroll, for example the CIA or the DNC, and are projecting their own sins upon an adversary. Of course, I can’t prove it, but I think it is far more likely than their smear of Aaron.
Seriously, one has to wonder WTF is going on here ... are people in influential positions being taken, one by one, to the woodshed and being threatened with loss of livelihood, or life, including even their families, and God knows what else I can't even dream of? Why is *no one* in truly high authority on the Left speaking out these days, and risking (essentially) their lives to say the emperor has no clothes? (save just Tulsi Gabbard? who paid the price) It must be more than that they are just unwitting victims of the ongoing psy-op...
It seems that these character based attacks are being used by the pol establishment to nullify problematic independent, ethical, non-ideological personnel. Anyone not prepared
to blindly tow the current mainstream narrative. Tulsi Gabbard (Rooskie agent) for her anti-militaristic stance, Bernie ("women can't win for prez" - thanks, Liz) Sanders for his "radical" policy stances, and a host of others. Remember Al Franken ? Just too smart, independent and outspoken - he was good enough, smart enough and doggone it people liked him.
So they made him out to be Epstein+Weinstein+Cosby and the idiocracy bought it.
There is no simple answer for this - beyond the obvious that it would require a person of great courage and dedication to fight the power structure. In Bernie's case (and I like him) he also likely wanted to protect his political legacy and position of influence. Franken I am only surmising here had more personal reasons to back off. This is a carrot/stick strategy and the more one resists the smaller the carrot and the larger the stick.
If true, then in each case they are thinking selfishly. I think in relatively "normal" times (whatever one might consider that, say 1946-63, or 1975- 2001?), that is forgiveable. But I think the stakes are so extremely high to the country, and to the West, that one would hope people who find themselves in the extremely rare position they had/have, being able to publicly call out the deception, is a lost opportunity of incalculable value. We're essentially in a "war", and great sacrifices will need to be made. ironically, Bernie uses the word "revolution", yet everything he does is incrementalist horse-trading. He may well regret it.
Excellent article - Just yesterday I had an insane BLM psycho take a screenshot of a post I made saying that perhaps the issues isn’t systematic racism but underlying issues that need to be addressed— an opinion- this out of control lunatic wrote a review of my business calling me a racist AND wrote that I was a racist on a CLIENTS IG account. I’m sick of these morons trying to ruin people’s lives. This as got to stop
Also as a female I’m offended that this young Turks person is weaponizing this. If it was a problem- she should have addressed before not weaponized it when it was convenient for her.
OMG that's insane. Fucking crazy left. It's horrible. They're driving us to a societal rupture. Yes, a bunch of the right is cuckoos, but they're more of the "Please stop fucking with us" crowd. The aggression is totally on the left. It's horrible, and I'm so sorry that happened to you. It's totally illiberal and un-American to do that.
Congress is going to have to get serious about all of this when my team is back in charge. I wrote a ton of senators after the egregious civil liberties offenses by Big Tech after 1/6, and Thom Tillis responded with a surprisingly strong letter that really implies that he gets it, and he's mega milquetoast. We'll see. But clearly, Section 230 wasn't written so that people like you can have their businesses hurt for expressing anodyne opinions in what was previously a democratic society. Not anymore, apparently. Now it's political gangsterism.
Congrats CNA. I strive to be insulted by idiots. If they like me I must be doing something wrong. There's an endless supply of them, and they can only be contained by resolute reaction. Fortunately they're mostly cowards and weaklings, so modest preparation handles them. As a male, I can assure you being female doesn't make much difference in combat, only your skill and commitment.
Thanks Glenn. Great job as usual. These Russiophobes, purveryors of ad hominem attacks and other assorted attack dogs are the rear guard of the empire. They are vicious and trained to go for the throat in order to keep their masters ahead of the growing awareness in our culture that the only moral certainty is in truth, and that is not found in the cult of media, hate filled political prejudice and especially not among the powers that be, the global elite. The irrationality of these attacks bears witness to their lack of substance, although if one remains chained to the main stream story such attacks are taken as verity. However, there is a strong and growing core in this country and around the world who know or are beginning to know better and are thankful for your strong and clear voice among others.
Very simply I'll take Aaron Mate's assessment, a highly esteemed journalist who writes for the Nation, on the situation in Syria which has been substantiated by others as well, over a commentator who feels the need to resort to F.U.'s as she accuses those who expose her ignorance with accusations of being tied to dictators and paid by the Russians.
This should be educational moment for those, like Caitlin Johnstone and Glenn Greenwald, who think DemocRATS and liberals are on the left. They are not, and yet you both conflate them regularly. Let me help: Cenk is a shit lib grifter. Mate is a leftist journalist. Nothing in common.
Here is an interesting recent quip from Caitlin Johnstone:
"The most dangerous extremists of our age are not radical jihadists, nor fundamentalist Christians, nor white supremacists, nor communists, nor anarchists, but mainstream adherents to the status quo politics that are murdering people around the world and driving us to armageddon.
This should not be a controversial thing to say. Certainly some of the above groups are dangerous and wrong, but they are objectively far less dangerous and deadly than the mainstream mass murdering ecocidal extremists who people inaccurately label “centrists” and “moderates”."
She is excellent... but like Greenwald, who is also excellent, she often conflates the left with the shit libs and DemocRATS. She is doing a lot better on this issue now than she was before. Nice to see.
John, it appears that you and I may agree that both Glenn and Caitlin are both excellent and individualistic writers, as is Aaron Mate, and Matt Taibbi. Much like the rest of us I suspect all of these professional writers think often about the current plethora of terms and labels being used to define ideological and socio-political leanings and behaviors. How can they, even as professionals, not be even a little apprehensive, especially in the current behavioral climate of angry wokish cancel-culture rigidity, about which terminology will not divert their readers attention from the more salient points of their chosen topics. There are even angry arguments about the distinctions between "center" and "moderate", not to mention the feral food-fighting over the myriad iterations of left-right, conservative-liberal, Republican-Democrat and on and on. Some believe the term "Left" should be reserved exclusively for the pure Marxists, some the Communists, and others traditional Liberals; of course each of these groups likely make this claim; as do other smaller groups and many disparate individuals. There does not seem to be any tenable reason for anyone to affix any of these labels on anyone but themself. Allow me to borrow your borrowed language for a moment, "conflates the left with the shit libs and DemocRATS." I'll take your word for it that Caitlin Johnstone often may do that, but it has never attracted my attention in the ten years or so that I have read her on several venues; and I honestly have no idea what "shit-libs" or "DemocRATS" are, lest they some sort of ideological traitors. What I do know John is that we don't know each other, and as a result do not have the definitions of these terms and labels, pejorative or not, in common. And we, all of us, should be able to not be distracted from the substance of our host Glenn's chosen topics with digressions into widely misunderstood branding and labeling of one another's beliefs or motives. I am glad you enjoyed the Caitlin quotation.
"and I honestly have no idea what "shit-libs" or "DemocRATS" are," Oh, that's easy, just look at any blue team member and you will find these enablers of the ratchet effect wherein we move rightward when the Regressives are in charge, and stay there through the shit lib administrations. This has been going on most of my adult life, and it stuns me how few of the blue team seem to notice that the party they are affiliated with is a fascist enabling right wing party. Rinse and repeat.
Thanks John, it seems we can agree that political "Regressives" are a burgeoning, and approaching prevalent portion of our societal election participants, what ever their stated ideological positioning indicates. I have been accused (correctly in large part) of claiming to observe over the last few decades a % increase of Conservative -writ large - voter turnout, and a decline in participation of
the voting opposition -also writ large-. Final analysis: The Conservative elements within our society have, through several decades of concentrated organized efforts - as they have often done throughout the history of human society - both added to their voter base, and somehow convinced many of their ideological opponents to abstain from voting. The cultural irony of this present circumstance is that in a society of ~350 million people less than 50% of its eligible voters vote, while over 75% of them register to vote. While Conservatives, whatever their group affiliation, continue to represent a minority of registered voters, they do per capita out-vote their opposition; particularly in national elections. So it would appear that the "Regressives", as you so aptly characterize them, have managed to construct and promote political narratives that have motivated their fellow travellers to vote, and at the same time have convinced their opponents that voting is a waste of their elitist time, go have a Latte and kiss a Socialist.
Thank you for turning me on to the label "Regressive", I will only use it in polite company.
As Usual,
EA
PS Did you know that that lip-flapper Chris Mathews is the one that started all that "Red State - Blue State" nonsense?
I find myself mostly in agreement. However, the DemocRATS have proven they are not worth voting for. I like to say that the Regressives are beneath contempt, but the DemocRATS are not. I hold them in complete contempt. Their policies do not match their occasional left-ish rhetorical bleatings. They are a party of surveillance state fascism, Israel-firster boot-lickers, wall street lap-dogs, identity fetishists, torture forgiveness, war crimes, the pentagon, the CIA, corporate bailouts, kids in cages, "progressive" grifters, and "law and order" authoritarians. I believe a vote for them is a truly wasted vote unless their actual policies are what you want, and then you might as well toss a coin between them and the other shit party. Vote-shaming goes both ways : ) Vote-shamers who deride people of conscience for refusing to participate in a corrupt un-re-countable system that has the electoral college, gerrymandering, the undemocratic senate, and politicians that are in the pockets of corporate interests, should check themselves before shaming others : ) "lip-flapper" Love it.
We have been moving LEFT (towards more and more State, as a percentage of GNP) for more than a century (some would go back further). We have NOT been moving RIGHT (towards more Classical Liberalism, and it's freedom for the individual FROM the State).
There: LEFT and RIGHT, properly and clearly and simply described.
Indeed, Sue Persing, Caitlin Johnstone is one of my favorite word-smiths; and "narrative matrix" is one of her best. Naomi Klein has long been at the top of my list of women writers, film makers, and activists; and Caitlin, due in large part to her relentless support of her countryman Julian Assange's quest for freedom from persecution, torture, and false imprisonment, may unseat her soon.
When the left is marginalized and/or ignored in the popular media, consistently smeared by association with war criminals, neo liberals, capitalists, and surveillance state fascists, it serves the two-party "two cheeks of the same arse" narrative, and does a disservice to the actual left. No leftist should be apart of this obvious campaign of ignorance and lies that first started in right wing circles and has spread to others. There is no fucking tent large enough to cover Biden and leftists. He is my enemy as are all of the liberals and DemocRATS. They support fucking war crimes, just like the other miserable party. The average person is inundated with absolute bullshit... and when someone as smart and influential as Greenwald uses the verbal framing of right wing propagandists, I will, once in a while, say something about it, and you can kindly attempt to urinate up a multi-stranded hemp product, thanks.
I'm just sure that if I just spent more time clicking on random links from random ankle-biters on these here inter-webs, I would be ever so much better informed!
As a leftist how do you feel about the millions killed in the Soviet Union and China and Killing Fields of Cambodia? Was the mass starvation - 10 million or so - in Ukraine, the murder of the kulaks, the people placed in the gulags, the deaths caused by the great leap forward, or the horrors of the cultural revolution all really good and admirable?
Oh goody, a right wing toady and American exceptionalist. I live in the #1 death cult on the planet and tend to try to hold it accountable instead of going after the targets that the terrorists of the CIA/pentagon war crimes complex and the propagandists of corporate media would like me to be concerned about. Name one fucking country that has bombed, rat-fucked, regime changed, and imposed more murderous economic sanctions than the US. You can't. Name any ten countries with a record of atrocity as long and disgusting as ours? You can't. Sit the fuck down, lapdog. And just by the way the US, in it orgy of war crimes in SE Asia, not only committed mass murder in Vietnam, they also illegally bombed Laos and Cambodia destabilizing both countries, and leading to the horrors of the killing fields... nothing to do with leftists, you credulous jackass.
No, I am disgusted about "something". Many of those "somethings" are right there in the text I wrote... you could take a gander and then comment on something specific... or you could resume whatever this is... concern trolling, perhaps?
This was totally predictable. When one abandons principles of due process, presumed innocence and data based decision making to take down your political foes it is only a matter of time before you will get caught in it. You can see it through history most vividly in the French Revolution. I am not sure France ever recovered. Regardless of your political affiliation we will suffer from this
"An Ugly War Among [Neo-] LIBERAL YouTubers Shows Two Common, Toxic Pathologies Plaguing U.S. Politics"
There, Fixed It For Ya!
Neo-Liberals are NOT "left." This is just YET ANOTHER failure of the undying attempt to put ALL politics into a singularly left vs right continuum. It's a limited tool, and it outright fails in instances just like this - and of increasing frequency in today's world.
If Jimmy Dore and Aaron Maté aren't the left, nobody is. If you want to say that TYT aren't the left, that's fine, but it's a shorthand for the headline. Not everyone obsesses on these fine differences between liberals, the left, etc. But if you listen to the video rather than just critique the headline, you'll see that I draw those distinctions quite carefully.
No Glenn, these are not "fine differences", they are polar opposites. Aron Mate' is as liberal (progressive, left, whatever) as anyone, and the TYT are right wing war mongers posing as lefties. You obviously get that point, so please make it clear in your writing, videos and headlines. It is not a minor point as you suggest, it is about propagandizing the left into thinking that what TYT and other fake liberals say is reasonable, when it isn't. Making distinctions like this is part of your job as an honest journalist.
Sure, people like MLK Jr on the left, are warmongers.
Obama, the Clintons and Biden are warmongers, but they are conservative warmongers. They don't have a progressive cell in their bodies. It is always amusing how people try and make them out to be liberals because they call themselves liberals. If a bunch of bankrobbers kept insisting that they were the police, would you start calling them the police? I don't think so.
I've been perusing your comments for some time and often intended to reply; but now, what with your MLK response, the following list of "CONservative warmongers", and the superior "bunch of bankrobbers" metaphor, how could I not get off my ass and offer you a standing RIGHT ON JOHN!!!
Hi Ethan, Thanks. Because of Glenn's move to Substack, I decided to start writing a bit again. I used to be a managing editor at a small progressive news blog for years, but had stopped writing on politics etc. as I concentrated on science writing. But I have a few articles up on Substack now, and may keep it up. The times are ripe for critical commentary, since none of that comes from the corporate news nowadays.
Oh, I just realized in my earlier remark I hadn't made it clear; everything you wrote there except the part I cited in my other remark to this same comment I agree with and wish that Glenn would stop using the wrong labels - he SURELY knows better. ... He made a remark at one point that I took to mean he's choosing his words based on a particular audience, and therefore is using the words they way they do, even though they're wrong.
This right here illustrates an errant conflation of political ideas:
"as liberal (progressive, left, whatever)"
Liberalism is neither right nor left, as discussed here, starting with the foundational definitions of left and right, which pre-date liberalism, and then moving on through to early and then later liberalism:
Just like mis-identifying the players in a sports team, you can't understand or express political ideas accurately if you mis-label the political players.
I'm a conservative, so I suppose I don't have a dog in this fight. But high sensitivity and constant parsing over left, liberal, neo-liberal, etc., labeling does get a bit tiring. This article, and the reaction to it, present a good example. What does it matter how TYT are precisely described. They sure as hell aren't conservative, and I don't know how anyone could call them middle of the road moderates. Don't lose sight of the point that evidence free accusation of doing Moscow's bidding or sexual misconduct can do real reputational damage regardless of the ideological spectrum.
I STRONGLY agree with your closing sentence there. Yep. And as for your immediately preceeding sentence, I only as you to understand that just as you, as an "actual conservative" rail at the errant inclusion of non-conservatives to "the right", so, too, do those of us who are genuine Progressives on the left (and other leftist groups) rail at the errant inclusion of non-left types - such as the Liberals and Neo-Liberals described in the story (namely, Cenk and the other TYTers) - with "the left."
Simply, the left-right dichotomy breaks down when considering these people, since they are neither traditionally left NOR traditionally right. This should not be a tiring thing to understand, 'cepting of course that the ultra-rich, through their propaganda, want us fighting one another. Frankly, the traditional right and traditional left have FAR more in common with one another than either of us have with modern Liberals / Neo-Liberals.
IF - and it's a big if - the "non-liberal" left and right can find a way to see one another more genuinely, we could come together to do this country a LOT of good. The left is NOT this "woke culture" crap that's spouted by so many on the right. And, I'd venture, the genuine right isn't a bunch of war mongering creeps who want to enrich the military industrial complex, either. So... I think our coming together begins here, with our better understanding of - and listening to - one another.
Indeed those distinctions are very clearly drawn in your video, that is precisely why, having had to disengage at ~ hour X, after delivering a rant on off-topic labeling and other digressions, it occured to me that to revisit this thread after that earlier foray may provide an opportunity to repair any ill content left in my wake. And hopefully, if decorum had begun to prevail, and a topical debate had actually ensued, then selecting the "chronological" posting order to review the comments
You are (un-usually) mistaken here, M. EA. You're are getting good wood on those foul balls, for none of which you will ever hear, "Strike Three!," after all.
I remain confident the next will land far and fair, and end all debate. The bat and the decorum are minor details.
Que pa'sa amigo(:-}) What you say is both true and not-so-much, the latter being the idealistic (literally) decision that presupposed that "chronological" meant comments in order from first to latest. In the selected list the first seven comments had been posted within the last ten minutes of a two day old thread; this was a bona fide swing and a miss, hence "strike two". We absolutely agree that strike one was a killer of a foul ball, initiated by a comment so obtuse it seemed born of a narcissistic nightmare.
I do appreciate your supportive confidence, however good sir,
I made a cowardly decision; I took my batt and went home rather than continuing down that disappointing road less traveled.
I must confess that I do not understand what neoliberalism is. I recall the term "neo-con" from the George W. Bush years. It described bloodthirsty fiends like Bill Kristol and Hillary Clinton, loudmouths from inside the beltway who were anxious to go to war for any reason. When I hear the term "neo-con" I can still hear Rodney Dangerfield joking about the fellow who was half Italian and half Polish: he wanted to beat someone up - but couldn't figure out who. I looked up both neo-liberalism and neo-conservativism on the Internet and the definitions surprised me. Both, according to my Google search, favored free market capitalism. A neo-liberal, apparently also wants to limit the size of government and to control spending. A neo-conservative, on the other hand, favors free market capitalism while supporting an interventionist foreign policy. By these (likely incorrect) definitions, John McCain was a neo-con and Dr. Rand Paul is possibly the only neo-liberal in Washington, DC. If you can find an actual and correct definition of these two similar terms, I'd love to learn more about them. I realize that words change their meaning every hour, these days. In light of the fact that many cities, district attorneys, mayors, and governors no longer favor free market capitalism - opting instead for violent insurrections, mob violence, and the end of our society, it is hard to accept your conclusion that neoliberalism is the status quo, certainly in many large cities in the USA.
Yup! and they are all conservative warmongers. None of them are left wing politically and none of them believe their own rhetoric. That is for their audiences.
President Trump ran on a platform that included removing our troops from Afghanistan and ending senseless regime change wars. There are two things that Joe Biden has done right since his election. One of them was choosing to follow President Trump's lead in getting our troops out of harm's way in Afghanistan. I protested the war in Vietnam and ran an underground newspaper that I distributed at Fort Sill in 1970. I have never advocated for any war during my lifetime. You don't know me. And it is utter foolishness to pretend that Tim, Neil, Finster, Manwithoutporpoise, or myself to not believe what we say. Speaking for myself only, I oppose abusive government power and the assault on freedom we are seeing under the Biden administration. While thousands of criminals avoided prosecution during the riots of 2020, many patriotic Americans rot in cells with no expectation of trial this year. What was their crime? Trespassing.
Hi Charles, Trump did not remove troops from Afghanistan as he promised and he had 4 years to do it. He lied. He also drastically increased military funding, and did lots more weapons sales to corrupt dictatorships like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
If you are anti-war, please tell me the last time you wrote or called your representative to tell them so. I do several times a month. They know what I am going to say as soon as they see my name.
If you are talking about peaceful BLM protesters who were beaten by cops, as opposed to the capital rioters who beat the police, then I don't see your point. BLM protesters did not attack the police, the Trumpers did. So if you want to know what they are in jail for (and only a small percentage of them went to jail so far) it was destruction of property, assaulting the police and failure to disperse. But don't get me wrong, I think that many of the police in this country are brutal and corrupt. But that doesn't excuse what the Trumpers did on 1/6.
Also, even though Biden did pull most troops out of Afghanistan (while leaving plenty of special forces and CIA there) he is definitely causing lots of harm with the US military, including illegally bombing Iraq and Syria. But Trump did that in spades. If you still believe Trump after all his lies, then I really can't expect to have an honest discussion with you. Keep in mind that I hate Trump and Biden. You seen to be much more biased and only hate one of them. If you hate Biden, then you should hate Trump for the same reasons, at least if you are honest with yourself.
Balls man - I was brought up by communist parents - I've lived the life. They meant well but they're ideas, or rather Marx's ideas were juts plain stupid. All the good stuff that came out of left came from Christianity.
The difference between socialists and capitalists is that capitalists think that rich people should own everything, and workers should just work and get a pay check. You know, they should be wage-slaves to the wealthy. Please tell me what is so awful about the people who actually run a factory owning it? What did your parents tell you that was so awful? What about rich people owning and controlling everything, including controlling the government, is so good in your mind? What is stupid about workers owning the companies that they work in?
Great, now I have to go back to qualifying freedom with "individual." The only "freedom" you believe in, M. Art, is the freedom of the State (including the ivory-tower elitists, like yourself).
Hi Charles, NeoLiberalism is essentially 18th Century British Free Trade Imperialism rebooted for thermonuclear weapons. Its tools are USAID, NED, the IMF/WORLD BANK/WTO Triumvirate with some CIA and LOTS of disinformation thrown in. Through the PostColonial period, pliant 3rd World leaders could be set up and kept in power as loyal vassals to the US & its allies, given free rein to loot their populations as junior partners to the West, becoming billionaire jet-setters governing police states for a Hell of a lot less than the cost of bombing Cambodia. And at ZERO political cost to their US patrons.
For comparison, Wolfowitz and similar NeoCons are wedded to aerospace and its addiction to stuff that goes BOOM ! BLAM ! KAPOW ! 😎 aw
Thanks, Andrew. That being said, I am of the opinion that, just as America needed airplanes, submarines, and aircraft carriers to defend itself, the Space Force is currently a more necessary deterrent than our nuclear stockpile. Have I become a neocon?
No, you're not a neocon. Neocons want to increase the military budget both to funnel $ to their friends who are contractors or to seize resources overseas to give to private corporations. You want actual defense for the people, which is normal.
Mob violence and the end of our society Charles? Really? I hadn't noticed that the apocalypse was underway. How about police violence? Is that a problem in our society? How about military violence against other countries, is that a problem? How about economic sanctions by the US that kill people through lack of food and medicine, is that a problem? Come on Charles, you know that there is a lot more state sponsored violence than "mob violence", so please be less melodramatic about it.
Pay attention, John. Just 36% of young people in America still believe in the concepts the founders of our nation put in place. I think it was Hemingway that answered the question, "how do things change?" with the answer, "very slowly, and then, all at once." The heroes and "sheroes" of our nation will have their hands full patching up the damage done by the WOKE and the fools. If you were fortunate enough to live through the glorious sixties, you know what mobs are capable of doing and how infectious mob mentality is. Please expound, if you want to, on the number of black people killed by police in Chicago and compare that number to the number of black people killed by blacks in Chicago. Or compare the number of unarmed men killed by police to the number of police that have been killed by dangerous criminals in the past 15 months. Idealism is a wonderful thing until it runs counter to reality.
Charles, the "founding fathers" were the wealthy control freaks of their time. They not only owned slaves, they owned their wives, who could not vote. All of them were quite despicable, with the exception of Ben Franklin, who did not agree with the others on most major topics.
As far as black people killing black people, do you think that happens in well off black neighborhoods? No, it happens where rich white people make sure there are no job opportunities for black teenagers in big cities, ensuring that crime will follow. You know all this. You are not stupid. You just apparently watch the wrong "news" shows, and believe the crap they pump out. The "news" you watch and read is coming straight from the mouths of rich people, and you are falling for it.
It always makes me sad when I read that an obviously intelligent fellow like yourself falls for the lies and propaganda of the WOKE. It is especially troubling when I hear that the genius who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the inventor, the architect, the dreamer who represented all the best of the Enlightenment is disparaged and compared unfavorably to a sex addict who belonged to the notorious Hellfire Club.
I cannot help but believe that the society that spawned the 44th President of the United States offers no opportunities for the other 830,000 black people living in Chicago. Was it Obama's half-white privilege that led to his success and incredible wealth? In fact, just as in every city in every advanced country on the planet, a stable two-parent family, a healthy work ethic , the desire to get educated and the potential to learn are what create success.
I agree with you about the abuse of power by America and its unreasonable hegemony and strong-arm tactics throughout the world since the fifties is wrong and the policies of war-hungry scum like the Clintons, the Cheneys, the McCains, and the Obamas are a stain on our history. While I am embarrassed for our nation every time I see Joe Biden struggling to complete a sentence or to find his latest "thoughts" that someone else typed out for him on a sheet of paper in a forgotten pocket, I approve of his allowing Germany to buy oil from whoever that country chooses to.
FYI: I watch just one "news" program each week - that being Maria Bartiromo's Sunday morning show. Whether one wastes his life watching hour after hour of CNN, MSNBC, or FOX, it really doesn't matter. Everything is repeated every hour of every day.
PS. Did you "fall" for the Schiff impeachment, the Russia hoax, or the mysterious disappearance of all news regarding Hunter Biden's laptop computer?
"36% of young people in America still believe in the concepts the founders of our nation put in place"
... like institutional slavery, rule by the rich landed white men, subjugation of women, genocide of native populations... Unfortunately, I could go on; a great deal of "the concepts the founders of our nation put in place" deserve to be torn down and replaced.
Your focus on "woke" is child-like - well, maybe teenage-like. Grow up.
And, by the way, "[un]qualified immunity" has let the police run amok in the country as a rogue gangs who can murder without concern and that you don't see it shows your blindness - None is so blind as he who will not see.
Have you any idea what life was like in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, Art? I'm sure you cannot imagine what life is currently like in South Africa today. My wife and I have recently spent a couple days visiting with a couple who were born in those in those two countries and who remain in contact with friends and family who continue to struggle to avoid being mugged, murdered and robbed in these two unbelievably corrupt and mismanaged countries. Put your WOKEness to sleep. It's just plain stupidity.
You must know that what you are saying is total bollocks, which is a string way of say what you are asserting is untrue or a twist of anything common sense. For example if Japan is ruled by powerful Japanese men, or Sweden is ruled by powerful Swedish men, or Ghana ruled by powerful you are just saying the world is a certain way. "Institutionalised slavery' sounds like something, but it's been a long time since slavery existed in the United States - and worldwide slavery was ended by the efforts if rich white men. 'Woke' os targeted because it a a concept based on lies, like ancient Egyptians being black (look at a Copt) - Egypt is further from West Africa where the slaves in American came from, than it is from Finland -, and the big one now that Police are killing Black people in America purposely and in vast numbers when any fule knows that it is black Americans who are murdering not only their fellow black Americans in vast numbers, but also murdering cops and white and other non-black Americans. You are a fool who thinks that if you tear it all down a utopia will magically, and I use the word magically intentionally, spring up from nowhere.
There was significant mob violence in the USA last summer - something like 60 people died. Mostly instigated and carried out by left wing idiots like antifa and BLM. Sure there's Police violence but George Floyd died of a drug overdose while quite correctly being arrested for being in control of a vehicle whilst out of his mind on drugs. Anyone who really believes Derek Chauvin is guilty is completely credulous, and that miscarriage of justice alongside a clearly stolen election could signal the end of the United States. Of course the USA is guilty of terrible war crimes, most recently the wanton destruction of Libya for no good reason, and the war in Syria where Islamic State appear to have been de-facto backed by the USA (weapons and vehicles given to the imaginary 'moderate opposition' all seemed to end up with ISIS). But then Libya and Syria were destroyed by the Democrats, the so called left in the USA, and in particular Libya was destroyed by Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, saints of the left. Barack Obama certainly is strongly tied to the American radical left of the 1960s, namely the Weather Underground.
How does kneeling on someone's neck cause them to die? He was not kneeling on his windpipe. This is a standard way of subduing someone. Why does the Police Officer quite calmly continue doing this while being filmed? The simple answer is because he is doing nothing wrong, he is simply doing what he is trained to do. Also why is he murdering George Floyd if he is murdering him as you allege? Has the officer simply lost his mind? Also what should the officer do, or do you disagree that arresting someone evidently off their head on drugs should be allowed take charge of a vehicle and very possibly endangering the lives of other people, irrespective that George Floyd has just been caught red handed passing counterfeit money? Taking a massive amount of fentanyl will kill you, as will drug use over many years, which George Floyd's high tolerance to Fentanyl attests. You want George Floyd to have died of murder because it suits a pre-arranged narrative that Black Lives Matter wanted to push - a marketing campaign essentially -, that was ready to roll. They thought about rolling out the narrative with Ahmaud Arbery, but an idiot grabbing the wrong end of a shotgun was maybe a little too much for even the most incredulous. The George Floyd footage looks bad though, so it was perfect, even if the "I can't breathe" stuff doesn't stand up once you watch the whole thing. George Floyd can't breathe because that's what someone with a bad heart brought on by a lifetime of drug abuse experiences when they overdose. The police didn't shove those drugs down this throat, and nor did they force him to commit at least two crimes - passing counterfeit money and driving whilst under the influence. The Police did what they were supposed to and called George Floyd an ambulance. Derek Chauvin is innocent, but he must suffer so people like you can propagate a myth that the Police are indiscriminately killing black people in the USA because it makes you feel morally superior.
That was an excellent and informative essay, Brian. I appreciate your taking the time to post it. I must question some of your conclusions, however. For 30 years, I was a social worker in the state of Michigan. As the cost of maintaining people like me increased, the government relied more and more on contracts to private agencies who supported our mission of making Americans ever more reliant on the government: these contactors often required their employees to have less education and training and they always paid them less for their work. We are all seeing the opposite tack being taken by the USPS. As UPS and FedEx have increased their market-share by delivering packages to virtually every home in America, the post office has greatly expanded its workforce and now makes deliveries on Sunday. Corruption and waste, of course, is everywhere. We will always have lazy and incompetent workers and greedy and stupid bosses. It is the American Way!
"free market capitalism" is an oxymoron; capitalists want open and free markets ONLY for themselves, and everyone else aced out, whether via monopoly, cartel, ridiculously expensive patenting processes (that bar bright but not wealthy competition from entering the market on a "fair playing field"), and many other means.
Further, there's never been any such thing as a "free market," but that discussion is beyond what I have time for.
No offence, Art; but it is an insult to everyone's intelligence to pretend you know ANYTHING about what all capitalists want. It's like the media pretending to know what all of President Trump's voters are like. Or like me imagining what is inside Joe Biden's brain-case. The only true Oxy Moron I can think of is Bill DeBlasio (though John Kerry is 6'4" tall).
While their personal fortunes come nowhere near that of Bill Gates, Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan are geniuses of marketing and very successful capitalists. I doubt that these eight gentlemen share very many values or beliefs.
You're just arguing to argue, or are as dense as a brick.
I wasn't talking about "trump voters", by the way. Your defense of capitalists is to be expected from the successfully propagandized. But, rather than succumb to propaganda, I have simply observed and objectively evaluated the behaviors of capitalists since the dawn of capitalism and the characteristics I describe are the actual outcomes that they have achieved.
You can bring facts to a propaganda victim, but you can't make them think.
I will be happy to allow you to wallow in your hatred for America and capitalism, comrade. I envy your longevity and the fact that you have lived since the dawn of capitalism - when bartering stopped being practical and trade began in earnest among civilized people. You really should publish your memoirs. Many people would love to learn how life has changed during the past five centuries and how you've managed to live so long.
"Free market capitalism" is not an oxymoron, but "steady-state free market capitalism" certainly is. Power tends to concentrate, so the more free your market, the more lopsided it will eventually become without *some* kind of government correcting/shepherding. Kind of ironic that free-marketers need the government for something... but there you have it.
Power does not concentrate around capitalists, it concentrates around politicians. If you look a the turnover in the Fortune 500, and the turnover among who makes up the "very wealthy", you will reach conclusions that will surprise you very much. Politicians, on the other hand, hang on for far too long - even when they leave office.
How does turnover in the *visible* positions in just 500 companies mean that power is not concentrating? Metrics to look are the portion of industrial capital concentrated in the 500 vs the rest, over time, as well as the aggregate compensation in rug row in the 500 vs the rest, over time.
I think we're not at cross-purposes or in major disagreement, but that maybe you missed my point, so I'll try again:
The capitalists CHANGE the system as they go along, using their power (of wealth, and other mechanisms stemming therefrom), and so whatever "freedom" in the market you started with doesn't long exist, hence "free market capitalism is an oxymoron."
Well, they change the *character* of the system, but I don't think they need to change a single rule or law to get there. (Of course, invariably they do end up changing laws as well, but that's not necessary to make my point.) Anyway, yes -- the freedom that once existed evaporates.
My position is: There are no utopias, whether conjured up by the Left or by the Right. So there should be only a dynamic, hybrid system based on all we know about human nature, one that needs constant shepherding to provide balance of freedom, equal access, and (reasonably, TBD) equal results.
See David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism. A quick, clear read.
I'm trying to stop using the term since its use at present seems more often than not to be an insult, rather like calling someone or something fascist.
Harvey is one of the very few actual Marxists and in this era when it's fashionable to identify as Marxist or to accuse others of it, he is utterly marginalized, ignored.
Liberalism used to have a defined meaning: it meant a system where free man were able to sell their labour to who they liked (and no slavery or serfdom). Capitalism never meant anything because no one identified as a 'capitalist', capitalism just being a label invented by Marx. So centrists were always and still are liberal, and they believe in free trade and free markets, but not as an 'ideology' (Liberalism is an ideology), but as a technology - the market is a mechanism which they use like using a shovel to dig a hole. The status quo is whatever Marxists think it is, because they only know one thing, and that is that they are against it.
Dore and Mate aren't NEO-liberal, or even liberal, really; evidently Uygur and Kasparian are. Sad, as AV (don't think I have that delta on my keyboard) said.
I am very glad you brought this up Art. Glenn loves to call right wing war-mongers "liberal" which never made sense to me. They are Neolib war hawks. They are very conservative by nature, making the term "liberal" now mean its opposite. Like I have said many times before here, they are the Red Team and the Blue Team, and they are all conservative war-mongers. Think of them as combative organized crime families fighting over turf in DC.
How about anti-Russia? How about anti-China? Are you those things? How about pro-military? How about pro-capitalism and the obscenely unequal distribution of wealth? How about pro-sanctions against other countries? Tell me what conservatives want, because as far as I can tell, they are for the things that I just mentioned.
Are you for improved Medicare for All? Are you in favor of ending fossil fuels? If you are actually anti-war, how many times have you written your representatives to tell them? I write several times a month to complain about squandering our money on foreign wars, military bases, and war contractors. If you are actually anti-war, you would probably be doing something about it.
So what you are saying is that everybody who doesn't agree with you is bad and thinks bad things, so are right wing and evil and everyone who does agree with you is good? On one hand you are saying un-tangle the generalisations that rather broad labels can be guilty of, and on the other hand being conservative on any issue at all, just must mean a whole other bunch of related positions?
You are putting words in my mouth and you know it. I never said that people who disagree with me "are bad and think bad things" That is not an effective debate method.
Glenn, I have to say, your outrage at this point is too little and too late. The only reason this seems to have attracted your attention is because it's one left wing group going after one of their own, and perhaps you feel there's a power imbalance between the Young Turks and Mate.
Why is it okay that the mainstream media has been doing this to conservative outlets for the better part of a decade? I'll grant that some conservative outlets attempt to strike back. Of course they do. But, the truth is, our mainstream news is dominated by the Left. And, by "mainstream," I'm including the CNNs and ABCs, but also the YouTubes and Facebooks of the world. It would be silly to argue that these are not mainstream outlets these days.
They not only villify anyone on the right, smearing them with falsehoods they know cannot be backed up, but they go further. They deplatform and demonetize those on the right. There is no reciprocal response from conservatives because they don't control those levers of power.
So, yes, I'm sure there are differences between Turks vs. Mate, on one hand, and liberal news vs. conservative news, on the other. But, for a variety of reasons, what the Left has been doing to the Right is far worse than a few casual accusations the Turks make against Mate. So, I reject the idea that this last episode is entitled to special scrutiny. It is a small microcosm of what the Left has been up to, but there are far more prominent and numerous examples that matter much more than an intra-ideology squabble like this.
You seem to be implying that this is the first time I've condemned the tactic of baselessly implying that someone is a Russian agent, and that I only did it in this case because the victim was a leftist. All I can say is that you must *extremely* unfamiliar with my writing and work because I've been at least as vocal as any other journalist in repeatedly and loudly condemning this tactic when used over and over by Democrats since the 2016 election. Claiming I haven't talked about this enough is like saying Bernie Sanders doesn't talk enough about income inequality or Josh Hawley doesn't talk enough about Big Tech.
The fact that you, Aaron, Jimmy, and most likely a couple commentators/journos have called BS on the Russia nonsense have earned you a ton of credibility with conservatives like myself.
I understand, and agree with Laramie's assessment of the state of media affairs in this country. It's hard to know who to believe. But being being assigned the task of cleaning up the cesspool of "journalism" today is a bit too much to ask of any one man.
"I've been at least as vocal as any other journalist in repeatedly and loudly condemning this tactic when used over and over by Democrats since the 2016 election."
Yes. I'd go further. You've been far more vocal than other journalists. It's one of the reasons I've read your blogs and your books for many years. But, in that time, I've noticed that your sympathies are far more commonly expressed when the "victim" is someone on the Left. Not exclusively, but far more often.
And, I won't give you too much credit for exceeding the standard to which most other journalists hold themselves. You're Glenn Greenwald. I hold you to a higher standard. You've earned it.
So, my apologies if my semi-anonymous online comment was too cavalier. I try to avoid that. It just seems the attention paid to this episode with Aaron Mate was outsized in relation to other journalistic sins.
Denying a journalist a viewpoint, especially when so clearly enunciated, is a losing game. You factor it in and read with that in mind. Everyone has one.
Maybe you've not noticed that the most important conflict currently in US politics has absolutely nothing to do with Left/Right groups and positions -- L/R is only the ongoing cover story. Get un-stuck from that illusion.
You say, "They not only vilify anyone on the right, smearing them with falsehoods they know cannot be backed up, but they go further. They deplatform and demonetize those on the right." All that has *nothing* to do with Leftism, which, as you know, prioritizes equality over freedom, and should know, still values both. No -- this is Totalitarianism. This big fat lie of Totalitarians apparently goes at least as far back as the emergence of the Soviet Union and its "vanguard" psy-op, an obscenity to (small-d) democrats. "Stand back, lumpenproles, we'll handle it from here! We've got your back!!"
So these so called "Leftists" you've seen cutting the legs off Conservatives are not attacking Conservatives per se. They are Totalitarians attacking the very idea that *any* opposition to their newly-cemented, distributed Ministry of Truth can be legitimate. They are also infecting too many casual Leftists with this garbage philosophy. (That part of your complaint is real.) Thus, the fight on the Left is every bit as real, not just "casual accusations".
I am getting worried that we are going to have to replace Horseshoe Theory with something else. When it was just mass murdering, big brother Communists on the left and militaristic, aggressive, secret police loving Fascists on the right, the theory made sense. Now we are in this weird place where we almost have a totalitarian center. They actually like to call themselves from time to time, "The Radical Center." Neoliberalism combined with Neoconservatism in the pursuit of unchecked power and the destruction of Classical Liberal values. They are the poster child of "but it is okay when we do it!" We might need to come up with a name for a new theory. Help me out here people. Would Tetrahedron Theory work?
Call it "empire". An empire must act in pursuit of maintaining and expanding its power or it surely will fall. Therefore it cannot be constrained by considerations like law.
Pat Buchanan of all people wrote something like this, and he was right.
What is eternal is the State and the People are enemies. Ever since Marx, there exist two types of Leftists: those who understand, and STILL favor the State, and those who are deluded/tricked into thinking that the State is on the People's side.
I think it's just OH SO CUTE that some people actually believe that there's a difference between the "D" and the "R".
And by "CUTE" I mean, when you take your adorable 4-year-old niece to the zoo for the first time, and she points at the most venomous snake in the reptile house and says, "boopee!"
There's about a $6 trillion dollar difference in DC currently, and one side is attempting to jam that sucker through (which would be by many magnitudes the largest spending bill in US history) via reconciliation in a 50-50 Senate. Guess who? Not R's and not conservatives. I'm so over all of these blowhards on Greenwald's comment sections trying to preserve their anachronistic view of what "leftism" is. Wake up and smell the China already.
Thanks for the belly laugh. The infrastructure bill will pass, albeit in a reduced form. And don't you worry your empty little head, DP, the "R's" and "conservatives" and the "D's" and the "liberals" will all get their share of that sweet, sweet government manna. And the best part? They won't have to actually "build" anything.
But tons and tons and tons of Chinese products will still continue to be imported, though...all with the "approval" of the "D", the "R", the "liberals" and the "conservatives".
It's not infrastructure - it's the progressive government spending masturbation bill, like porn for unsexy people in the Bay Area. And no, R's aren't at all involved in it.
Belly laugh over $6 trillion. HAHAHAHAHAHA. So funny.
So then they cut it down to what? A measly 2-4?
Probably you won't think this is funny when the economy inevitably pops along with inflation (already happening). Going to be really fun making the interest payments on our, what is it now? 30 trillion in debt?
Extra credit for using the "infrastructure" canard. Progressives give two shits about the actual infrastructure. If they did, they could easily get a bipartisan bill through of 1-2 trillion. Our country has a D+ on infrastructure overall in the last assessment a few years ago. Just wait till the Oroville Dam finally breaks, I guess.
It's rather odd that you equate am opinion regarding a general political with outrageous smears.
I know the left very well having been one for most of my life and also having a lot of familiar with the its fundamental scholarship - more than almost everyone I know who purports to be on the left. To this day, most of the people I know are left, and I consume left-flavored news and media constantly.
That last paragraphs describes zero people I know on the left with regards to the right. Most of you are painfully ignorant about the right and instead traffic in smears generated for political effect. Your views, in general, are a political tool, not very different from the tactics Greenwald describes in this post. Most of you are simply unqualified to speak about the right at all.
"I know the left very well having been one for most of my life and also having a lot of familiar with the its fundamental scholarship "
Well, then! You fell down the rabbit-hole, didn't you? I don't blame you, the psy-op / con is *that good*, and it's been running longer than you and I have been alive, although gardually stepped up over the last century. As for me, it too took decades for the structure of Totalitarian con to crystalize in my mind, and realize the alternative to Totalitarianism is *not* only* Rightism -- it's *actual* common-sense Leftism, where equalities (of various dimensions and interpretations) is generally of higher priority than freedoms, but does NOT exclude freedoms. However, I'm not a Rightist -- it'll never happen -- although, today, I certainly admit it's 90% the Right that is currently screaming bloody murder about the slaying of democracy.
During your time as a tool, though, I'm curious, how did you reconcile your pro-democratic rhetoric with anti-democratic action? If the "scholarship" couldn't do this in plain language, then that scholarhsip is sh*t. I, too, am familiar with some of it.
"That last paragraph describes zero people I know on the left with regards to the right": "Should Leftists call (all) Conservatives/Rightists racists and white supremacists?"
[Assuming I understand your point here: ] Firstly, I'm happy to discuss and be educated further as to the core beliefs of Rightists. Second, as for Leftists, I'm not talking about people who think -- who I imagine are the type of Leftists you know. You must know full well there is not only a lot, but a majority, of people on the "Left" currently not only voting the Democratic Party ticket, but who fully believe that the Right-wing in America is chock full of stupid, ignorant racists ... just as Big Brother, aka "the Left", is telling them. I don't consider these people to understand Leftism, even while giving it lip service. Otherwise, it couldn't have turned nearly 180 degrees from 1970's version.
This is the sound of someone who go hasn’t listened to anything for a decade because he’s waiting to get his practiced piece out. Saying this to Glenn Fucking Greenwald ffs. Hi-LARious.
Another excellent job by Greenwald to lay bare our dysfuntional media. But at the end of the day, it is not the corporate media or the fake "journalists" like Uygur and Kasparian that are at fault. It is the lobotomized Americans that cannot and do not think about what they consume in the media. BTW, Aaron Mate is one of the stellar journalists that we have in this country today.
Cenk, Ana, Rachel Maddow and their ilk represent a fifth column within the progressive movement (such as it is). They owe their success and their prosperity to the Democratic Party establishment and, hence, they are fiercely loyal to it. Though they may sound like progressives, they are the opposite--corporatists, regime change enthusiasts and warmongers. Somehow, they have captured the minds of many liberal Democrats who swallow their lies and slanders whole, no chewing required. Independent thinkers see right through their bullshit, but, sadly, there aren't many such people in the Democratic Party.
Would that be the same progressive movement that en masse smears conservatives as "insurrectionists" (because somehow all 150 million of us were apparently jammed into the Capitol on 1/6) and uses that as a pretext to shut down all large conservative groups on FB in a concerted cross-Big Tech attack on basically anything and everything conservative? Every single progressive I know (I know tons) were all on board with all of that shit. Hats off to Greenwald, Taibbi, and pals, but the above is who progressives are. I get it - people on the left who participate here mostly aren't down with this stuff (although some actually really are, they're just harder left so they're like F those phonies with their fancy coffee), but can we stop pretending? These people are not liberals, they're leftists. They just generally have a lot of cash (or will if they're young when they start adulting). And all of these people are basically Yay, Antifa! None of them have any curiosity and look at the videos (including the friendly black mask thugs who just beat the shit out of a bunch of people in LA just the other day in front of Wi Spa). Nope, just Evil Racist Conservatives Practically Subhuman Must Be Stopped By Any Means Necessary!!!!
It's fucking sick.
Wi is a nice place BTW if anyone ever gets a chance. Korean spas in LA are one of its not so hidden delights.
While I consider Ali the greatest heavyweight fighter, my heart was always w/ Joe Frazier. You see, Joe would just keep comin'! He didn't care what you threw at him, Joe would just keep throwing leather. Glenn, I deem you the Joe Frazier of journalists. Great rant.
The attack on Tulsi Gabbard stands out as one of the worst recently.
That right there showed what a total scum sucking pig Hillary Clinton is.
I wouldn't vote for Tulsi but I wouldn't fear for the future of my country like I do with the Gerber Baby.
Agreed, except I'd vote for the honest, strong, principled Tulsi.
I'd definitely vote for Tulsi.
With me her character is not in question but her politics, particularly economic.
Her honesty over ideology marks her as not a proper person. The echo chambers can't stand for honesty.
Nothing gets you kicked out of the Big Club quicker than honesty.
That's what happened to Trump. Despite him being rich and part of the club, many NY elites used to look down upon him (goes back to his grandfather's days) for the way he talked and how brash he was.
Then he became president and people hated him for it. One can say his "exaggerations" were lies. But one has to agree that he would also say uncomfortable things with brutal honesty - like when Bill O'Riely asked him about Putin murdering journalists etc, Trump replied with "We Americans do it too". Democrats weren't angry at Trump for what he was doing. They were angry at him for openly admitting to what they were all doing. That was a bit no no. They prefer to do "bad things" while claiming to be morally superior. That's why I preferred Trump. He at least wasn't pissing one me while telling me it was raining.
"One can say his 'exaggerations' were lies" -- or any rational person.
"Straight trees are cut first and honest people are screwed first" -- Chanakya. I have immense experience in this territory.
Funny things happen when you cross the Clintons.
Trump should have appreciated the stakes ... cuz he still ain't seen nothin' yet. He'll be the first ex-president behind bars, guilty or not.
The TYT guys accusing Aaron Mate of being a paid shill for Russia or other dictators can be seen as a possible case of projection. In other words, it’s the TYTers who are on someone’s payroll, for example the CIA or the DNC, and are projecting their own sins upon an adversary. Of course, I can’t prove it, but I think it is far more likely than their smear of Aaron.
Seriously, one has to wonder WTF is going on here ... are people in influential positions being taken, one by one, to the woodshed and being threatened with loss of livelihood, or life, including even their families, and God knows what else I can't even dream of? Why is *no one* in truly high authority on the Left speaking out these days, and risking (essentially) their lives to say the emperor has no clothes? (save just Tulsi Gabbard? who paid the price) It must be more than that they are just unwitting victims of the ongoing psy-op...
It seems that these character based attacks are being used by the pol establishment to nullify problematic independent, ethical, non-ideological personnel. Anyone not prepared
to blindly tow the current mainstream narrative. Tulsi Gabbard (Rooskie agent) for her anti-militaristic stance, Bernie ("women can't win for prez" - thanks, Liz) Sanders for his "radical" policy stances, and a host of others. Remember Al Franken ? Just too smart, independent and outspoken - he was good enough, smart enough and doggone it people liked him.
So they made him out to be Epstein+Weinstein+Cosby and the idiocracy bought it.
But, per my point, Sanders and Franken didn't fight back. Why?
There is no simple answer for this - beyond the obvious that it would require a person of great courage and dedication to fight the power structure. In Bernie's case (and I like him) he also likely wanted to protect his political legacy and position of influence. Franken I am only surmising here had more personal reasons to back off. This is a carrot/stick strategy and the more one resists the smaller the carrot and the larger the stick.
If true, then in each case they are thinking selfishly. I think in relatively "normal" times (whatever one might consider that, say 1946-63, or 1975- 2001?), that is forgiveable. But I think the stakes are so extremely high to the country, and to the West, that one would hope people who find themselves in the extremely rare position they had/have, being able to publicly call out the deception, is a lost opportunity of incalculable value. We're essentially in a "war", and great sacrifices will need to be made. ironically, Bernie uses the word "revolution", yet everything he does is incrementalist horse-trading. He may well regret it.
Excellent article - Just yesterday I had an insane BLM psycho take a screenshot of a post I made saying that perhaps the issues isn’t systematic racism but underlying issues that need to be addressed— an opinion- this out of control lunatic wrote a review of my business calling me a racist AND wrote that I was a racist on a CLIENTS IG account. I’m sick of these morons trying to ruin people’s lives. This as got to stop
Also as a female I’m offended that this young Turks person is weaponizing this. If it was a problem- she should have addressed before not weaponized it when it was convenient for her.
OMG that's insane. Fucking crazy left. It's horrible. They're driving us to a societal rupture. Yes, a bunch of the right is cuckoos, but they're more of the "Please stop fucking with us" crowd. The aggression is totally on the left. It's horrible, and I'm so sorry that happened to you. It's totally illiberal and un-American to do that.
Thanks - it’s so frustrating. The worst part is there’s no identifiable info on the account(s) to go after the idiot.
Congress is going to have to get serious about all of this when my team is back in charge. I wrote a ton of senators after the egregious civil liberties offenses by Big Tech after 1/6, and Thom Tillis responded with a surprisingly strong letter that really implies that he gets it, and he's mega milquetoast. We'll see. But clearly, Section 230 wasn't written so that people like you can have their businesses hurt for expressing anodyne opinions in what was previously a democratic society. Not anymore, apparently. Now it's political gangsterism.
Did the woketard identity herself? Because this doesn’t stop without lawsuits.
Exactly! No identifying info or picture- pathetic coward.
Congrats CNA. I strive to be insulted by idiots. If they like me I must be doing something wrong. There's an endless supply of them, and they can only be contained by resolute reaction. Fortunately they're mostly cowards and weaklings, so modest preparation handles them. As a male, I can assure you being female doesn't make much difference in combat, only your skill and commitment.
Thanks Glenn. Great job as usual. These Russiophobes, purveryors of ad hominem attacks and other assorted attack dogs are the rear guard of the empire. They are vicious and trained to go for the throat in order to keep their masters ahead of the growing awareness in our culture that the only moral certainty is in truth, and that is not found in the cult of media, hate filled political prejudice and especially not among the powers that be, the global elite. The irrationality of these attacks bears witness to their lack of substance, although if one remains chained to the main stream story such attacks are taken as verity. However, there is a strong and growing core in this country and around the world who know or are beginning to know better and are thankful for your strong and clear voice among others.
Very simply I'll take Aaron Mate's assessment, a highly esteemed journalist who writes for the Nation, on the situation in Syria which has been substantiated by others as well, over a commentator who feels the need to resort to F.U.'s as she accuses those who expose her ignorance with accusations of being tied to dictators and paid by the Russians.
This should be educational moment for those, like Caitlin Johnstone and Glenn Greenwald, who think DemocRATS and liberals are on the left. They are not, and yet you both conflate them regularly. Let me help: Cenk is a shit lib grifter. Mate is a leftist journalist. Nothing in common.
Here is an interesting recent quip from Caitlin Johnstone:
"The most dangerous extremists of our age are not radical jihadists, nor fundamentalist Christians, nor white supremacists, nor communists, nor anarchists, but mainstream adherents to the status quo politics that are murdering people around the world and driving us to armageddon.
This should not be a controversial thing to say. Certainly some of the above groups are dangerous and wrong, but they are objectively far less dangerous and deadly than the mainstream mass murdering ecocidal extremists who people inaccurately label “centrists” and “moderates”."
She is excellent... but like Greenwald, who is also excellent, she often conflates the left with the shit libs and DemocRATS. She is doing a lot better on this issue now than she was before. Nice to see.
John, it appears that you and I may agree that both Glenn and Caitlin are both excellent and individualistic writers, as is Aaron Mate, and Matt Taibbi. Much like the rest of us I suspect all of these professional writers think often about the current plethora of terms and labels being used to define ideological and socio-political leanings and behaviors. How can they, even as professionals, not be even a little apprehensive, especially in the current behavioral climate of angry wokish cancel-culture rigidity, about which terminology will not divert their readers attention from the more salient points of their chosen topics. There are even angry arguments about the distinctions between "center" and "moderate", not to mention the feral food-fighting over the myriad iterations of left-right, conservative-liberal, Republican-Democrat and on and on. Some believe the term "Left" should be reserved exclusively for the pure Marxists, some the Communists, and others traditional Liberals; of course each of these groups likely make this claim; as do other smaller groups and many disparate individuals. There does not seem to be any tenable reason for anyone to affix any of these labels on anyone but themself. Allow me to borrow your borrowed language for a moment, "conflates the left with the shit libs and DemocRATS." I'll take your word for it that Caitlin Johnstone often may do that, but it has never attracted my attention in the ten years or so that I have read her on several venues; and I honestly have no idea what "shit-libs" or "DemocRATS" are, lest they some sort of ideological traitors. What I do know John is that we don't know each other, and as a result do not have the definitions of these terms and labels, pejorative or not, in common. And we, all of us, should be able to not be distracted from the substance of our host Glenn's chosen topics with digressions into widely misunderstood branding and labeling of one another's beliefs or motives. I am glad you enjoyed the Caitlin quotation.
As Usual,
EA
"and I honestly have no idea what "shit-libs" or "DemocRATS" are," Oh, that's easy, just look at any blue team member and you will find these enablers of the ratchet effect wherein we move rightward when the Regressives are in charge, and stay there through the shit lib administrations. This has been going on most of my adult life, and it stuns me how few of the blue team seem to notice that the party they are affiliated with is a fascist enabling right wing party. Rinse and repeat.
Thanks John, it seems we can agree that political "Regressives" are a burgeoning, and approaching prevalent portion of our societal election participants, what ever their stated ideological positioning indicates. I have been accused (correctly in large part) of claiming to observe over the last few decades a % increase of Conservative -writ large - voter turnout, and a decline in participation of
the voting opposition -also writ large-. Final analysis: The Conservative elements within our society have, through several decades of concentrated organized efforts - as they have often done throughout the history of human society - both added to their voter base, and somehow convinced many of their ideological opponents to abstain from voting. The cultural irony of this present circumstance is that in a society of ~350 million people less than 50% of its eligible voters vote, while over 75% of them register to vote. While Conservatives, whatever their group affiliation, continue to represent a minority of registered voters, they do per capita out-vote their opposition; particularly in national elections. So it would appear that the "Regressives", as you so aptly characterize them, have managed to construct and promote political narratives that have motivated their fellow travellers to vote, and at the same time have convinced their opponents that voting is a waste of their elitist time, go have a Latte and kiss a Socialist.
Thank you for turning me on to the label "Regressive", I will only use it in polite company.
As Usual,
EA
PS Did you know that that lip-flapper Chris Mathews is the one that started all that "Red State - Blue State" nonsense?
I find myself mostly in agreement. However, the DemocRATS have proven they are not worth voting for. I like to say that the Regressives are beneath contempt, but the DemocRATS are not. I hold them in complete contempt. Their policies do not match their occasional left-ish rhetorical bleatings. They are a party of surveillance state fascism, Israel-firster boot-lickers, wall street lap-dogs, identity fetishists, torture forgiveness, war crimes, the pentagon, the CIA, corporate bailouts, kids in cages, "progressive" grifters, and "law and order" authoritarians. I believe a vote for them is a truly wasted vote unless their actual policies are what you want, and then you might as well toss a coin between them and the other shit party. Vote-shaming goes both ways : ) Vote-shamers who deride people of conscience for refusing to participate in a corrupt un-re-countable system that has the electoral college, gerrymandering, the undemocratic senate, and politicians that are in the pockets of corporate interests, should check themselves before shaming others : ) "lip-flapper" Love it.
We have been moving LEFT (towards more and more State, as a percentage of GNP) for more than a century (some would go back further). We have NOT been moving RIGHT (towards more Classical Liberalism, and it's freedom for the individual FROM the State).
There: LEFT and RIGHT, properly and clearly and simply described.
Hilarious asshattery in a nutshell, more like.
I still use the term "narrative matrix". She has a real ability. I loved that article.
Indeed, Sue Persing, Caitlin Johnstone is one of my favorite word-smiths; and "narrative matrix" is one of her best. Naomi Klein has long been at the top of my list of women writers, film makers, and activists; and Caitlin, due in large part to her relentless support of her countryman Julian Assange's quest for freedom from persecution, torture, and false imprisonment, may unseat her soon.
As Usual,
EA
And there's nothing more important than campaigning for the correct labels to put on folks.
When the left is marginalized and/or ignored in the popular media, consistently smeared by association with war criminals, neo liberals, capitalists, and surveillance state fascists, it serves the two-party "two cheeks of the same arse" narrative, and does a disservice to the actual left. No leftist should be apart of this obvious campaign of ignorance and lies that first started in right wing circles and has spread to others. There is no fucking tent large enough to cover Biden and leftists. He is my enemy as are all of the liberals and DemocRATS. They support fucking war crimes, just like the other miserable party. The average person is inundated with absolute bullshit... and when someone as smart and influential as Greenwald uses the verbal framing of right wing propagandists, I will, once in a while, say something about it, and you can kindly attempt to urinate up a multi-stranded hemp product, thanks.
Of course, you're correct about everything, John. I agree that correct labeling with terms from the last century is everything.
www.snappyrejoinders.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-EF60neguk&ab_channel=Sin%C3%A9adO%27Connor
I'm just sure that if I just spent more time clicking on random links from random ankle-biters on these here inter-webs, I would be ever so much better informed!
As a leftist how do you feel about the millions killed in the Soviet Union and China and Killing Fields of Cambodia? Was the mass starvation - 10 million or so - in Ukraine, the murder of the kulaks, the people placed in the gulags, the deaths caused by the great leap forward, or the horrors of the cultural revolution all really good and admirable?
Oh goody, a right wing toady and American exceptionalist. I live in the #1 death cult on the planet and tend to try to hold it accountable instead of going after the targets that the terrorists of the CIA/pentagon war crimes complex and the propagandists of corporate media would like me to be concerned about. Name one fucking country that has bombed, rat-fucked, regime changed, and imposed more murderous economic sanctions than the US. You can't. Name any ten countries with a record of atrocity as long and disgusting as ours? You can't. Sit the fuck down, lapdog. And just by the way the US, in it orgy of war crimes in SE Asia, not only committed mass murder in Vietnam, they also illegally bombed Laos and Cambodia destabilizing both countries, and leading to the horrors of the killing fields... nothing to do with leftists, you credulous jackass.
You seem very angry about something, John.
No, I am disgusted about "something". Many of those "somethings" are right there in the text I wrote... you could take a gander and then comment on something specific... or you could resume whatever this is... concern trolling, perhaps?
Correct and Glenn does know that.
This was totally predictable. When one abandons principles of due process, presumed innocence and data based decision making to take down your political foes it is only a matter of time before you will get caught in it. You can see it through history most vividly in the French Revolution. I am not sure France ever recovered. Regardless of your political affiliation we will suffer from this
Yeah, people like to mock that slippery slope...even as they're sliding down it.
McCarthyism. 🇷🇺 Sad.
"An Ugly War Among [Neo-] LIBERAL YouTubers Shows Two Common, Toxic Pathologies Plaguing U.S. Politics"
There, Fixed It For Ya!
Neo-Liberals are NOT "left." This is just YET ANOTHER failure of the undying attempt to put ALL politics into a singularly left vs right continuum. It's a limited tool, and it outright fails in instances just like this - and of increasing frequency in today's world.
If Jimmy Dore and Aaron Maté aren't the left, nobody is. If you want to say that TYT aren't the left, that's fine, but it's a shorthand for the headline. Not everyone obsesses on these fine differences between liberals, the left, etc. But if you listen to the video rather than just critique the headline, you'll see that I draw those distinctions quite carefully.
No Glenn, these are not "fine differences", they are polar opposites. Aron Mate' is as liberal (progressive, left, whatever) as anyone, and the TYT are right wing war mongers posing as lefties. You obviously get that point, so please make it clear in your writing, videos and headlines. It is not a minor point as you suggest, it is about propagandizing the left into thinking that what TYT and other fake liberals say is reasonable, when it isn't. Making distinctions like this is part of your job as an honest journalist.
Imagine thinking leftists can't be warmongers lol
Sure, people like MLK Jr on the left, are warmongers.
Obama, the Clintons and Biden are warmongers, but they are conservative warmongers. They don't have a progressive cell in their bodies. It is always amusing how people try and make them out to be liberals because they call themselves liberals. If a bunch of bankrobbers kept insisting that they were the police, would you start calling them the police? I don't think so.
Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot...
Chiang Kai Shek, Marcos, Franco, Bush, Nixon…
Re: John R Moffett
I've been perusing your comments for some time and often intended to reply; but now, what with your MLK response, the following list of "CONservative warmongers", and the superior "bunch of bankrobbers" metaphor, how could I not get off my ass and offer you a standing RIGHT ON JOHN!!!
As Usual,
EA
Hi Ethan, Thanks. Because of Glenn's move to Substack, I decided to start writing a bit again. I used to be a managing editor at a small progressive news blog for years, but had stopped writing on politics etc. as I concentrated on science writing. But I have a few articles up on Substack now, and may keep it up. The times are ripe for critical commentary, since none of that comes from the corporate news nowadays.
https://johnmoffett.substack.com
Oh, I just realized in my earlier remark I hadn't made it clear; everything you wrote there except the part I cited in my other remark to this same comment I agree with and wish that Glenn would stop using the wrong labels - he SURELY knows better. ... He made a remark at one point that I took to mean he's choosing his words based on a particular audience, and therefore is using the words they way they do, even though they're wrong.
This right here illustrates an errant conflation of political ideas:
"as liberal (progressive, left, whatever)"
Liberalism is neither right nor left, as discussed here, starting with the foundational definitions of left and right, which pre-date liberalism, and then moving on through to early and then later liberalism:
http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
Just like mis-identifying the players in a sports team, you can't understand or express political ideas accurately if you mis-label the political players.
I'm a conservative, so I suppose I don't have a dog in this fight. But high sensitivity and constant parsing over left, liberal, neo-liberal, etc., labeling does get a bit tiring. This article, and the reaction to it, present a good example. What does it matter how TYT are precisely described. They sure as hell aren't conservative, and I don't know how anyone could call them middle of the road moderates. Don't lose sight of the point that evidence free accusation of doing Moscow's bidding or sexual misconduct can do real reputational damage regardless of the ideological spectrum.
I STRONGLY agree with your closing sentence there. Yep. And as for your immediately preceeding sentence, I only as you to understand that just as you, as an "actual conservative" rail at the errant inclusion of non-conservatives to "the right", so, too, do those of us who are genuine Progressives on the left (and other leftist groups) rail at the errant inclusion of non-left types - such as the Liberals and Neo-Liberals described in the story (namely, Cenk and the other TYTers) - with "the left."
Simply, the left-right dichotomy breaks down when considering these people, since they are neither traditionally left NOR traditionally right. This should not be a tiring thing to understand, 'cepting of course that the ultra-rich, through their propaganda, want us fighting one another. Frankly, the traditional right and traditional left have FAR more in common with one another than either of us have with modern Liberals / Neo-Liberals.
There's a of material to back up my assertions of liberals not being left or right to be found here: http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
IF - and it's a big if - the "non-liberal" left and right can find a way to see one another more genuinely, we could come together to do this country a LOT of good. The left is NOT this "woke culture" crap that's spouted by so many on the right. And, I'd venture, the genuine right isn't a bunch of war mongering creeps who want to enrich the military industrial complex, either. So... I think our coming together begins here, with our better understanding of - and listening to - one another.
Here's hoping we can pull it off.
See…John Birch Society, Joe McCarthy…
Indeed those distinctions are very clearly drawn in your video, that is precisely why, having had to disengage at ~ hour X, after delivering a rant on off-topic labeling and other digressions, it occured to me that to revisit this thread after that earlier foray may provide an opportunity to repair any ill content left in my wake. And hopefully, if decorum had begun to prevail, and a topical debate had actually ensued, then selecting the "chronological" posting order to review the comments
would surely be best. STRIKE TWO!!
I need a different bat.
As Usual,
EA
You are (un-usually) mistaken here, M. EA. You're are getting good wood on those foul balls, for none of which you will ever hear, "Strike Three!," after all.
I remain confident the next will land far and fair, and end all debate. The bat and the decorum are minor details.
Que pa'sa amigo(:-}) What you say is both true and not-so-much, the latter being the idealistic (literally) decision that presupposed that "chronological" meant comments in order from first to latest. In the selected list the first seven comments had been posted within the last ten minutes of a two day old thread; this was a bona fide swing and a miss, hence "strike two". We absolutely agree that strike one was a killer of a foul ball, initiated by a comment so obtuse it seemed born of a narcissistic nightmare.
I do appreciate your supportive confidence, however good sir,
I made a cowardly decision; I took my batt and went home rather than continuing down that disappointing road less traveled.
As Usual,
EA
Thanks, Glenn; still working, haven't had time to read much today! (IE your hunch was right.)
Isn't neoliberalism just basically laissez-faire capitalism 2.0 that even centrists support now because it's the status quo?
I must confess that I do not understand what neoliberalism is. I recall the term "neo-con" from the George W. Bush years. It described bloodthirsty fiends like Bill Kristol and Hillary Clinton, loudmouths from inside the beltway who were anxious to go to war for any reason. When I hear the term "neo-con" I can still hear Rodney Dangerfield joking about the fellow who was half Italian and half Polish: he wanted to beat someone up - but couldn't figure out who. I looked up both neo-liberalism and neo-conservativism on the Internet and the definitions surprised me. Both, according to my Google search, favored free market capitalism. A neo-liberal, apparently also wants to limit the size of government and to control spending. A neo-conservative, on the other hand, favors free market capitalism while supporting an interventionist foreign policy. By these (likely incorrect) definitions, John McCain was a neo-con and Dr. Rand Paul is possibly the only neo-liberal in Washington, DC. If you can find an actual and correct definition of these two similar terms, I'd love to learn more about them. I realize that words change their meaning every hour, these days. In light of the fact that many cities, district attorneys, mayors, and governors no longer favor free market capitalism - opting instead for violent insurrections, mob violence, and the end of our society, it is hard to accept your conclusion that neoliberalism is the status quo, certainly in many large cities in the USA.
Like someone far wiser than me once said, the differences are thus:
Neo-conservatives kill you in the name of freedom.
Neo-liberals kill you in the name of human rights.
Yup! and they are all conservative warmongers. None of them are left wing politically and none of them believe their own rhetoric. That is for their audiences.
President Trump ran on a platform that included removing our troops from Afghanistan and ending senseless regime change wars. There are two things that Joe Biden has done right since his election. One of them was choosing to follow President Trump's lead in getting our troops out of harm's way in Afghanistan. I protested the war in Vietnam and ran an underground newspaper that I distributed at Fort Sill in 1970. I have never advocated for any war during my lifetime. You don't know me. And it is utter foolishness to pretend that Tim, Neil, Finster, Manwithoutporpoise, or myself to not believe what we say. Speaking for myself only, I oppose abusive government power and the assault on freedom we are seeing under the Biden administration. While thousands of criminals avoided prosecution during the riots of 2020, many patriotic Americans rot in cells with no expectation of trial this year. What was their crime? Trespassing.
Hi Charles, Trump did not remove troops from Afghanistan as he promised and he had 4 years to do it. He lied. He also drastically increased military funding, and did lots more weapons sales to corrupt dictatorships like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
If you are anti-war, please tell me the last time you wrote or called your representative to tell them so. I do several times a month. They know what I am going to say as soon as they see my name.
If you are talking about peaceful BLM protesters who were beaten by cops, as opposed to the capital rioters who beat the police, then I don't see your point. BLM protesters did not attack the police, the Trumpers did. So if you want to know what they are in jail for (and only a small percentage of them went to jail so far) it was destruction of property, assaulting the police and failure to disperse. But don't get me wrong, I think that many of the police in this country are brutal and corrupt. But that doesn't excuse what the Trumpers did on 1/6.
Also, even though Biden did pull most troops out of Afghanistan (while leaving plenty of special forces and CIA there) he is definitely causing lots of harm with the US military, including illegally bombing Iraq and Syria. But Trump did that in spades. If you still believe Trump after all his lies, then I really can't expect to have an honest discussion with you. Keep in mind that I hate Trump and Biden. You seen to be much more biased and only hate one of them. If you hate Biden, then you should hate Trump for the same reasons, at least if you are honest with yourself.
And I protested the Iraq war and am opposed to Imperialism.
Balls man - I was brought up by communist parents - I've lived the life. They meant well but they're ideas, or rather Marx's ideas were juts plain stupid. All the good stuff that came out of left came from Christianity.
The difference between socialists and capitalists is that capitalists think that rich people should own everything, and workers should just work and get a pay check. You know, they should be wage-slaves to the wealthy. Please tell me what is so awful about the people who actually run a factory owning it? What did your parents tell you that was so awful? What about rich people owning and controlling everything, including controlling the government, is so good in your mind? What is stupid about workers owning the companies that they work in?
Neocons kill you for Empire, but they justify it by saying they're bringing you the freedom.
Neoliberals do the exact same thing, but they justify it with some self-serving and hypocritical human rights talk.
As pointed out here:
http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html#freedom
"Freedom" is a useless expression in a political context because it means something different to all groups.
For Art, and folks like him, free simply means beer.
Great, now I have to go back to qualifying freedom with "individual." The only "freedom" you believe in, M. Art, is the freedom of the State (including the ivory-tower elitists, like yourself).
Shut the fuck up, Tim.
Neo-cons and neo-libs are Statists. Now you are no longer confused.
The vast majority of people on this board are fucking statists, including you.
In that regard, every last one of you can eat shit.
Right. I am a Statist. I am beginning to think you haven't been reading my posts at all. Boo hoo.
Andrew Wilson
Hi Charles, NeoLiberalism is essentially 18th Century British Free Trade Imperialism rebooted for thermonuclear weapons. Its tools are USAID, NED, the IMF/WORLD BANK/WTO Triumvirate with some CIA and LOTS of disinformation thrown in. Through the PostColonial period, pliant 3rd World leaders could be set up and kept in power as loyal vassals to the US & its allies, given free rein to loot their populations as junior partners to the West, becoming billionaire jet-setters governing police states for a Hell of a lot less than the cost of bombing Cambodia. And at ZERO political cost to their US patrons.
For comparison, Wolfowitz and similar NeoCons are wedded to aerospace and its addiction to stuff that goes BOOM ! BLAM ! KAPOW ! 😎 aw
Thanks, Andrew. That being said, I am of the opinion that, just as America needed airplanes, submarines, and aircraft carriers to defend itself, the Space Force is currently a more necessary deterrent than our nuclear stockpile. Have I become a neocon?
No, you're not a neocon. Neocons want to increase the military budget both to funnel $ to their friends who are contractors or to seize resources overseas to give to private corporations. You want actual defense for the people, which is normal.
Mob violence and the end of our society Charles? Really? I hadn't noticed that the apocalypse was underway. How about police violence? Is that a problem in our society? How about military violence against other countries, is that a problem? How about economic sanctions by the US that kill people through lack of food and medicine, is that a problem? Come on Charles, you know that there is a lot more state sponsored violence than "mob violence", so please be less melodramatic about it.
Pay attention, John. Just 36% of young people in America still believe in the concepts the founders of our nation put in place. I think it was Hemingway that answered the question, "how do things change?" with the answer, "very slowly, and then, all at once." The heroes and "sheroes" of our nation will have their hands full patching up the damage done by the WOKE and the fools. If you were fortunate enough to live through the glorious sixties, you know what mobs are capable of doing and how infectious mob mentality is. Please expound, if you want to, on the number of black people killed by police in Chicago and compare that number to the number of black people killed by blacks in Chicago. Or compare the number of unarmed men killed by police to the number of police that have been killed by dangerous criminals in the past 15 months. Idealism is a wonderful thing until it runs counter to reality.
Charles, the "founding fathers" were the wealthy control freaks of their time. They not only owned slaves, they owned their wives, who could not vote. All of them were quite despicable, with the exception of Ben Franklin, who did not agree with the others on most major topics.
As far as black people killing black people, do you think that happens in well off black neighborhoods? No, it happens where rich white people make sure there are no job opportunities for black teenagers in big cities, ensuring that crime will follow. You know all this. You are not stupid. You just apparently watch the wrong "news" shows, and believe the crap they pump out. The "news" you watch and read is coming straight from the mouths of rich people, and you are falling for it.
Horseshit
It always makes me sad when I read that an obviously intelligent fellow like yourself falls for the lies and propaganda of the WOKE. It is especially troubling when I hear that the genius who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the inventor, the architect, the dreamer who represented all the best of the Enlightenment is disparaged and compared unfavorably to a sex addict who belonged to the notorious Hellfire Club.
I cannot help but believe that the society that spawned the 44th President of the United States offers no opportunities for the other 830,000 black people living in Chicago. Was it Obama's half-white privilege that led to his success and incredible wealth? In fact, just as in every city in every advanced country on the planet, a stable two-parent family, a healthy work ethic , the desire to get educated and the potential to learn are what create success.
I agree with you about the abuse of power by America and its unreasonable hegemony and strong-arm tactics throughout the world since the fifties is wrong and the policies of war-hungry scum like the Clintons, the Cheneys, the McCains, and the Obamas are a stain on our history. While I am embarrassed for our nation every time I see Joe Biden struggling to complete a sentence or to find his latest "thoughts" that someone else typed out for him on a sheet of paper in a forgotten pocket, I approve of his allowing Germany to buy oil from whoever that country chooses to.
FYI: I watch just one "news" program each week - that being Maria Bartiromo's Sunday morning show. Whether one wastes his life watching hour after hour of CNN, MSNBC, or FOX, it really doesn't matter. Everything is repeated every hour of every day.
PS. Did you "fall" for the Schiff impeachment, the Russia hoax, or the mysterious disappearance of all news regarding Hunter Biden's laptop computer?
"36% of young people in America still believe in the concepts the founders of our nation put in place"
... like institutional slavery, rule by the rich landed white men, subjugation of women, genocide of native populations... Unfortunately, I could go on; a great deal of "the concepts the founders of our nation put in place" deserve to be torn down and replaced.
Your focus on "woke" is child-like - well, maybe teenage-like. Grow up.
And, by the way, "[un]qualified immunity" has let the police run amok in the country as a rogue gangs who can murder without concern and that you don't see it shows your blindness - None is so blind as he who will not see.
Have you any idea what life was like in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, Art? I'm sure you cannot imagine what life is currently like in South Africa today. My wife and I have recently spent a couple days visiting with a couple who were born in those in those two countries and who remain in contact with friends and family who continue to struggle to avoid being mugged, murdered and robbed in these two unbelievably corrupt and mismanaged countries. Put your WOKEness to sleep. It's just plain stupidity.
You must know that what you are saying is total bollocks, which is a string way of say what you are asserting is untrue or a twist of anything common sense. For example if Japan is ruled by powerful Japanese men, or Sweden is ruled by powerful Swedish men, or Ghana ruled by powerful you are just saying the world is a certain way. "Institutionalised slavery' sounds like something, but it's been a long time since slavery existed in the United States - and worldwide slavery was ended by the efforts if rich white men. 'Woke' os targeted because it a a concept based on lies, like ancient Egyptians being black (look at a Copt) - Egypt is further from West Africa where the slaves in American came from, than it is from Finland -, and the big one now that Police are killing Black people in America purposely and in vast numbers when any fule knows that it is black Americans who are murdering not only their fellow black Americans in vast numbers, but also murdering cops and white and other non-black Americans. You are a fool who thinks that if you tear it all down a utopia will magically, and I use the word magically intentionally, spring up from nowhere.
There was significant mob violence in the USA last summer - something like 60 people died. Mostly instigated and carried out by left wing idiots like antifa and BLM. Sure there's Police violence but George Floyd died of a drug overdose while quite correctly being arrested for being in control of a vehicle whilst out of his mind on drugs. Anyone who really believes Derek Chauvin is guilty is completely credulous, and that miscarriage of justice alongside a clearly stolen election could signal the end of the United States. Of course the USA is guilty of terrible war crimes, most recently the wanton destruction of Libya for no good reason, and the war in Syria where Islamic State appear to have been de-facto backed by the USA (weapons and vehicles given to the imaginary 'moderate opposition' all seemed to end up with ISIS). But then Libya and Syria were destroyed by the Democrats, the so called left in the USA, and in particular Libya was destroyed by Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, saints of the left. Barack Obama certainly is strongly tied to the American radical left of the 1960s, namely the Weather Underground.
How does kneeling on someone's neck cause them to die? He was not kneeling on his windpipe. This is a standard way of subduing someone. Why does the Police Officer quite calmly continue doing this while being filmed? The simple answer is because he is doing nothing wrong, he is simply doing what he is trained to do. Also why is he murdering George Floyd if he is murdering him as you allege? Has the officer simply lost his mind? Also what should the officer do, or do you disagree that arresting someone evidently off their head on drugs should be allowed take charge of a vehicle and very possibly endangering the lives of other people, irrespective that George Floyd has just been caught red handed passing counterfeit money? Taking a massive amount of fentanyl will kill you, as will drug use over many years, which George Floyd's high tolerance to Fentanyl attests. You want George Floyd to have died of murder because it suits a pre-arranged narrative that Black Lives Matter wanted to push - a marketing campaign essentially -, that was ready to roll. They thought about rolling out the narrative with Ahmaud Arbery, but an idiot grabbing the wrong end of a shotgun was maybe a little too much for even the most incredulous. The George Floyd footage looks bad though, so it was perfect, even if the "I can't breathe" stuff doesn't stand up once you watch the whole thing. George Floyd can't breathe because that's what someone with a bad heart brought on by a lifetime of drug abuse experiences when they overdose. The police didn't shove those drugs down this throat, and nor did they force him to commit at least two crimes - passing counterfeit money and driving whilst under the influence. The Police did what they were supposed to and called George Floyd an ambulance. Derek Chauvin is innocent, but he must suffer so people like you can propagate a myth that the Police are indiscriminately killing black people in the USA because it makes you feel morally superior.
Action that increases the private sector at the expense of the public sector. Condense, accurate.
What action is that, Brian?
Fair question! https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1190391138492043264.html
That was an excellent and informative essay, Brian. I appreciate your taking the time to post it. I must question some of your conclusions, however. For 30 years, I was a social worker in the state of Michigan. As the cost of maintaining people like me increased, the government relied more and more on contracts to private agencies who supported our mission of making Americans ever more reliant on the government: these contactors often required their employees to have less education and training and they always paid them less for their work. We are all seeing the opposite tack being taken by the USPS. As UPS and FedEx have increased their market-share by delivering packages to virtually every home in America, the post office has greatly expanded its workforce and now makes deliveries on Sunday. Corruption and waste, of course, is everywhere. We will always have lazy and incompetent workers and greedy and stupid bosses. It is the American Way!
"free market capitalism" is an oxymoron; capitalists want open and free markets ONLY for themselves, and everyone else aced out, whether via monopoly, cartel, ridiculously expensive patenting processes (that bar bright but not wealthy competition from entering the market on a "fair playing field"), and many other means.
Further, there's never been any such thing as a "free market," but that discussion is beyond what I have time for.
No offence, Art; but it is an insult to everyone's intelligence to pretend you know ANYTHING about what all capitalists want. It's like the media pretending to know what all of President Trump's voters are like. Or like me imagining what is inside Joe Biden's brain-case. The only true Oxy Moron I can think of is Bill DeBlasio (though John Kerry is 6'4" tall).
While their personal fortunes come nowhere near that of Bill Gates, Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan are geniuses of marketing and very successful capitalists. I doubt that these eight gentlemen share very many values or beliefs.
You don't need to qualify it with "about what all capitalists want.".
"No offence, Art;"
Au Contrare, your offense was intended.
You're just arguing to argue, or are as dense as a brick.
I wasn't talking about "trump voters", by the way. Your defense of capitalists is to be expected from the successfully propagandized. But, rather than succumb to propaganda, I have simply observed and objectively evaluated the behaviors of capitalists since the dawn of capitalism and the characteristics I describe are the actual outcomes that they have achieved.
You can bring facts to a propaganda victim, but you can't make them think.
I will be happy to allow you to wallow in your hatred for America and capitalism, comrade. I envy your longevity and the fact that you have lived since the dawn of capitalism - when bartering stopped being practical and trade began in earnest among civilized people. You really should publish your memoirs. Many people would love to learn how life has changed during the past five centuries and how you've managed to live so long.
"Free market capitalism" is not an oxymoron, but "steady-state free market capitalism" certainly is. Power tends to concentrate, so the more free your market, the more lopsided it will eventually become without *some* kind of government correcting/shepherding. Kind of ironic that free-marketers need the government for something... but there you have it.
Power does not concentrate around capitalists, it concentrates around politicians. If you look a the turnover in the Fortune 500, and the turnover among who makes up the "very wealthy", you will reach conclusions that will surprise you very much. Politicians, on the other hand, hang on for far too long - even when they leave office.
Politicians, agreed, but there is, for now still, a way to track them. Not nearly so much for corporate players.
How does turnover in the *visible* positions in just 500 companies mean that power is not concentrating? Metrics to look are the portion of industrial capital concentrated in the 500 vs the rest, over time, as well as the aggregate compensation in rug row in the 500 vs the rest, over time.
I think we're not at cross-purposes or in major disagreement, but that maybe you missed my point, so I'll try again:
The capitalists CHANGE the system as they go along, using their power (of wealth, and other mechanisms stemming therefrom), and so whatever "freedom" in the market you started with doesn't long exist, hence "free market capitalism is an oxymoron."
Well, they change the *character* of the system, but I don't think they need to change a single rule or law to get there. (Of course, invariably they do end up changing laws as well, but that's not necessary to make my point.) Anyway, yes -- the freedom that once existed evaporates.
My position is: There are no utopias, whether conjured up by the Left or by the Right. So there should be only a dynamic, hybrid system based on all we know about human nature, one that needs constant shepherding to provide balance of freedom, equal access, and (reasonably, TBD) equal results.
See David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism. A quick, clear read.
I'm trying to stop using the term since its use at present seems more often than not to be an insult, rather like calling someone or something fascist.
I just found this, very interesting: https://www.democracyatwork.info/david_harvey_neoliberalism
Harvey is one of the very few actual Marxists and in this era when it's fashionable to identify as Marxist or to accuse others of it, he is utterly marginalized, ignored.
Liberalism used to have a defined meaning: it meant a system where free man were able to sell their labour to who they liked (and no slavery or serfdom). Capitalism never meant anything because no one identified as a 'capitalist', capitalism just being a label invented by Marx. So centrists were always and still are liberal, and they believe in free trade and free markets, but not as an 'ideology' (Liberalism is an ideology), but as a technology - the market is a mechanism which they use like using a shovel to dig a hole. The status quo is whatever Marxists think it is, because they only know one thing, and that is that they are against it.
Dore and Mate aren't NEO-liberal, or even liberal, really; evidently Uygur and Kasparian are. Sad, as AV (don't think I have that delta on my keyboard) said.
I agree, Charles.
I am very glad you brought this up Art. Glenn loves to call right wing war-mongers "liberal" which never made sense to me. They are Neolib war hawks. They are very conservative by nature, making the term "liberal" now mean its opposite. Like I have said many times before here, they are the Red Team and the Blue Team, and they are all conservative war-mongers. Think of them as combative organized crime families fighting over turf in DC.
https://johnmoffett.substack.com/p/the-left-and-right-halves-of-the
John, I'm conservative on many topics, but I'm DEFINITELY not a war-monger. Many conservatives are anti-war.
How about anti-Russia? How about anti-China? Are you those things? How about pro-military? How about pro-capitalism and the obscenely unequal distribution of wealth? How about pro-sanctions against other countries? Tell me what conservatives want, because as far as I can tell, they are for the things that I just mentioned.
Are you for improved Medicare for All? Are you in favor of ending fossil fuels? If you are actually anti-war, how many times have you written your representatives to tell them? I write several times a month to complain about squandering our money on foreign wars, military bases, and war contractors. If you are actually anti-war, you would probably be doing something about it.
So what you are saying is that everybody who doesn't agree with you is bad and thinks bad things, so are right wing and evil and everyone who does agree with you is good? On one hand you are saying un-tangle the generalisations that rather broad labels can be guilty of, and on the other hand being conservative on any issue at all, just must mean a whole other bunch of related positions?
In general, no one is interested in finding out the nuance of any opposing viewpoint. No, the interest is in painting parody pictures of them to hate.
Certainly that's what the ultra-rich both want us to do and what they tell us others are doing.
You are putting words in my mouth and you know it. I never said that people who disagree with me "are bad and think bad things" That is not an effective debate method.
He's bad at trolling.
No time for that link just now but i agree with your analysis as staed here.
How to miss the point of the story.. also, two of the Y-tubers are absolutely on the left.
Glenn, I have to say, your outrage at this point is too little and too late. The only reason this seems to have attracted your attention is because it's one left wing group going after one of their own, and perhaps you feel there's a power imbalance between the Young Turks and Mate.
Why is it okay that the mainstream media has been doing this to conservative outlets for the better part of a decade? I'll grant that some conservative outlets attempt to strike back. Of course they do. But, the truth is, our mainstream news is dominated by the Left. And, by "mainstream," I'm including the CNNs and ABCs, but also the YouTubes and Facebooks of the world. It would be silly to argue that these are not mainstream outlets these days.
They not only villify anyone on the right, smearing them with falsehoods they know cannot be backed up, but they go further. They deplatform and demonetize those on the right. There is no reciprocal response from conservatives because they don't control those levers of power.
So, yes, I'm sure there are differences between Turks vs. Mate, on one hand, and liberal news vs. conservative news, on the other. But, for a variety of reasons, what the Left has been doing to the Right is far worse than a few casual accusations the Turks make against Mate. So, I reject the idea that this last episode is entitled to special scrutiny. It is a small microcosm of what the Left has been up to, but there are far more prominent and numerous examples that matter much more than an intra-ideology squabble like this.
You seem to be implying that this is the first time I've condemned the tactic of baselessly implying that someone is a Russian agent, and that I only did it in this case because the victim was a leftist. All I can say is that you must *extremely* unfamiliar with my writing and work because I've been at least as vocal as any other journalist in repeatedly and loudly condemning this tactic when used over and over by Democrats since the 2016 election. Claiming I haven't talked about this enough is like saying Bernie Sanders doesn't talk enough about income inequality or Josh Hawley doesn't talk enough about Big Tech.
The fact that you, Aaron, Jimmy, and most likely a couple commentators/journos have called BS on the Russia nonsense have earned you a ton of credibility with conservatives like myself.
I understand, and agree with Laramie's assessment of the state of media affairs in this country. It's hard to know who to believe. But being being assigned the task of cleaning up the cesspool of "journalism" today is a bit too much to ask of any one man.
"I've been at least as vocal as any other journalist in repeatedly and loudly condemning this tactic when used over and over by Democrats since the 2016 election."
Yes. I'd go further. You've been far more vocal than other journalists. It's one of the reasons I've read your blogs and your books for many years. But, in that time, I've noticed that your sympathies are far more commonly expressed when the "victim" is someone on the Left. Not exclusively, but far more often.
And, I won't give you too much credit for exceeding the standard to which most other journalists hold themselves. You're Glenn Greenwald. I hold you to a higher standard. You've earned it.
So, my apologies if my semi-anonymous online comment was too cavalier. I try to avoid that. It just seems the attention paid to this episode with Aaron Mate was outsized in relation to other journalistic sins.
Denying a journalist a viewpoint, especially when so clearly enunciated, is a losing game. You factor it in and read with that in mind. Everyone has one.
Maybe you've not noticed that the most important conflict currently in US politics has absolutely nothing to do with Left/Right groups and positions -- L/R is only the ongoing cover story. Get un-stuck from that illusion.
You say, "They not only vilify anyone on the right, smearing them with falsehoods they know cannot be backed up, but they go further. They deplatform and demonetize those on the right." All that has *nothing* to do with Leftism, which, as you know, prioritizes equality over freedom, and should know, still values both. No -- this is Totalitarianism. This big fat lie of Totalitarians apparently goes at least as far back as the emergence of the Soviet Union and its "vanguard" psy-op, an obscenity to (small-d) democrats. "Stand back, lumpenproles, we'll handle it from here! We've got your back!!"
So these so called "Leftists" you've seen cutting the legs off Conservatives are not attacking Conservatives per se. They are Totalitarians attacking the very idea that *any* opposition to their newly-cemented, distributed Ministry of Truth can be legitimate. They are also infecting too many casual Leftists with this garbage philosophy. (That part of your complaint is real.) Thus, the fight on the Left is every bit as real, not just "casual accusations".
I am getting worried that we are going to have to replace Horseshoe Theory with something else. When it was just mass murdering, big brother Communists on the left and militaristic, aggressive, secret police loving Fascists on the right, the theory made sense. Now we are in this weird place where we almost have a totalitarian center. They actually like to call themselves from time to time, "The Radical Center." Neoliberalism combined with Neoconservatism in the pursuit of unchecked power and the destruction of Classical Liberal values. They are the poster child of "but it is okay when we do it!" We might need to come up with a name for a new theory. Help me out here people. Would Tetrahedron Theory work?
Call it "empire". An empire must act in pursuit of maintaining and expanding its power or it surely will fall. Therefore it cannot be constrained by considerations like law.
Pat Buchanan of all people wrote something like this, and he was right.
Communists and Fascists are Statists.
What is eternal is the State and the People are enemies. Ever since Marx, there exist two types of Leftists: those who understand, and STILL favor the State, and those who are deluded/tricked into thinking that the State is on the People's side.
I think it's just OH SO CUTE that some people actually believe that there's a difference between the "D" and the "R".
And by "CUTE" I mean, when you take your adorable 4-year-old niece to the zoo for the first time, and she points at the most venomous snake in the reptile house and says, "boopee!"
There's about a $6 trillion dollar difference in DC currently, and one side is attempting to jam that sucker through (which would be by many magnitudes the largest spending bill in US history) via reconciliation in a 50-50 Senate. Guess who? Not R's and not conservatives. I'm so over all of these blowhards on Greenwald's comment sections trying to preserve their anachronistic view of what "leftism" is. Wake up and smell the China already.
"Guess who? Not R's and not conservatives."
Thanks for the belly laugh. The infrastructure bill will pass, albeit in a reduced form. And don't you worry your empty little head, DP, the "R's" and "conservatives" and the "D's" and the "liberals" will all get their share of that sweet, sweet government manna. And the best part? They won't have to actually "build" anything.
But tons and tons and tons of Chinese products will still continue to be imported, though...all with the "approval" of the "D", the "R", the "liberals" and the "conservatives".
You're so cute, sans the "boopee" part.
It's not infrastructure - it's the progressive government spending masturbation bill, like porn for unsexy people in the Bay Area. And no, R's aren't at all involved in it.
Speaking of porn for unsexy people...
What were you doing when the bombs were cratering Iraq and killing countless innocent civilians?
That's the good kind of porn and national debt, right?
Meh, fuck you too, asshole.
Belly laugh over $6 trillion. HAHAHAHAHAHA. So funny.
So then they cut it down to what? A measly 2-4?
Probably you won't think this is funny when the economy inevitably pops along with inflation (already happening). Going to be really fun making the interest payments on our, what is it now? 30 trillion in debt?
Extra credit for using the "infrastructure" canard. Progressives give two shits about the actual infrastructure. If they did, they could easily get a bipartisan bill through of 1-2 trillion. Our country has a D+ on infrastructure overall in the last assessment a few years ago. Just wait till the Oroville Dam finally breaks, I guess.
FFS. And snark as well. FU.
"Meh, fuck you too, asshole."
No thanks, you're probably not my type. And you couldn't afford me, anyway.
"I'm so over all of these blowhards on Greenwald's comment sections trying to preserve their anachronistic view of what 'leftism' is."
I think Leftists define "Leftism" -- not non-Leftists. Should Leftists call (all) Conservatives/Rightists racists and white supremacists?
It's rather odd that you equate am opinion regarding a general political with outrageous smears.
I know the left very well having been one for most of my life and also having a lot of familiar with the its fundamental scholarship - more than almost everyone I know who purports to be on the left. To this day, most of the people I know are left, and I consume left-flavored news and media constantly.
That last paragraphs describes zero people I know on the left with regards to the right. Most of you are painfully ignorant about the right and instead traffic in smears generated for political effect. Your views, in general, are a political tool, not very different from the tactics Greenwald describes in this post. Most of you are simply unqualified to speak about the right at all.
"I know the left very well having been one for most of my life and also having a lot of familiar with the its fundamental scholarship "
Well, then! You fell down the rabbit-hole, didn't you? I don't blame you, the psy-op / con is *that good*, and it's been running longer than you and I have been alive, although gardually stepped up over the last century. As for me, it too took decades for the structure of Totalitarian con to crystalize in my mind, and realize the alternative to Totalitarianism is *not* only* Rightism -- it's *actual* common-sense Leftism, where equalities (of various dimensions and interpretations) is generally of higher priority than freedoms, but does NOT exclude freedoms. However, I'm not a Rightist -- it'll never happen -- although, today, I certainly admit it's 90% the Right that is currently screaming bloody murder about the slaying of democracy.
During your time as a tool, though, I'm curious, how did you reconcile your pro-democratic rhetoric with anti-democratic action? If the "scholarship" couldn't do this in plain language, then that scholarhsip is sh*t. I, too, am familiar with some of it.
"That last paragraph describes zero people I know on the left with regards to the right": "Should Leftists call (all) Conservatives/Rightists racists and white supremacists?"
[Assuming I understand your point here: ] Firstly, I'm happy to discuss and be educated further as to the core beliefs of Rightists. Second, as for Leftists, I'm not talking about people who think -- who I imagine are the type of Leftists you know. You must know full well there is not only a lot, but a majority, of people on the "Left" currently not only voting the Democratic Party ticket, but who fully believe that the Right-wing in America is chock full of stupid, ignorant racists ... just as Big Brother, aka "the Left", is telling them. I don't consider these people to understand Leftism, even while giving it lip service. Otherwise, it couldn't have turned nearly 180 degrees from 1970's version.
*general political label
This is the sound of someone who go hasn’t listened to anything for a decade because he’s waiting to get his practiced piece out. Saying this to Glenn Fucking Greenwald ffs. Hi-LARious.
Another excellent job by Greenwald to lay bare our dysfuntional media. But at the end of the day, it is not the corporate media or the fake "journalists" like Uygur and Kasparian that are at fault. It is the lobotomized Americans that cannot and do not think about what they consume in the media. BTW, Aaron Mate is one of the stellar journalists that we have in this country today.
These are just online shit bags. The type is well known. Here's hoping they get their just deserts.
I think the confusing thing for me is that people take the idiots at TYT seriously. I couldn’t tolerate five minutes of them.
Cenk, Ana, Rachel Maddow and their ilk represent a fifth column within the progressive movement (such as it is). They owe their success and their prosperity to the Democratic Party establishment and, hence, they are fiercely loyal to it. Though they may sound like progressives, they are the opposite--corporatists, regime change enthusiasts and warmongers. Somehow, they have captured the minds of many liberal Democrats who swallow their lies and slanders whole, no chewing required. Independent thinkers see right through their bullshit, but, sadly, there aren't many such people in the Democratic Party.
All love and respect to Aaron Mate.
Would that be the same progressive movement that en masse smears conservatives as "insurrectionists" (because somehow all 150 million of us were apparently jammed into the Capitol on 1/6) and uses that as a pretext to shut down all large conservative groups on FB in a concerted cross-Big Tech attack on basically anything and everything conservative? Every single progressive I know (I know tons) were all on board with all of that shit. Hats off to Greenwald, Taibbi, and pals, but the above is who progressives are. I get it - people on the left who participate here mostly aren't down with this stuff (although some actually really are, they're just harder left so they're like F those phonies with their fancy coffee), but can we stop pretending? These people are not liberals, they're leftists. They just generally have a lot of cash (or will if they're young when they start adulting). And all of these people are basically Yay, Antifa! None of them have any curiosity and look at the videos (including the friendly black mask thugs who just beat the shit out of a bunch of people in LA just the other day in front of Wi Spa). Nope, just Evil Racist Conservatives Practically Subhuman Must Be Stopped By Any Means Necessary!!!!
It's fucking sick.
Wi is a nice place BTW if anyone ever gets a chance. Korean spas in LA are one of its not so hidden delights.
Absolutely true.
While I consider Ali the greatest heavyweight fighter, my heart was always w/ Joe Frazier. You see, Joe would just keep comin'! He didn't care what you threw at him, Joe would just keep throwing leather. Glenn, I deem you the Joe Frazier of journalists. Great rant.