Tucker Carlson devoted seven minutes of airtime to reading it. Donald Trump heaped praise on it. Why did this Twitter analysis resonate so widely on the right?
As a former lefty that is now lost in this new world I resonate with this essay a lot, even if I never could like or support Trump (is it a new world or was I just unaware?). I've starting paying attention to the right, actually I pay attention to every view, except maybe the corporate press (but still do sometimes). I've noticed there has been a mass shift on the right, they are seeing the world as it is and what forces are at play. I notice this author calls it the Regime. Others on the right call it the Cathedral. When I first heard the word Cathedral I thought it was silly and paranoid. I don't think that anymore. Regardless of how little I liked Trump I'm completely mortified at the level of coordination we saw across government, intelligence, media, protestors, and the DNC. I don't know how you put this back together. You don't need a majority to break a country, not even close. The fact that they aren't even trying to put things back together, but quite the opposite, has me worried.
This is an excellent point. I am not a Trump supporter, but am well aware of the dirty campaign against him.
I think American's want their politics clean. Even when you don't support the winner, you expect them to be treated no different than their predecessor. That was clearly not the case here.
This is key. Throughout Cooper's excellent post he says "Trump voters believe" or "know", etc. But I didn't vote for Trump and couldn't give a flying F about him. But I give many many F's about America, justice, fair play, and democracy. I'm a strong centrist and independent voter, and I know for certain that there's something deeply, deeply wrong going on in this country that is the handiwork of the Regime and current Dem-media actors he implicates.
Bah, you can also toss in the RNC, FauxNews and the establishment cunts who prance around the wrestling ring waving a folding chair to whip the crowd up against the fake opponents. It's a fucking scam.
Yes, lots of Republican PsoS like Lindsay Graham, and FauxNews clearly plays the divisive partisan role except for Tucker, but at least the R party was open enough to nominate an outsider in 2016. The D bylaws made it impossible for Bernie Sanders to have a hope, to say nothing of the evil smears Tulsi Gabbard endured.
We are seeing the living proof of what Antonio Gramsci called "cultural hegemony," with elites in power creating both the partisan political party divide and the white-black, male-female, hetero-homo, cis-trans divides in order to maintain their rule. Critical Theory is correct, but CRT miss-identifies the oppressors as "white" vs "POC" victims when in reality the only oppressors are the elites (of all races, sexes and genders) who victimize the 99%. The devotees of CRT fail to see it, but a higher percentage of minorities and women voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016, so there's some hope. (Though I still will not vote for him in 2024 because he has crossed my red lines into evil.)
As an example, this video explains how two black members of the Harvard elite, who were themselves born with silver spoons in their mouths, worked to defend the self-destructive, infantilizing CRT narrative at the expense of another black professor who truly was disadvantaged as a kid and raised in poverty. I believe the murder discussed is figurative, as I searched the web for Roland Fryer and believe he is very much alive, but his career at Harvard certainly was "killed": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8xWOlk3WIw
It’s odd, at least to me, for a centrist, independent voter, to judge the American experiment as a failure. What standard guides you in your how you rate a country the size of ours? Just curious to understand whether you are m assuring success or failure based on a benchmark existing outside of reality, or, if you are actually comparing America to any or all of the 200+ recognized countries around the globe. It seems to me you’re the victim of Leftist, anti-American propaganda.
Well Swm, I was only back on Quora for one day, and I was banned permanently. I went right back to my 'dirty dissident commentary',and the very next day I was whacked! I knew I was not long for Quora. Two weeks before I was suspended I started my own blog on Wordpress. and I am now writing for Substack.
These are all "social media" It is just some social media is ripe for censorship...it is the ones that have faceless moderators ruling over the participants...ala Quora, Tweeter, & YouTube. I was bnned by YouTube more that 3 years ago. I can watch videos, but I cannot comment, or vote. YouTube is practically useless now with all the commercials you have to endure before the video shows that you want to see. BitChute is the best alternative. They have plenty of dissident content that YouTube banned.
While I agree with that position after Obama's betrayal of everything he ran on, does it mean you're open to voting Republican? That would be a mistake.
Shit, I'm much the same... I'd opt for the dirty politics we had before 2016 over this crap any day. I'd take "pretty dirty" and :mostly corrupt" over an overt display of absolute control over the world's richest country on the eve of our own environmental destruction any day.
Speaking of which... does anyone really believe that the same people would truly go to bat for climate change, pollution and environmental concerns if they treat populism in this way?
I don't.
I think we're all fucked and these cunts are driving the bus off the cliff.
When I hear people say “it doesn’t matter who’s in control because both parties” are corrupt it compels me to respond there are degrees of corruption. In my opinion, the Democratic Party has crossed a line from dirty tricks to something well beyond politics as usual. We are in dangerous times that will test us all to determine whether what the Founders created almost 240 years ago will continue to exist in the future. They created a Republic, can we keep it? In my opinion, if the Democrat Party-aligned Establishment is not defeated, and then destroyed, our Republic’s best days are behind us.
Agreed, the DNC-Clinton-corporate democrats are the worst criminals, but remember, they have the protection of our dark intel agencies...lawless.
Let's not forget way back in late 1980's it was the republican model (money grift & corporate worship) that the democrats were all too happy to adopt.
The 2-party ping-pong match got us here today. The Georgia audit going on reminds me that Tammany Hall is alive & well. But oligarchs merely have to switch funds to a red campaign using some of Trumps psychology to fool us for another 8 yrs.
A Public MANDATE/REFERRENDUM for a completely independent election Commission OUTSIDE of gov't , 1 that investigates & recommends to the PUBLIC what must be done to return democratic process to our voting apparratus (now in the 2-party-grip) could be where WE, The PEOPLE, start.
Let's review the countless "investigations" that changed NOTHING over these last 5 yrs. "Investigation" is the new psy-op to 'PROTECT" the system.
The people in democracy should be able to investigate manlfeasance & corruption where-ever they see fit..agree IS tainted. The ability to reform our political system must begin OUTSIDE of it..
While I'm no Constitutional scholar, I am not aware of a mechanism or a process exists allowing individual citizens to call for a referendum. So, unless "working for change outside of the system" means overthrow, then the best we can work for is routing the Dems, in 2022 mid-terms and again in 2024.
Well, if citizens got behind 1 issue and organized with experts in election systems, we could "demand" a referrendum on a national election reform investigation paid for by our government.
Just because its never been done before, doesn't mean turning over our power over to the very problem.
“Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient allover the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.”
Today, local news channel started running psa announcement on "What to do in case of nuclear attack". Is Joe Biden et al planning to declare war on Russia as an "October Surprise", and use that as an excuse to cancel the midterms? I wouldn't put it past them.
The comical thing about ALL of this is that it's caused by a stupid push for "more democratic" primaries. If the parties simply controlled the nominations the way they used to, and had never opened them up, the threats from outside "The Regime" from Trump and Sanders couldn't happen in the first place. Remember, Trump wasn't a GOP member and Sanders still isn't a Democrat.
I preferred the stability of the parties' overt control over their nominations as a way to control who got elected to the basely corrupt practices and illegal actions from bureaucrats to maintain the same control they gave up.
Maybe you're not seeing the new definition of "more democratic": (I empathize. it's hard for me to keep up.) New-Democracy is a system where votes are generated as easily as US dollars. Not voters -- but votes. To add maximum froth, the votes come from:
(1) NPCs herded into voting booths by schoolmarms waving their fingers, a la: Big Mother: "Did you vote yet?" Voter: "Um, no, I don't know most of the races and the candidates..." Big Mother: "Enough of your dithering!! Now, you march right in there and pull a lever for *every* race, just as your gut [i.e. your subconsciously ad/MSM-brainwashed mind] tells you!!"; or...
(2) well, anywhere else they can be conjured up and inserted into the electronic counting system. Real, live, legality, or legal competency in voters -- none of these things matter. So I'm sure you can be creative and find a couple dozen vectors for voting system compromise, from software development at the voting machine manufacturer to the non-public counting.
Now you know why Democrats are going nuts in Texas trying to whip up maximum hysteria against Republicans trying to keep track of voters. You know, "voters" with an "r". Voters, and their discussion of the issues, equal sides, access to candidates, you say? That's all so second millenium. Time to move on!
Ha. Only two comments to that - one, "NPCs" love it lol!
two, you are right they will conjure them up and to supplement that they create them out of felons and fake refugees, who all will have the actual vote soon enough
Durham is doing that himself. He and Bill Barr still believe in justice and whatever else used to pass for fairness, impartiality, etc. Don't expect anything from Durham except more not guiltys.
One of the easiest examples of bias is the fact that Melania, a very beautiful lady got no magazine covers and late night TV hosts kept making fun of her accent while both Michelle and Jill Biden are getting magazine covers. How more obvious can it be?
"Vogue kept supermodel Melania Trump off of their covers because of her husband & put Jill Biden on because of her husband. Remember ladies- your husband determines your worth in this new Leftist world!" - Ashley St. Clair
It's refreshing to hear someone coming from the Left side of the aisle admit that these very damaging political shenanigans *are* going on and that there is a real and fundamental danger to the American Republic as a result. I was beginning to think that everyone on the Left (minus the paid trolls, who are evil) was either fundamentally deaf, dumb and blind or just inherently, incredibly dishonest- or both.
No. Like Darryl points out in his essay, the Regime isn't partisan and they would have taken the opposite side if it had been a Tulsi Gabbard vs. Jeb Bush race. People on the left who are paying attention and willing to speak out, like Greenwald and Taibbi, are now being perceived as conservatives and attacked by the Regime's propaganda outlets. They are not really conservative in principle, they are still pretty liberal, they are just not on the side of the scary authoritarian power-elite. The fact is that the authoritarian elites rely on most people being sheep, and unfortunately, they are.
Yes, this is the most troubling for me. Pre-Trump, for the most part, and I was just out of college then and very much enamored with the Amy Goodman™️ view of the world, politics was still very much about good natured debate. It was never serious enough to never speak again, to smear your ideological opponents out of jobs, reputations, financial stability...But this, times are brutal now. I’ve been called a “stupid, anti-vaxxer, racist, Trump supporter” by my own father (who voted for Bush twice and is a war hawk by any standard) because I pointed out that both “sides” are pretty much in it for the same reasons. I mean, these people are all at the same cocktail parties. It’s wild. I have lost some people I considered very close friends, some of over many decades.
Likewise. I've always thought I was measured and fair-minded, but I'm not going to be friends with people who build straw men so they can knock them down, or who want to take some leftist caricature of a "Trump supporter" and paste it onto me because I'm not in lock-step with the elitist authoritarian political agenda.
It's frustrating to try to have a conversation with people who don't think for themselves but just spew talking points at you. Also, I'm sure it doesn't help that part of the CIA counter-intelligence playbook is to troll social media and drop a confrontational comment here and there to make sure that people don't start working together to get rid of them.
It's all pretty frustrating. I find myself more and more agreeing with Churchill's observation that "the greatest argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter".
Well, here's your chance. See my in-depth comment above. As for people who just spew talking points -- I wrote "Mentality of a Mob" for people just like that: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/mentality-of-a-mob/
A civil war is getting more and more likely due to the madness of the Biden regime. It was the Democrat slaveholders who started the first Civil War, and it looks like they are on track to start a another. If the Biden regime toadies actually believe the US miliatary rank and file will side with the traitorous Democrats they are delusional.
They swore an oath to defend the Constitution, not some constitution defiling regime.
"Civil war" would imply that it's grassroots and organic -this is not. This all smacks of every dirty trick the pentagon has employed since its conception to topple governments all around the world so that the rich who fund them can get richer.
Nothing more.
To wit: the ACTUAL civil war that "ended slavery" was nothing more than rich mill owners forcing the rich agrarian land owners to open slavery up to ALL races. People died for that shit.
Funny thing a lot of the gun owner and veteran crowd who would be the ones most likely to fight a civil war cannot stand the party cheerleaders. They see them as shameless, unthinking, bootlickers.
I still remember when the Regime pretended to give a shit about Middle America just to send its boys to fight overseas and then told them to go fuck themselves when they started to become disillusioned.
"No. Like Darren points out in his essay, the Regime isn't partisan"--Scuba Cat
And that is where Darren is totally off base. The "Regime" like all mainstream concerns is Neo-Marxist. That is why the election fraud describied by Molly Ball, who Barren quotes constantly yet never mentions or cites, rigged the 2020 presidential ellection to instal the corporatist oligarcchs meat-pupped Joe Biden.
I have transcribed Molly Ball's TIME Magazine article of feb 4, 2021 plus added proofs at thie link::
Neo-Marxism is a Marxist school of thought encompassing 20th-century approaches that amend or extend Marxism and Marxist theory, typically by incorporating elements from other intellectual traditions such as critical theory, psychoanalysis, or existentialism (in the case of Jean-Paul Sartre).
So my main interest in Neo-Marxism is how it developed from the Frankfurt School's 'critical theory" ideology, and how that has further evolved into 'critical race theory. Which by the way is now infecting the US military under the Biden regime.
General Milley, critical race theory and why GOP's 'woke ...
JOE BIDEN & the DNC & the MSM liberal media & the intelligence agencies & gov't don't want it 'put back together'; They are to destroy the country and our society as we knew it.
They want to continue morphing America into an empire with an inherited oligarchy and to eventually make average Joe accept it as reality. The same place every country eventually gets to, except this one has the military might to dominate most of the world.
To a large extent that's true, but at least they used to try to hide it. And the oligarchs used to at least pretend to be part of the country (sending their sons to serve in the military, etc), not above it.
Exactly. "It has always been thus". If not "always", for far longer than my lifetime, and I'm far from young. While it's somewhat personally gratifying to see that some people today have begun to perceive the domestic big lie, and to try to distinguish puppeteers from puppets, it doesn't really offer much promise of change. As long as a majority of even those who are conscious of their marginalization believes that this is a relatively recent phenomenon, and/or one that can be corrected as soon as "their" guy is elected, or "their" side regains a majority, the situation will remain hopeless, and the unconcealed, unapologetic, brazen usurpation of individual liberty will continue unchecked and unabated. Same is true of those from both sides of the left/right divide who naively believe that this rampant abuse of authority is confined to electoral politics, and does not extend to COVID, climate change, and pretty much any other issue that commonly appears in Google News headlines. Not that there is never any truth in any of the assertions in those articles: effective propaganda requires a bit of that to appear credible, but it is merely a thin layer of pulverized fact sprinkled over a dump truck filled with manure.
While I’m not placing you, necessarily, in the Trump Derangement Syndrome column, you seem to be hinged. Yet, you certainly display vestiges of an irrational dislike of a man you have no way of really knowing. How much of your negative opinions of about Donald Trump do you attribute to non-stop unhinged propaganda created by the Establishment? In 2015 and 2016, many voters, especially those of us who were determined to block Hilary Clinton, rightfully so, from the Presidency, were reluctant and nervous about supporting such an odd character. However, by 2018, 2019, and into 2020, any objective observer could clearly see Trump was not a Russian asset, certainly not mentally feeble, corrupt, nor did he start a war. By most every metric Trump was achieving most of what he set out to do. I must ask you, why you continue to hold, a seemingly irrational dislike, for a man who was unjustly, unfairly, and possibly illegally, pilloried by nearly all of our country’s institutions? Do you think your unwillingness to set aside personality based opposition to Trump stemmed from social pressure to hate the Orange Man?
Some of this is personal willingness to believe this stuff, but some of it is social media's effect. Remember, groups of people out there have started to believe flat earth based on how good social media AI algorithms are at feeding them bad information.
I mention not to say that the situation is OK, just to give clues to how we as a society fix it. We have to wean our society off of emotionally manipulative reaction-based platforms and back to longer time digestion of information and reasoned, slower thinking.
Whoa this is my first time being accused with (possibly) TDS. I didn’t vote for Biden and consider the left far worse (now). In my life I’ve seen the right be the worse than the left though, I certainly believe George W was the worst president of my life (Biden might beat him though). Trumps personality does bother me but I’m able to forgive that pretty easily compared to what I see other politicians doing (certainly to any pro war president). I don’t believe he achieved all he set out to do. I thought he had terrible appointment after appointment (Brennan most of all). I think far too often he easily played the villain in such a manner that easily played into the left and corporate journalists hands. I would could see myself much more amenable to a more competent Trump, but the question is do we believe it’s possible for another outsider like Trump and if not then where does that leave us?
(Typed from my phone so expect worse spelling and grammar).
Establishment Republicans were highly discouraged from providing any support to the Trump administration and the fake Russia Collusion witch-hunt, where the "walls were closing in" for 2 long years. Explicit as well as implicit, threats and warnings were made discouraging Republicans from working for Trump. Leftist, establishment Democrats, and RINOs were desperate to first prevent, and then to remove, the first successful outsider to win the presidency from fully exercising his executive power while you, and people like you, stood by and allowed the corrupt and incompetent hegemony to run roughshod over nearly half of the country. Hating Trump's so-called "mean" tweets and falling for the "Orange Man Bad" trope were always weak excuses, in my view anyway. In 2016 Trump was the only person who could even come close to blocking Hillary Clinton from becoming POTUS. In 2020, if the Democrats weren't successful changing voting rules, especially in key states like my own, Trump would have beat the corrupt and feeble-minded Biden. Changing rules in middle of a contest is cheating!
Just look at Mitch McConnell. Was great on judges. Now won't lay out a Republican platform for the Senate candidates, refuses support to Trump backed candidates.
Did you even read my response? It seems like you just have a pre-programmed response to anyone who disagrees with you about Trump. You suggest I stood by. I wonder what you did. Did you vote for Trump? Does that mean you thought the elections were fair? I find it amazing someone can make such a strong accusation to someone they don't know outside of a couple of paragraphs. Amazing.
I already said I could easily look past his tweets as I consider many things other presidents do to be far worse (especially in the arena of war). I could even make a case that trolling can be very effective and if Trump did one thing well it was trolling.
You might just have to be willing to concede that others just don't agree with you on how effective Trump was. You could believe that he just had everything against him so nothing was his fault OR you could conclude that he got played. That his rhetoric played perfectly in the hands of the "Regime" and they were able to consolidate immense power as a result and we are all worse off for it.
I'll give Trump some credit though. He opened a lot of eyes to how the world is. It used to be that the power centers within this country could happily exist in the background and he forced them to show their hand. This could have good or negative consequences but binary thinking isn't the answer so stop demanding it of others, especially others you don't know (seriously have you ever convinced anyone using this tactic?)
"consequences but binary thinking isn't the answer so stop demanding it of others,"--CTE
You use the term "binary thinking" as though it were a magic talisman that makes your spurious rhetorical sophistry turn into profound utterances of universal truths.
Binary thinking in reality means the ability to tell the distinction between good and bad behavior. Knowing that a woman is capable of being a mother and not a "birthing person".
It includes the simple ability to tell up from down, pain from pleasure. the difference between love and hate. The difference between the floor from the ceiling, the open wound from the healing. Off from on.
The world is a study in metaphor and distinction: Thus is this because That is not.
The gray scales matter as well, but they are transitions between two extremes which must first be acknowledged.
Perhaps you should study epistemology and get your own thoughts in order.
I consider myself on the extreme left, actually left-libertarian. I've voted mostly for Democrat candidates for state legislatures and Congress, though I did "jump" the akin to sparkplug "gap" and run for state representative as a Libertarian in 1982, then jumped back in the 1990s when I saw the results of right-libertarian thinking and their inability to recognize corporations as creatures of the State.
I've long been skeptical of the corporate media due to all Darryl has mentioned and more, but I am now totally done with the Democratic Party, which is beyond any possibility of reform. It must be totally destroyed, and I will vote for no Democrats. Evil is an absolute that has no lesser or greater, but the Democrat's willingness to destroy the country with a fake pandemic and violent riots just to hang onto power take evil to an entirely new level. Even the "Squad" is corrupted. I will vote for no Republican who has done evil, but I will vote for no Democrats whatsoever.
Darryl is correct about opportunity, but it will take years for extreme right and extreme left to understand what they have in common. The best we can hope for in the meantime is the election of multiple 3rd party delegations as occurred in the early 1850s. In 1856, Republicans were the 5th largest delegation to Congress, which elected a Know-Nothing Speaker of the House. It doesn't matter whether you vote for a Libertarian, Green, People's Party or Constitution Party candidate, as long as the Democrats go the way of the Whigs.
Awesome. What convinced me was the obliteration of Parler by a conspiracy consisting of Amazon, Twitter and FB. This, even though the Jan 6 protesters did not even use Parler, but rather Twitter Instagram and FB, to “coordinate” their activities. Like the censorship of Biden’s laptop and its evidence of Joe and Hunter’s corruption, there was simply no excuse for it. It was simply an exercise in raw power.
This has made me look and write daily about censorship over the centuries. Our times are just like old times. Nothing changes except who is in charge gets to censor. And of course the thing carrier getting censored (stone tablets, manuscripts, magazines, web platforms). So much of the early 19th c, was dissident groups trying to get a printing press..(Dostoyevsky's Demons' "revolutionary" circle, for example).
I joined your Substack today and was reminded of FDR's "Department of Censorship"...
Those pesky Democrats are up to the same nonsense today, but on the huge scale of partnering with "Big Tech" to create a more stealthy department of censorship.
Cass Sunstein,was top Obama adviser on regulations,
White House regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, an intellectual mentor to President Obama whose skeptical approach to rule-making frustated the president’s liberal allies.
Sunstein became infamouse for his controversial publication 'Conspiracy Theories' with coauthor, Adrian Vermeule.
In that book Sunstein advised that the government must become proactive in countering dangerous and inacurate "conspiracy theoris" by infiltrating web forums with covert agents who would create "cognitive dissonance' in the forums by a set of techniques detailed in his manual.
There was such a backlash from those who cherish free speech, that at one point he was confronted by journalist who wanted him to defend his "fascitic views" -- Suntein was caught on video saying he had never written any such book about conspiracy thoeries. that the journalist must have him confused with someone else!!
_____________________________________________
Conspiracy Theories
Cass R. SunsteinFollow
Adrian VermeuleFollow
Publication Date
2008
Abstract
Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a “crippled epistemology,” in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.
GoToMeeting and Signal as well. They would have to shut down nearly every unified communications and social media service to expunge the baddies. You have to know that Twitter was tickled pink with that result.
Although President Joe Biden has been known to angrily confront reporters for what he considers overly harsh questions, the legacy media have taken it remarkably easy on the president and his family. While the media have circled hungrily around every potential charge facing Allen Weisselberg and remain focused on the Trump family, they have ignored multiple scandals facing Joe Biden, his son, and his brother. Here are just a few:
1. Joe Biden reportedly met with Hunter Biden’s business partners.
Emails and photographs retrieved from Hunter Biden’s laptop appear to show that then-Vice President Joe Biden met repeatedly with his son’s business associates, raising issues of influence peddling.
A photograph shows the then-sitting vice president meeting with Hunter and two business associates, Carlos Slim and Jeff Cooper, on November 19, 2015. The New York Post’s Miranda Divine reports that Hunter had spent much of that year pursuing Slim to invest in a number of business options, including Cooper’s online gambling platform, Ocho Gaming.
Thanks for this. The only thing that I would add is that based on my perspective, I actually saw the election being stolen in real time. Election night started very much like 2016 with Florida and Ohio getting called for Trump relatively easily. Then Texas comfortably. History says there isn't much of a path to the White House that doesn't include either Florida or Ohio. He was also up by half a million votes or something like that in Pennsylvania. But not yet called. That looks pretty much like game over. At that very moment, a questionable call of Arizona for Biden, and then as you state, the four critical swing states must stop counting. That is third world election-type sh*t. How are all the votes counted in Florida and Ohio an hour after the polls close, but "it might be days" before they get counted in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia?
But political junkie that I am, I'm still awake at 3-4 in the morning, watching to see what happens. All of the sudden, 100k 100% Biden vote "drops" just popping up in every swing state. Again, pure Third World-type sh*t. Boxes of ballots just dropped off and/or pulled out in the middle of the night, in Democrat-controlled big cities. It's not a "conspiracy"; I saw it happen in real time. Maybe those were "legal" ballots filled out by campaign workers on behalf of real voters, according to the "COVID" rules, but that's not how we understand a true democracy to work anywhere in the world. You are responsible for voting in your own name, as an individual, in a secret ballot. If voting comes down to which political party can manipulate the rules to allow them to "harvest" votes that they wouldn't otherwise have gotten, it's over. We're now something else, not a democratic republic.
Democrats being against voter id clearly tells me they enjoy cheating. It's like opposing ID for buying cigarettes or booze and then claiming no underage kid ever bought a cigarette or booze. Monmouth University released a poll on early voting and voter ID. The poll found the majority of Americans support voter ID, and more minorities support voter ID than white people. Question 31 on page 7: 84% of minorities. & 77% of white people support voter ID. Yet Democrats keep claiming voter id is somehow racist:
I can present hundreds of examples but I don't think it's worth it because nobody's mind will change. I like how everyone agrees Bernie got cheated out twice, DNC using the IOWA "app" to cheat again and somehow the general election was perfectly cool. I will give a few examples for the audience here:
I am sure these types of vote counts where a candidate make vertical jumps in multiple states after vote counting has stopped and at 4am when Republican observers have been sent home is totally cool:
I am sure the 6000 votes which was exposed to have been switched from Trump to Biden in Antrim County and similarly in GA - all mistakes in one direction - was totally cool:
The typical excuses I hear when I point out how Biden won as "the most popular president with 12 million more votes than Obama" and yet couldn't get 10 people at his rallies is "Because Biden voters believe in science and didn't want to go out during a pandemic" to which I reply with "Then why did his YouTube videos and live streams also not get any views and got ratioed to the point where YouTube has to actively remove dislikes?
130 Thousand dislikes were removed in a 24hr period! And this is for the most popular US President of all time!
Another response is "Trump's personality cost him the election" to which I reply with "Trump has a in party approval of 95% - highest EVER" and Republicans gained tons of house seats and even state house and senate seats. So somehow people were voting for republicans but not for Trump despite him having 95% approval? It's the opposite - people voted for Republican house and senate BECAUSE Trump asked them too. It's been shown time and time again that the constituents like Trump, they hate the establishment RINOs. Hence the 95% approval in his party.
Usually first-time mail voters ~3X more likely to spoil ballot. In GA 2016 whopping 6.4% failed, 2020 just 0.2%. In PA, rate 0.03% in 2020 vs ~1% in 2016. Nevada from 1.60% in 2016 to ~0.75% this year. N.C. rate ~2.7% in 2016 to 0.8%. Totally cool.
Biden somehow gets 12 million more votes but only in VERY select few cities - enough to push him over in the entire state. And somehow ends up losing house seats, state house, senate seats. And Trump - who's the first Republican to make major gains in blacks and hispanics, his party makes major gains everywhere from house seats to state senate races loses.
Bellwether Counties Went Overwhelmingly for Trump in 2020. All but one of the 19 bellwethers picked President Donald Trump by a margin of some 16 points on average. They all accurately picked the president since 1980. Before the elections, here's NYTimes claiming:
> "The 10 Bellwether Counties That Show How Trump Is in Serious Trouble. Each one is in a battleground state. Votes from people there will matter a lot — and offer Joe Biden several paths to victory. Conversely, Mr. Trump would likely need to win at least eight of those 10 states for a second term. A look at these bellwethers — all either tossups or leaning toward Mr. Biden — makes clear that Mr. Trump is in serious trouble." NYTimes was claiming Biden will easily win thw bell weathers too.
Once the elections were over and all but one bell weather county that had chosen every presidential winner since 1980 went for President Trump in 2020, suddenly "bellwether counties are not a good way of indicating". HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAA whatever doesn't fit the narrative suddenly becomes unreliable.
I am sure those perfectly coordinated stopping of counting in the 6 states on election night was totally cool.
I am sure the GA "pipe burst" which was widely claimed as the reason for stopping counting at 10:30PM in Fulton and used to send observers home - and then for the black chick and her daughter to pull out a box with ballots and re-scan the same ballots 4 times all on video was all just totally cool. And guess what - that pipe burst story also turned out to be completely false - in fact it didn't even happen that day - it happened the day prior and has nothing to stop counting as exposed by the the FOIA requests:
> Fulton County Elections head Richard Barron said Wednesday that the pipe dumped a lot of water, soaking the carpeting and hampering work. “It looked really like there was rain coming out of the ceiling and the entire carpeting was just covered in water,” he said. “There was no way to go in there and perform work.”
In the hearings, the state officials claimed it was a toilet leak which happened at 6am and was fixed by 8am - not at night.
All so well coordinated. Yet these people can't keep their story straight.
I am sure covering up the voting counts with boards in Detroit is totally cool.
I am sure Democrats and RINO republicans absolutely refusing to do a REAL SIGNATURE MATCH audit before certifying must be because everything was cool.
CA Governor recall petition had a signature unmatched of 20%. But for the general election, it's somehow less than 1% everywhere. Totally cool.
I am sure judge dismissing cases claiming Republicans being blocked and put over 20 feet away from counting was totally okay because they were still in same building is totally cool.
42,000 people in Nevada voted more than once, 1,500 dead, 19,000 didn't live in Nevada, 8,000 voted from a non-existent address, 15,000 registered to a commercial address and 4,000 non-citizens.
Please explain why at least 10315 dead voters, 8718 died before they voted, 66,247 underage, 2560 felons, 5300 voting in multiple states, 15700 out of state voters, 40279 voting in wrong county etc in Georgia alone.
I am sure the 3000 signed affidavits under penalty of perjury were all lying. If they were all lying, then why have none of the affidavit signers been prosecuted for lying (the DOJ is clearly very pro prosecuting Trump supporters).
The best is this 2016 BBC article "Vote rigging: How to spot the tell-tale signs". The 2020 US election passes every sign from this article. But it's totally cool. Nothing to see here, move along:
In key swing states this year, mail-in ballot rejections plummeted from 2016 rates. Rates are below historical average and significantly less than most recent presidential election - despite having massive mail in voting:
All this doesn't even cover the unconstitutional voting law changes and mass mail-in voting using out dated voter rolls without voter ID. Or the censorship aspect.
Cooper covers but a third of your list. Those items are why so many simply refuse to accept that the election was legitimate. The efforts to avoid those issues has led to changes in laws with the hope that the 2022 election will be clean. If it doesn't appear clean expect professional cheating by both parties on a massive scale. Just imagine NY turning red.
And neither really even touch on what we've seen after the election -- the Democrats are acting like people who know they just stole an election. Put up razor wire in the capitol and ban anybody from talking about what we all remember happening. They don't even TRY to answer the questions (likely because they can't)
The latest NYC mayor elections was another disaster. Even the Democrat candidates were asking for audits and recounts. Not even Democrats trust Democrats to operate a fair election.
Yup, front in front of all of our eyes. Post election polls indicated that at least 5% of Democrats would NOT had voted for Biden had they know about Hunter's laptop, the graft, corruption, sex & drugs photos, etc....only for Joe Biden to say he had never 'talk to Hunter about business" #LIAR.
Nicely put. We saw much the same thing as the election unfolded. Cooper has captured much of our concern. Took awhile to get to read your comment, given Substack's awful threading requires me to bypass an entire block of useless debate over liberal/conservative nonsense. The scale of the issue was presented in that Time article showing the scope of activity. I'm stunned by the amount of money devoted to the effort which makes me wonder about foreign influence and how that could happen. There are uncountable way to wash money into elections well beyond simple campaign contributions. Knowing that the tech world is so flush with cash they can finance anything they wish. So my doubts persist, not at all reduced by being repeatedly told it's untrue.
If the left cared one bit for helping the poor and middle class they never would have voted for Biden, the senator from the credit card industry or Kamala the prosecutor who laughed about putting men in prison for marijuana use. They care about power.
Good point. The only thing I would add is that what you are describing is more the establishment than right or left.
Endless war, the credit card industry, mass incarceration and mass surveillance was best represented by the left in this last election, but all these things have broad bi-partisan support.
If you don't think there were people on the right just as happy to see Biden win as people on the left you are kidding yourself. To the extent this election was stolen, it was truly a bi-partisan affair.
"mass incarceration ... was best represented by the left in this last election" is a real stretch. I'm not sure you should say "left" if you mean "left plus center-left". I doubt that the left was more friendly to the credit card industry than other parts of the political spectrum, unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Bidn is literally the architect of mass incarceration in America for the past 50 years (with plenty of bi-partisan support) and Harris was a grotesque DA in California with a track record that would have put any Republican DA from the South to shame.
To follow up, Joe Biden ran on giving the cops another $350 million in the face of calls to reduce funding to the police and decided last Covid stimulus money can also be spent on more cops. Then we have the Capital Police.
How is stating the left in this election was a vote for mass incarceration a stretch?
Because Democrats are not the Left, especially not those two. They're right-wingers, corporate puppets. (I'm a Green, so I have no stake in the Democratic Party.) As you documented.
The assumption is that a lot of people on the left, the less dedicated ones, were so desperate to get rid of Trump that they voted Dem. That's likely, but it doesn't mean the left supported their atrocious records.
Nothing you said is wrong here, but we were having a different discussion.
We were discussing electoral politics, not the actual policy position of various groups. I argued that while both parties support mass incarceration, that support was best captured by the left in the last election. Randall Rose took this as an opportunity to discuss his definition of the left, but by point was an electoral one. To say that Biden and Kamala Harris are less pro-incarceration that Trump and Pence is not correct. No presidential candidates in US have been more tied to the industrial prison complex than Biden and Harris.
Your last sentence is not true. Harris was a prosecutor, but the same is true of a number of presidential and vice-presidential candidates, such as Mondale, Ferraro, Kerry, B. Clinton, and Lieberman. I already mentioned Mike Pence's and Bob Dole's history of backing mass incarceration (private prisons, in Pence's case). Nixon was a major figure in mass incarceration; so was Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, although technically Rockefeller was never on the ticket. You ignore the evidence I've given of Donald Trump's history of heavily backing mass incarceration. The idea that Biden and Harris are more tied to the prison-incarceration complex than any other presidential or vice-presidential candidate doesn't stand up to scrutiny; it's just something that people who like to repeat anti-Democratic talking points like to hear.
I've repeatedly refuted your attempts to back up your claim, and when the points that you claim as supporting evidence repeatedly turn out to be false, I think it's time for you to take a second look and to consider in a more open-minded way whether, perhaps, some of Nixon, Clinton, Dole, Trump, Pence, and the rest might have had a more substantial role in the prison-industrial complex.
It's a stretch because your support for the claim comes primarily from the personal history of the two candidates on the Dem national ticket, ignoring the Republicans. You mention Harris's history as a prosecutor and ignore Pence's history of supporting prisons, particularly private prisons. It's true that Biden supported the 1994 crime bill, but Trump also supported mass incarceration. In his 2000 book, Trump argued at length, "The problem isn’t that we have too many people locked up. It’s that we don’t have enough criminals locked up." https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/politics/kfile-trump-tough-on-crime-biden-2020/index.html
Also, what you say about Harris and Biden on mass incarceration is their past history, not their current or planned proposals. As far as Biden's current or planned actions go, you only mention his spending $350 million in a Covid relief bill on more police. First of all, supporting more funding for police isn't the same as supporting mass incarceration. Second, Trump backed and signed a Covid relief bill that spent even more money on grants to police, $850 million in Byrne Grants and Byrne Justice Assistance Grants. https://www.police1.com/police-grants/articles/cares-act-and-grant-funding-how-it-will-immediately-benefit-local-police-response-Qh3Njqapo5cu3nax/
Your post makes clear you're relying on one-sided talking points against Biden and Harris, without bothering to check both sides. If you had bothered to look up the easily-located facts I mention, you wouldn't say such slanted things.
I've been pretty clear in my posts that mass incarceration is bi-partisan, but claiming the Republicans are worse on this is probably the weakest argument you could make since Biden always worked with Republicans to achieve these terrible bills. Biden in the original bipartisan candidate on mass incarceration going back to 1972, which is saying something because incarceration was not that popular a goal back in 1972. I suppose if Trump had been in office 48 years we might be able to compare them and perhaps Trump would be as bad, but as it stands Trump did nothing in 4 years that could match the damage Biden did in 48 years of consistent pro-incarceration policies. Again, this is not controversial. Until the riots over police violence last year, Biden always bragged about the role he played in mass incarceration. It was one of his proudest achievements until it wasn't.
his damage goes well beyond and before the terrible Crime Bill, with it's COPS program, emphasis on drug crimes and mandatory minimums, which is by far the most influential piece of mass incarceration legislation ever. I am not a Trump fan, but can you name anything Trump did that lead directly to the incarceration of 2.5 million people a year over the past 26 years? The Crime Bill passed in 1994 and violent crime peaked in 1991, then fell more than 50% over the next 30 years, yet look at this graph of incarceration after continuing to explode based almost entirely on non-violent drug crimes.
Biden was also the architect of the Patriot Act and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) that led to the Patriot Act. Is there a single piece of pro-incarceration legislation in the past 50 years that did not have his name on it? The answer is no. Yes, there are plenty of Republicans names too, but despite your argument there names to do remove his.
You claim there is no connection between increased policing and increased incarceration? I don't even know what to do with that statement. It seems obvious to me that more police increases the probability of arrest and being arrested increases the likelihood of prison. Do you know a way to send someone to prison without arresting them?
Here's an explainer of the link between police and incarceration:
you mention Trump spent $850 on Byrne Grants and that's true, but in addition to his newest proposal for $300 million in direct funding for the police, Biden spent over 2 billion on more policing in the Crime Bill alone and 10's of billions for more police when you add in the Patriot Act, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and all the additional prisons that came with them. not just Trump, but no politician has spent more on incarceration than Biden in history. Here's a pretty good list of what his 48 years of pushing endless police policy and harsher sentences looks like along with the results:
As for Harris, she literally fought to keep an innocent man incarcerated on a technicality when DNA proved he was innocent, did not punish OC prosecutors when they committed Brady violations, did not punish the Oakland PD when they were caught raping a 16 year old, argued that California should not have early release from prison for non-violent crimes because as she said, the State of California needed the free labor. She incarcerated a poor parent for her child not attending school, then laughed about it later at a fund raiser. As DA of SF she enforced drug and prostitution laws against the most marginalized members of society.
Yes, Republican prosecutors like Leon Cannizzaro and Harry Connick Sr. in Lousiana are just as bad because evil prosecutors are bi-partisan, but don't pretend like the Kamala Harris who gave us SESTA/FOSTA is great because they are bad. Biden could have picked anyone for VP. That he picked a draconian DA as his VP is the prefect testament to how he spent the previous 48 years in Congress.
You left out that Trump called for the Central Park 5 to be executed, who later turned out to be innocent. Trump and Republicans have been terrible this issue. That does not make Biden and Harris good.
The Democrats did not need to nominate literally their most pro-incarceration candidates. They could have gone with Sanders, or literally any other Democrat other than Bloomberg who was better on this issue. They literally chose their most pro-incarceration candidates. It would be like Republicans nominating Tom Cotton ti end mass incarceration.
I think you are really missing the boat by making this a partisan issue. I think the smart play would be to admit Republicans and Democrats are equally bad, which I would agree with. You are not going to look credible with Biden and Harris at the top of the ticket arguing that Republicans would be worse on mass incarceration.
Some of your research is inaccurate, though I'm glad to see you posting links to DuckDuckGo.
You make some false statements when you write: "Biden was also the architect of the Patriot Act and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) that led to the Patriot Act. Is there a single piece of pro-incarceration legislation in the past 50 years that did not have his name on it? The answer is no."
This is wrong, though you may be influenced by others' false propaganda. On AEDPA (S. 735, 104th Congress), Biden was neither a sponsor nor a cosponsor, although there were cosponsors from both parties. The main sponsor of that bill was Bob Dole. So no, Biden wasn't the bill's architect. The USA PATRIOT Act (HR 3162, 107th Congress) was a House bill introduced by Rep. Sensenbrenner (based on a draft from the Justice Department); after it passed the House, the Senate immediately approved it the next day with no amendments, so Biden wasn't the architect either. The USA PATRIOT Act was partly based on a slightly earlier bill called the USA Act (S. 1510, 107th Congress), where Biden was neither a sponsor nor a cosponsor, even though there were cosponsors from both parties. As for the 1994 Crime Bill, you're right that Biden was the Senate sponsor (S. 1607, 103rd Congress), but the House version of the bill came first (H.R. 3355).
So, several inaccuracies.
--First, you exaggerate Biden's past role in mass incarceration.
--Second, you say that the left were the ones who represented mass incarceration in the 2020 election, conflating the left with the Democratic presidential ticket (which is center-left, not the same as the left). In reality, those who are on the left (not center-left) tend to be less friendly to mass incarceration.
--Third, even as far as the Democratic presidential ticket goes, your view is too much based on their past stances. Many opponents of mass incarceration (voters who are on the left, not the center-left) voted for the Dem ticket because they thought that Biden as president might not be as bad as his previous record, and because they were worried that Trump might incarcerate more immigrants than Biden would (and in less humane ways).
I more or less agree with your point that Republicans and Democrats are equally bad on mass incarceration (though I would prefer to say that the jury is still out until we see where Republicans and Democrats end up). Still, I think candidates on the actual left (not the center-left) tended to be more opposed to mass incarceration than other candidates, and this is also true of left voters. In any case, we agree on most things.
Not really evidence, but an intuition—for a long time I’ve believed that there is one issue-abortion-that is the be-all and end-all for the left. As long as Biden/Harris kept up their pro-choice creds, the left was willing to look the other way on the credit card industry, mass incarceration and of course the Big Kahuna, Wall Street.
I think you're pretty much right about *part* of the left -- so if you're around that part of the left, abortion and related issues could be the main thing for them. But other parts of the left feel differently.
Did you know that Utah was historically all blue, to include Orrin Hatch early in his career? They were party line democratic voters on every issue but one, they were pro-life.
By using that one wedge issue as a litmus test, the democratic party managed to flip the entire state into the redest of the red states.
I'm personally pro-choice, but it's interesting history.
Wikipedia says Hatch first ran for the Senate as a Republican. It was a while ago. My dad was a dem during the Depression, but that was when the Democratic Party had a serious conservative section. When they flipped out under McGovern, he turned Republican. My point is that “historically blue” was somewhat different in the time period you are referencing. Ps. I’m personally pro-life.
Ok, “part” of the left, but it’s a really big part. If the rest of the left feels differently, how has Wall Street turned the DNC into a wholly owned subsidiary? And for the record, Wall St. owns about half the Republicans as well. Awful, but not quite as bad and I vote to rid our party of the Paul Ryans and his ilk every chance I get.
Here's a prime example from a recent Joe Rogan podcast. Josh Dubin, a leftist from The Innocence Project who works on getting people free from prison was criticizing Kamala before the elections for putting innocent people in prison and so on. Despite that, he said he would vote for Biden and Kamala because they are "better than whatever was currently in the White House".
Then after elections, during Christmas last year, he got a personal dinner with Trump to advocate for pardoning someone who was serving life in prison for drug related charges. He mocks Trump, how he asked for 2 scoops of ice cream, how he didn't want to clap for Trump when he came for dinner at Maralago. Then after the Jan 6 protests, he thought he had lost all chances of getting the pardon. Despite all this, on his last day in office, Trump remembered to issue the pardon. As the top comment says: "Gotta love these people....an important man invites you to dinner, takes time to listen to your story and treats you with the utmost respect, let's your criminal off with a pardon.. what do you do? Proceed to insult the man who helped you in a public forum."
He wants to fight for the forgotten and oppressed, yet he voted for Kamala Harris. That's the modern left.
Josh Dubin's Dinner with Trump That Led to a Presidential Pardon:
Correction: "Leftist" TPTB did their umpteenth round of "At least we're better than [fill-in-the-blank, e.g. last year's model: "Hitler/Godzilla Trump!!"]" pied-pipering the rank-and-file Leftist voters over the cliff.
The answer to the question, "Was the election stolen from Trump?" is absolutely maybe. If nothing else - literally nothing else - the collusion between all major media, Big Tech, and the DNC to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story - which was most definitely newsworthy, amounts to one of the most shameful moments in the history of the Fourth Estate. The degree to which the electorate would have shifted if that story had been allowed to come out fully cannot be known. Republicans have every right to be permanently pissed off about it. Cooper nails it.
The problem with election fraud is that it takes so long to prove it out in court that you might as well just accept it, the next administration will be elected before it gets unwound. That means no penalty for stealing elections, and therefore it will continue as it has in the past.
Election fraud claims are a lot like those questionable calls from refs in football that swing the game. If you couldn't win without that one call going your way, you probably didn't deserve to win.
That’s what Lyndon Johnson after his first defeat for the Senate. He won next election by less tha 200 votes when a box from South Texas showed up several days later. Just more sophisticated nowadays
I don't see it that way. It just means that you have to outplay the refs. You need a better platform, campaign and candidates. If you don't win, do better. Whining is for losers.
There were recent surveys which said that 5-10% of the democrat voters wouldn't have voted for Biden if they had known about Hunter Biden stuff before elections.
"They could have managed the shock if it only involved the government. But the behavior of the press is what radicalized them. Trump supporters have more contempt for journalists than they have for any politician or government official, because they feel most betrayed by them."
I had a general disdain for the media prior to the last five years but now seething hatred is more appropriate. Don't even get me started on the intelligence community.
One need not be a conservative to accept that Cooper has accurately described conservative beliefs and their genesis. I am a liberal libertarian who has never been a Republican. I never voted for Trump. I watched the same things happening that Cooper relates, and objected because due process was thrown under the bus.
Denying anyone due process is denying all of us due process. "Because Trump" does not excuse perjury, using government to spy on your political opponents, Brady violations or bankrupting your political opponents for fun and profit. All of these and more occurred. The people doing these things were neither liberals nor conservatives, but authoritarians. Enough, I say. The anarchist-authoritarian movement captured the media, Big Tech, and the Democratic Party. I was inspired to become a liberal Democrat by JFK in 1960. I was inspired to become a liberal libertarian by Nancy Pelosi in 2009.
The anarchists I know hate Biden and kept rioting after he won. In Portland they burned an effigy of him after the election. You don't have to support them, but they certainly don't align neatly with the democratic party.
The phrase "useful idiots" didn't come from Stalin, and researchers who've tried to trace it haven't been able to trace it back to anyone specific on the Leninist side (it's often attributed to Lenin himself but there's no record of Lenin saying it). Socialists nowadays keep saying that it wasn't ever a socialist phrase. Still, it does sound like the way that quite a few Leninists think. My guess is that originally, some minor Leninist perhaps did say something equivalent to "useful idiots" (maybe not phrased exactly that way) and over time this got distorted into the idea that the Soviet leader was talking about using "useful idiots".
I may have had a few more encounters with anarchists than you have. I would say that anarchists are willing to work sometimes with communists against capitalism, at least for now. But anarchists have their own strategy and aims, and they are well aware of the severe dangers of a communist government. I do not expect anarchists in general to get exploited by communists in the long run, even though for now anarchists and communists are sometimes seen working together.
(My own views are different; I think all forms of capitalism and all forms of socialism are bad systems, and I'm not an anarchist either.)
Some members of antifa call themselves anarchists, but most anarchists do not consider themselves antifa:
I think the less academic and more thoughtful question is not how to label them but how those who protested in Portland over the Summer got there and why. Full disclosure. I protested in Portland last Summer and the storied I hear from most people who weren't there are entirely disconnected from reality. It's one of the problems with making local new national. People who know little about a place come to think they know more than they do.
You are the second person to do this. People are attempting to explain words in this post that are not actually there. Perhaps that is what he meant, but it's not what he said. I'm sure at some point he will circle back and clear up my misunderstanding of his post.
I suppose that's true, but since Antifa are the thugs rioting constantly in Portland, it's a safe assumption. Real anarchists aren't that organized. Sort of by definition.
Organizing anarchists and libertarians is like herding cats. When no one wants to be in charge or everyone thinks they are, you definitely have a problem. They are all parodies of themselves.
It depends on the anarchist community. Anarchists are not defined by an inability to organize so much as a refusal to organize based on the force and violence of state power.
Not everyone protesting in Portland was antifa by a long shot, including myself, but that is a topic for another time.
Anarcho-communists is a better description. There are no neat alignments, unfortunately. Communists are, by definition, organized. Organized anarchists are an oxymoron.
Not to be the definer of all things anarchist since I'm not one, but there is actually nothing contradictory about anarchists organizing. In fact, it's encouraged for mutual support and safety. They just don't think organizations should be enforced by state violence. It's not all that different than the way US cities were organized until the rise of a standing police force in the mid 1800's.
I don't find their view realistic, but I do find it admirable. Their failure to me is their inability to acknowledge the human drive to censor, punish and control marginalized groups who fail to conform to what the majority wants. That human urge is stronger than even sex. A world where one group of people with power don't use their position to violently punish people who are not part of their group is not realistic, especially in a deeply puritanical authoritarian country like the US. It's the the Bill of Rights never had a fighting chance.
My vocabulary is necessarily limited and my understanding of philosophy in general and specific philosophies in particular is minimal. What I'm attempting to describe with the word anarchist is one possessed of what Dr. Nathan Adler referred to as an antinomian personality type. It emerges during periods of conflict about the value of shared principles, including the social contract, according to Adler. His description in Psychiatry, Volume 31, Issue 4 in 1968 fairly well matches what we're seeing in the streets.
I agree about the human drive to to censor, punish and control marginalized groups; more fundamentally I have found there to be an even stronger drive to be superior to some other group. Throughout history it has been Jews, homosexuals, smokers, the obese, blacks, and now heterosexual white males. I don't know how to treat this drive; it can be diverted, but extinguishing it is a far more difficult undertaking. When a group with an unquenchable thirst for dominance, expressed as censorship, punishment and control gains power, it carries with itself the seeds of its own destruction.
I suppose this is as good a time as any to tell you how much I enjoy your thoughtful posts here. I don't always agree, but they are always accessible, reasonable, well stated and not reactionary. I'm often worried to ask people questions like "What do you mean by anarchist here" out of fear it will be seen as a challenge, which it's not and I appreciate that you took it in the spirit it was intended.
In the end, if I'm interested enough to ask someone a question it's because I value their thought process behind it behind their statement.
Adler. His description in Psychiatry, Volume 31, Issue 4 in 1968. I will need to look one up. Thank you for the reference.
There's no secret involved; I'm not a partisan. I was inspired by JFK to become a liberal Democrat in 1960, In 2009 I was inspired to become a liberal independent, finally realizing that I was a small l libertarian. I don't have to defend or attack any party's position.
I tend to go after Democrats more than Republicans because I'm a former Democrat. Look at discussions about smoking. The people toughest on smokers are ex-smokers. I'm an ex-Democrat.
Anarchy isn't anarchism. One's burning buildings and shit. The other is rule by collectivism without any institutional regime (the one Daryl talks about here) in charge. The latter would be a welcome change to our current political system. The former was what we had last summer. Which no one but the ruling class wants.
yeah I hate the label stuff. I wanna a rule by the people enabled by distributed internet and block chain that no one has control over. everyone gets a say. no power structures. no corp voices. I also want a unicorn cause fuck it I'm saying fantastical shit that will never happen.
I've talked a little with anarchists, and have some sympathy with their views. I do think there's a bit of an authoritarian streak in some (not all) anarchists, whether they recognize it or not.
I intentionally avoided providing a definition of anarchism here because this is a poor format for complex political theory, but Rousseau's general will is more a reflection of American Liberatarianism than Anarchism.
The central tenant of Rousseau's general will was that cooperation was motivated by universal love. This idea of human nature as fundamentally good is the opposite of anarchism, which is exactly why they are reluctant to give some people guns with a monopoly on violence over others. For many anarchists authority is defined by more than a monopoly on state violence.
Not only do anarchists not believe in universal love as a motivator, they believe absolute power corrupts absolutely. See French Revolution for Rousseau in practice. Peter Kropotkin's "Universal Aid" provides a better definition of anarchism.
Also, in your comment:
"anarchists - (or anyone who has done a little reading on the subject) are generally anti-authoritarian and anti-hierarchical, and basically voluntary association is the organizing principle."
Your "generally" is carrying an awful lot of water here. There are plenty of anarchists that think both hierarchy and authority are natural result of human society that cannot be avoided, but simply don't believe they should be enforced by state violence. They explain this by making a distinction between government (which they support) and the state (which they don't support).
"As anarchist thinker Peter Kropotkin pointed out, there is a distinction between the state and government. Government consists of the institutions of governance which would be making rules, adjudicating disputes, and social self-defense. A state, on the other hand, is a top down bureaucratic apparatus with command over military & police forces, separate from real control by the mass of the people."
To me, the media's glib and completely corrupt abdication of its fundamental role is captured in a single headline from the once mighty CBS News:
"Trump pushes baseless voter fraud claims at Georgia rally."
When did rank editorializing and conclusion-drawing (in the fucking headline no less) become part of journalism? EVERY major media outlet covering the 202 election did the SAME thing. It comes down to syntax and it's why people are pissed and distrustful.
Yep, and Huffington Post is probably the most blatant. Corporate media doesn’t even pretend to try anymore…they have all become Fox News for their own pet causes.
Actually Needham FOX News is so popular, especially Tucker Carlson, because the corporate media has been disingenuous prevaricators for their enire existance.
Geeze, you and Whoopi Goldberg should get together; she says that Roman Polanski’s sodomy of a 12 year old girl wasn’t “rape-y rape”, and you can say that Fox News isn’t “corp-y corporate”.
Wow. This dude is spot on. And funny. A GREAT READ. Some high points:
"It was used as an open threat to keep people from working in the administration."
EXACTLY! This was the whole MESSAGE of the Manafort, Papadopoulos, Stone et al scorched earth approach. It wasn't to turn anybody or get them to make up stories on Orange Man, IT WAS TO KILL THE POSSIBILITY THAT ANYONE WOULD EVER WORK FOR A NON-ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE IN THE FUTURE.
"But many Trump supporters see clearly that the Regime is not partisan."
YES! This is why a Paul Ryan can go to DC as a kid, get GROOMED by the SWAMP and become a republican speaker that did nothing but be a placeholder and let the House be lost in 2018.
"This is where people whose political identities have for decades been largely defined by a naïve belief in what they learned in civics class began to see the outline of a Regime that crossed not only partisan, but all institutional boundaries."
While I disagree with significant and important portions of this well-written piece, it is totally worth reading and contemplating. As a sociological matter, much of it is almost certainly correct.
But this bit at the end, I reject:
"But if in 2004 I had told you that the majority of the GOP voter base would soon be seeing the folly of the Iraq War, becoming skeptical of state surveillance, and beginning to see the need for action to help the poor and working classes, you’d have told me such a thing would transform the country. Take the opportunity. These people are not demons, and they are ready to listen in a way they haven’t in a long, long time."
They may not be demons, but a 65-year-old who was raised by National Review, far right parents -- in their milieu and their church -- I assure you this is wrong. Conservatives per se (not all libertarians, of courser), by definition, support authority, and will revert to it as soon as their comfort levels can again be sated. I'm a social democrat now -- a leftwinger -- and I know, from long and painful exposure, that the right is the enemy of what I value, of what is human and humane.
In Greenwald's threads the majority are Trumper rightwingers and numerous are the insulting and ignorant comments ranting that people like me are Communists, leading all to death camps & etc ad stupidum. So, no, I don't sign on at all to that last graf.
This is, essentially, about the definitions informing labels. Let's stop the non-thinking in labels and start talking about principles and standards. Banish the labels and the values will be revealed.
That's exactly it. A lot of people have trouble accepting that the labels they grew up with and were so immoveable and reliable have greatly eroded and no longer apply. All anyone has to do is listen to the *winning* GOP rhetoric of the Trump campaign during the 2016 primary -- running against Reaganomics, the Bush/Cheney wars, cuts to social programs, etc. -- to see how radically it's all shifted. The more limited success of Ron Paul also proved that -- getting massive vote totals in GOP primaries in Iowa and South Carolina while ranting against imperialism, corporatism, the Drug War etc.
Cooper himself is a perfect example. I defy anyone to read his writing or listen to his podcast on issues like Palestine, the Civil Rights movement, Jim Jones and so much more and tell me if he's on "the right" or "the left" as those terms were understood in the 60s or 80s or even the aughts.
Glenn is right. The only hope for this country lies in right/left coalitions. In the past these coalitions were often known as "popular fronts." I see no other alternatives but that this country becomes so divided it leads to civil war. If you don't see this I would say you have your head in the sand. All politics is compromise and compromise begins with seeing it from the other guys perspective. In order to do that we must put aside preconceived notions about how the other guy thinks. The government agencies are assiduously working on "divide and conquer" strategies to prevent any consensus that could bring down the neoliberal ascendency. Failing systems often rely on their intelligence agencies for support when they lose popular support. It was the neoliberal machinations of the "Chicago Boys" that caused a civil war there. I suspect Trump was a victim of foolishly trying to free himself from the strings that bind Presidents. I particularly had no respect for the man anymore than I do Biden but I wonder myself if the vote wasn't rigged.
Quite literally. There are those who want to destroy anyone who voted for the man.
AOC: "Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future? I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets, writings, photos in the future."
THAT is really the key. Much moreso than Trump, it was an attack on Americans right to choose their leader via the ballot box. The Dems love to talk about supposed GOP efforts to disenfranchise groups if voters. Yet it is the Dems who blatantly attempted to disenfranchise 10s of millions of Trump voters.
We are at a crossroad. If you value your rights and the safety of our nation, regardless of political affiliation, we all have to do everything within our power to come together for now and protect those things.
I firmly believe we can argue about things like tax rates and military budgets later; now we need to unite to protect our constitutional rights for us and future generations or else we won't be legally allowed to argue at all!
I am not worried about the national debt, budgets ect - those will be what they will be - the NO. 1 fight at the moment is getting politics out of culture, out of schools, out of corporate America - without doing this the budget and taxes won't matter.
1) Share articles like this.
2) Support groups and individuals (like Glenn!) who are valiantly defending the truth and liberty.
3) Stand up for our values in our personal and professional lives.
4) Vote for quality people locally.
5) Vote out these reprobates from Congress in 2022 and the White House in 2024.
6) Turn off and tune out from MSM propaganda. Let it wither and die (figuratively) for lack of attention and advertising dollars.
7) Delete big tech SNS like Twitter and Facebook. Look to alternatives if need be or stay on them and post solely to help get others to wake up.
8) Anything else your skills and means allow for. (I'm a writer, so I have started putting a few articles of my own on Substack here, for example.) Maybe you can make music or movies! Daily Wire and Tim Pool, for example, are working on those kind of projects.
9) Use ad blocker everywhere from your browser to your phone. Don't let big tech make a penny off of you.
10) Buy used/refurbished tech products from sellers/local stores instead of giving money to big tech.
ugottabkidin, How could the patriots of this great nation ever come together with these Neo-Marxist traitors who stole the 2020 Presidential election and put that senile old asshole Joe Biden in the White House as a meat puppit for the corporatist oligarchs?
No dice, no compromise with anti-American villains. NEVER!!!
I have always found there to be a divide between two different groups of conservatives. On one hand you have what I like to call the "institutional" conservatives. They tend to have a lot of faith in institutions like the police, military, judicial system, media, corporations, and the government. They just want to pay their taxes and keep food on the table and still find themselves unable to criticize Ronald Regan for anything. They have little problem with authority because as far as they are concerned, they are a good, law abiding, taxpayers and therefore their institutions will always protect them. Just as The View watching suburban wine moms are neoliberals’ best friend these are neoconservatives’ favorite voters. The other group are what I like to call the “leave me the hell alone” conservatives. They distrust authority and institutions by default. Libertarians tend to get along well with them because they care little about how other people live their lives, but they hate being told how to live theirs. The “leave me the hell alone” conservatives believe that any institutional power that can be used against them, probably will be at some time and tend to more aware of its abuses. The one institution they tended to have faith in was the military but even that is changing. Needless to say, these two groups do not always get along, but the “leave me alone” crowd is having a lot of “I told you so’s” right now.
That's the difference between the "Trump" conservative and the "Jeb Bush/Liz Cheney" conservative. Based on the 95% approval of Trump in his constituents as well as the only 10% trust in media amongst Republicans, I think vast majority of the conservatives have joined the “leave me the hell alone” conservatives. And it doesn't just consist of "conservatives". It contains ex-liberals like myself.
As per Pew Research, 55% Republicans trusted the FBI as of couple years ago whereas 78% of Democrats trust the FBI. These numbers have probably changed even more now. At 7:43 mark, Jimmy Dore shows it:
And ex-liberals like myself. Although I haven't given up on the principles just yet. That said, I do find myself opening up to conservative thought and straddling more divides. I just finished "White Guilt" by Shelby Steele and it really nails the genesis for what is going on right now. https://www.amazon.com/White-Guilt-Together-Destroyed-Promise/dp/0060578637
Fave quote: “To see humanity across racial lines one must see frankly how people of other races live as human beings, not as members of a race.”
"As per Pew Research, 55% Republicans trusted the FBI as of couple years ago whereas 78% of Democrats trust the FBI."
I think we can safely say that those numbers have changed. You can't do much better than 78% approval for a law enforcement agency but I believe that neoliberals can push that into the 80th percentile. As for Republicans, I'll be disappointed if it isn't in the low 40's.
Yeah I voted for Trump, but I'm firmly in the 'leave me the hell alone' camp. So I'd say that I'm a registered republican in the same sense that Ron Paul was.
Yes Jimmy Dore is on spot, the warmonger neocons that perpetrated 9/11 and blamed it on al Qaeda in order to establish the US constabulatory as per the PNAC document's "New Pearl Harbor"
John Pilger reveals the American plan: a new Pearl Harbour
Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was a “catastrophic and catalysing event”.
In the end, it's about money. Those who work in Fortune 500 companies, and/or make their wealth in the capital markets are in line with the old Rs. Those who supported Trump are small-time entrepreneurs, who believe in working for their own piece of the pie. Think plumbing contractors, restauranteurs, franchise operators, small-firm professionals (accountants, consultants, etc.).... These are people with "family" businesses, looking to build intergenerational wealth to give their kids a headstart.
And, at the end of the day, Trump was that kind of guy, too. He ran a small successful family business (magnified in dollars by the craziness that is NYC real estate), and acted as such. In many ways, his business was more of a marketing firm, and less real-estate based than people thought - and he had a bit of PT Barnum in him, for good or ill.
He was an imperfect president, and remains an imperfect man. But his instincts jived with a significant proportion of the populace - something that the blob doesn't understand.
While labels are always limiting, this is a far more workable definition than trying to paint every conservative as Murray Rothbard.
As just one example, police, prosecutors and judges are overwhelmingly conservative. Is anyone going to credibly argue these are people fighting for smaller government and more civil rights?
"As just one example, police, prosecutors and judges are overwhelmingly conservative. "--Areslent
That assertion is nonsense. Just like the other branches of the US government at this time the judicial branch is overwhelmingly corporatist oliigarchs.
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”—Lord Acton
The U.S. Governmnet is absolutely corrupt.
Let me be perfectly clear here. My critique is not against the constitutional republic established in 1789. My critique is of the corruption that has subverted the Constitution of the United States of America. I am a proud patriot of the principles that founded this great nation. Especially the superbly eloquent Declaration of Independence, which excites my heart everytime I read it!
Judges maybe but regardless, I'm a down ballot no guy when voting for judges. I also have a tendency to avoid police and I would never talk to a prosecutor or a cop without an attorney in an official capacity. Guess which one of the conservatives I am.
We'll, I'm not a conservative, but if I were you would be my kind of conservative. The smart kind, especially about the attorney.
In fairness, the criminal system needs to be conservative by it's nature so it's not an insult. Just a recognition of what Matt330 said. Even as a non-conservative, I know there are many different kinds.
It seems to me that this is one of the weird anomalies of our time, that there so many people out there who are trapped in an old worldview that no longer approximates reality enough to be useful, so they're fighting an opposition that used to be real but now primarily exists in their imaginations
The chance for a unification amongst the Plebes is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. Nobody wants more stupid wars. We're all sick to death of them. Same with monopolies and corporatocracy. Same with job outsourcing. Same with predatory sickcare at 20% of GDP.
There is a "middle ground" that perhaps 70% of the US population would all unify behind. This absolutely terrifies the gang in charge. That's why Old Corrupt Joe was shoehorned into place - rather than Scary Bernie Sanders, whom they absolutely could not control. Or, of course, the Bad Orange Man, who is the ostensible topic of this piece.
Ok. So not happy with Bernie. :) I agree about the $15 min wage, and SALT. But even with all the groveling - DNC still didn't allow him to win the primary. Why do we think that is? My claim: he's a lot less controllable than Old Corrupt Joe, whom both the CCP, and corporate interests appear to own lock, stock and barrel.
As currently implemented, M4A is really just a closet-gift from taxpayers to Pharma. Notice the FDA approval of that $56,000/year alzheimers drug that doesn't work? That medicare will be paying for? Its a big club, and we're not in it. I'd be all for M4A if they only pay for generic drugs. Most of the stupidity would go away if we did that. And healthcare costs would probably drop by 50% too. Effectively we'd get care for free. But Pharma and Sickcare would lose big time. Just my opinion.
There's a lot of overlap out there among normal people. They're scared of that. That's why Old Corrupt Joe is in power.
I am surprised it took this long for people to see through AOC and Bernie. I was mostly politically uneducated till 2015 but even then I was able to see through Bernie sanders fraud when he did a complete 180 flip on his stance on illegal immigration when trump announced his run. He used to hate illegal immigration, called it a “right wing proposal” “using a dollar or two wages to drive down wages of Americans”. And then he did a flip calling trump a racist and xenophobic etc and became open border advocate. Just listen to his own words in this VOX interview and tell me how what he used to say was any different from Trump?:
This is rat-holing on health care, but I don't think this is big picture enough. Drugs contribute greatly to human health and are expensive to research. Deciding how much to spend on them, what the goals of research should be, and how to achieve that, is among the most important questions in medicine. You're on to something to say that no punt is acceptable here: costs are spiraling to take over the entire economy, and there's no way to control costs without making these decisions. But "only pay for generic drugs" is kind of a punt.
It means:
- the wealthy and foreigners will direct drug research. lots of fertility treatments and life extension, little to help children or the mentally ill.
- Americans will be 20 years behind the rest of the world.
- Some of the research may move overseas, closer to the money.
I agree the alzheimers drug repeating the AZT fiasco is a wake-up call but don't think "give them less money" is an optimistic-enough attempted solution to the regulatory capture problem. We need capacity to regulate effectively even when large amounts of money are involved.
So many casting of aspersions. People you've lost the point of the article. It's about building coalitions and finding common understandings. There's really no such things as liberals and conservatives. The meaning have been lost to clever manipulators sowing the seeds of dissention. Most Americans are natural lovers of freedom but this bickering will only lead to moving to separate corners where you will be unable to agree on the real issues here. ECONOMIC SURVIVAL!
I agree. And this applies as well to those on the "left" today. When I was in college in the early 70s, liberals were at the vanguard of the free speech and free assembly movement. We truly believed Voltaire's maxim. We understood on principle the ACLU's commitment to free speech in defending neo-Nazi's in Skokie, even though we violently disagreed with white supremacy. Progressives today no longer support classical liberal concepts of free speech, free assembly, and due process. These are now limited, qualified rights, depending on who is doing the speaking, and what is being uttered. This limitation extends even to non-partisan scientists, as we've seen in the COVID lab-leak saga. We were committed anti-authoritarians and were skeptics of executive power. Today, progressive ideology, in theory and in practice, is both authoritarian and anti-democratic, and rather than constrain executive power progressives affirmatively seek to expand it in order to carry out their programs without congressional input. It's ironic, but conservatives today are (and for many years have been) the supporters of individual freedoms and due process. Due to the experiences of the past 20 years, they are the ones more likely to be skeptical not only of executive power, but also the largely unconstrained power of our intelligence agencies. And I believe they see more clearly than the left the risks to individual liberty posed by Big Tech. I don't think these beliefs are simply a partisan reaction to progressive ideology. I think they are now central to conservatives' belief in individual liberty. I think this is why many folks of my generation are rethinking their political alignment.
"I think they are now central to conservatives' belief in individual liberty. I think this is why many folks of my generation are rethinking their political alignment."--TW52
I totally agree, I was born in 1947....another babyboomer who cherishes the Declaration of Independence and the priciples it establishes.
I'm a late boomer (b. 1956) and totally agree. It's as if younger progressives are rejecting the enlightenment and classic liberal values that were fundamental to the American founding. I find this distressing.
Yes TW I agree with you on many levels. Certainly the societal consensus of the late sixties and seventies was for social justice and it was moving forward. As you and I have witnessed there was a societal shift a lot of people contribute to the Reagan Administration. It's also said it began in the late Carter administration. Reagan has always appered to me as a an apostle of Goldwater. An ultra conservative (old meaning) backlash to a short-lived nouvo enlightment period now being buried and rewrote in history. In the same way people remember their pay being about the same thirty years ago but when you tell people who weren't there they're incredulous and find it hard to believe. The society went through a very well crafted and financed transformation. Many books have been written on how this conspiracy was laid out. Much like in Orwells 1984 language was one of strategic goals of this "Robber Baron" counteroffensive. We have all been "had" an find ourselves in the Matrix for various reasons, but I think everyone is starting to unplug. Everyone is pointing fingers at the cause and these arguments over whose fault it is detract from the goal and I feel counterproductive. And the foundations and media, realizing the jig is up are hard at work diverting the blame in this depression. They're hoping the looting of America and the world under the neoliberal regime can precede unabated.
It's time to fix this. It's hard to place blame on the collaborators by simply saying a particular philosophy led to this since they've (conspirators paid accomplices in various foundations) confused the meaning of terms people are idenifying with. I think most people wonder, worldwide, if this nation has lost it's mind but it's all social manipulation. Is this possible? Well didn't the Nazis and Stalin pull it off. Don't panic just dont be intimidated by paid schills with senseless agendas, covertly financed, taking up some banner to implicate a philosophy whose original meaning is now lost in confusion. Forget the labels. It's a mistake now to label yourself because then your expected to march lockstep to the music and the bandmaster is usual in the pay of the power structure. One thing remains right is right and people still comprehend, I hope, what is unacceptably unamerican. People are being led astray by fear of the other guys philosophy. People come from varying degrees of liberal and conservative thinking (Old understanding of terms) but we either unite now and nip this in the bud or we soon won't be talking like this. It will be considered subversive.
Communism may have been a failure, but its collapse in the Soviet Union ironically allowed our elites to destroy functional regulated capitalism and replace it with crony corporatism buy simply labeling any regulation designed to safeguard competition or protect against monopolies or illegal activity as "socialist". Never mind that these protections had been around for a long time. They also found that if you put crushing regulations on small businesses, then you can get people to support deregulation schemes that only ease the burden on large corporations.
Yes the labels are meaningless, but the principles can be stated clearly.
To me it is still the same principles estabblished in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence. Neither left or right, simply patriotic.
Individual rights to inalienable Liberty are the standard. A rejection of collectivism and statism, coersion and corporatism. These "isms" do have distinct and current meanings. There are empirical facts, and a difference between Truth and Falsehood. There is a difference between right and wrong.
The counterpart of our rights are our responsibilities.
I thank Glenn Greenwald for his dedication to unfettered truth. And for allowing us to make our opinions known under his hosting of these articles.
Michael Malice said something true about how resistance to thinking in labels can be cultivated: learn a foreign language--it teaches you to think in concepts.
Exactly. I know that is what people would be inclined to do: find the one thing that could peg him as an enemy. But if you listen to him -- you find someone who is thoughtful, insightful and someone who looks at the bigger picture.
Greenwald sounds too confidently optimistic. There's ideological change, sure, but by no means does that entail that the ideological problems of political factions are going away. When you're in a period of ideological change, and not much effort is being made to avoid the abuses that typically attach themselves to political factions, you're not headed for a good place.
In the 60's I was registered with the "Socialist Worker's Party, YSA, SDS and NOW." Look at me now ... a Civil Libertarian who saw where Biden was going. But I have never registered with either the Democratic or Repubiclican Party ... why wave the flag for hypocrites who lie.?
I reserve the right to vote for a (D) or (R), but I will never give money to such grifters, nor ever associate my name with either party.
Which means I am forbidden from voting in primary elections (which usually determines the eventual winner.) Somehow Nancy Pelosi, AOC, Joe Biden and Stacey Abrams don't have a problem with this kind of "voter suppression."
Greenwald did not say anything like what you attribute to him. I would include Greenwald as one of those, if not the preeminent soul, who is making the effort to avoid the abuses.
Greenwald's post mentioned that some currently active political forces (Trump's 2016 campaign and some anti-anti-Trump people, as well as their precursors) mix together some longstanding ideas from the left with some from the right. Greenwald implied that this is a great development. I replied that he "sounds too confidently optimistic" about the ideological change that's going on; I meant to suggest, in particular, that he may be too confidently optimistic about the Trumpist movement and perhaps also some of the anti-anti-Trump forces. I wasn't quoting him exactly, which is why I used the word "sounds". I said that his overall tone in talking about Trump and anti-anti-Trump forces that show some influence from the left seemed too confidently optimistic to me. I do have some hopes about a convergence of right and left myself, but I see a mix of good and bad signs there. Maybe that's because I tend to look for the potential for good and bad in most political movements, and because I'm on the lookout for that, I don't 100% share the amount of confident optimism that Greenwald's tone displays (in this post of his and in other similar writings by Greenwald). But of course, I'm not all that pessimistic either, and I would like to see something good come out of a convergence of right and left. My post was a nuanced one.
As for Greenwald's efforts or non-efforts to avoid the abuses: it's complicated. I think that he's great on criticizing abuses by Democrats, by more-left-than-liberal people, by news media to the left of Fox, by certain progressive nonprofits, and by the security state on issues other than immigration. And sometimes (but only sometimes) he is willing to vocally criticize more moderate and right-leaning people on the same grounds as he criticizes progressives. This is an asymmetric position. It is kind of as if he thinks this asymmetric position (including certain criticisms of Israel) is his niche, if that's the right term. I am examining whether this asymmetric position is defensible. I don't start out assuming the asymmetry is okay, and I see some potential problems with it. To me, Greenwald's approach looks significantly different from what someone would do who is generally "making the effort to avoid the abuses" of all factions. So, although I recognize that Greenwald is well above average in his degree of principledness, I have my doubts, and I am looking into the possibility that his current approach may do more harm than good in some areas. He is, of course, perfectly capable of changing his positions. I don't assume anything about whether the change will be for the better or for the worse, but that is what I care about.
Hmm, so this Shrier link is a conservative woman saying things like "I prefer a man who's good at lying so that he and I and our allies will win together?" That is a strand among some conservatives, and there can be sexual overtones to it, but it's one of the ethically worse strands on the right. (The right is a mix of ethically good and ethically bad strands, just as the left is too in its own way.)
Even though Trumpers are arming themselves more, attempted an insurrection, and aren't afraid to threaten violence against anyone perceived as their enemies?
Mr. Balfour has been disinformed by the lying mainstream media. There was no" attempted insurrection" by "Trumpers". In fact it is more likely that the riot on 1/6 was a false flag operation by FBI agents.
Mr/ Greenwald wrote a persuasive article on this himself.
Are you referring to the FBI informants who led the alleged kidnapping attempt in MN? Or the FBI informants who had infiltrated the Jan 6th "insurrection" and helped to direct the festivities of that fateful day?
Next thing you're going to tell us is that the Reichstag was burned by Blosheviks.
Until now, I saw NO ONE on the left deploring these sleazy and illegal tactics. In fact, all I saw was the left cheering them on. So you’ll have to excuse me if have zero trust in leftists, much less warm and fuzzy feelings leading to a Kumbaya moment.
I agree Cathie, the Neo-Marxists leftists are still ass up with their heads in the sand. Their ommentary on Greenwald's forums show they still don't get get it.
It is interesting how the parties have evolved. I've long thought that it's silly to think that one party will become dominate for very long. Notice you don't hear the Dems bragging about how demography will make them more or less dominate for years. The evolution of the Dem party is no less remarkable than the GOP. The Dems have become much more bicoastal and progressive. They can no longer claim to be the party of the little guy and blue collar America. They have operated on the assumption that minorities and working class voters will continue to vote for them. But increasingly the GOP has made inroads into these voters. I see that continuing to evolve. It's only one issue, but the cancelation of the Keystone XL pipeline permit is emblematic. The Dem party and its bicoastal progressive elites care more about climate change than good paying jobs for pipefitters and maintaining energy affordability for lower to middle class folks. So they shouldn't be surprised when some of their traditional voters recognize they are no longer a priority and look elsewhere for politicians who will advocate for things important to them
No, actually I'm not. As far as I'm concerned the only thing racist is racism. Only Democrats, corporate media, and left wing idiots, call everything include the kitchen sink racist. (Before anyone pops a gasket, I don't think everyone on the left is an idiot. I'm referring to a specific subset).
I don't think Democrats are racist in assuming that minorities and and working class people will continue to vote for them. I think they are lazily taking these folks for granted. I've seen a few Dems raising the yellow flag but so far they seem like outliers.
The imprecision of labels such as right and left ought to motivate one to look for better ways to analyze political reality. I use the following: The politics of those who allocate capital, our ruling class, and the politics of those who do not allocate capital—-the vast majority of people who spend their lives working for the capitalists. Within this later group are people who adjust to being exploited in various ways. If you understand what is in your interest economically and what you have in common with your fellow non capital allocating human beings from an economic point of view, you don’t waste your time on left vs right. You demand that capital be allocated for your benefit not so Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos can fly to Mars. You don’t arm yourself to the teeth just in case your fellow human pisses you off. You demand capital be allocated in the most efficient and productive manner to provide universal healthcare, childcare, housing, and education. You don’t fight it out in the trenches of warfare like in WW1 with some stupid philosophy that lets you take pride in victimizing other non capital allocators who are 99.9% of the people on this planet. You don’t fight for the ruling class. You don’t follow Trump Biden and the rest of the false prophets, you learn to think for yourself.
Simplest definition would be funds available for investment. Capital comes into existence as accumulated surplus value, that not needed for consumption. Only the wealthy and the state have sufficient accumulated capital to effect production. Everyone else sells their labor. Ask Warren Buffet.
Thank you Glenn. My Sheila (14 1/2) was euthanized recently. Trying to figure out my next move now that I am alone. The point of this post ... I so TOTALLY agree with. My friends who do not read enough "diversity" and then mentally collate (as I always do) thought I had lost my mind (or started taking LSD) but I was an English Lit Major/Philosophy Minor (so the leap was a mere skip). I had read enough folks like "Swift" to make the connection! Love, love the article ... thanks for posting! Eileen
IMHO dogs are preferable to humans. Humans lack the ability to express unconditional love. It is no wonder they are called "man's best friend". I pray for your peace of mind and acceptance that you have done a kind thing in releasing Sheila from her pain. I was brought up to believe that dogs have no souls and will not go to Heaven. If there is an afterlife and those who love and are loved will be there, there will be a preponderance of dogs and few humans.
I came across Cooper’s thread on RCP (like a lot of what you’d call “conservatives”, I don’t do social media). I read it several times because I think it perfectly captures the disillusionment so many people feel.
I had been on the verge of subscribing to Glenn’s excellent newsletter for some time, but this article finally spurred me to join to offer my perspective,
Let me say first, I could not bring myself to vote for Trump in 2016, refusing to give up the quaint belief some of us still hold, that character counts.
Although I liked his policies and the fact that he was willing, unlike most “conservatives”, to fight, I was never a strong supporter. What I saw was a president who did some positive things, but mostly stroked his own ego and engaged in petty, needless antagonism of anyone he thought slighted him in the least.
BTW, what Cooper refers to as a “regime” is known as the “deep state” among Trump supporters. So don’t laugh or dismiss them as idiots when you see or hear that term.
I disagree that the Russia collusion fiasco was the sobering event, though it did help illustrate how deeply the “regime” ran.
The big-bang reveal was the James Comey press conference in July 2016. This was after months of being assured by conservative media that Comey was a straight arrow and above reproach.
No one was naive enough to think that prominent politicians weren’t allowed to take liberties with the law the rest of us couldn’t, but to see the institution that was regarded as the last bastion thumb their nose sent many over the edge. I firmly believe it was the July 5th press conference, and not Comey’s later re-opening of the case, that cost Clinton the election, as it convinced a lot of people our government rotten to the core, and a man many perceived as vile was the only hope.
There are still some true-believers I see occasionally on comment boards who think someone might actually be held accountable for the perceived vote fraud, but the majority know that will never happen unless it somehow serves the regime.
Exactly the same motivation to subscribe after reading several of Glenn's recent columns at wendymcelroy.com. I am (mostly) an anarcho-libertarian who typically finds somewhat more benefit on the political right than on the left, so in theory I should very much be a Greenwald opponent. In reality, the rational thought and integrity of those columns trump (sorry!) all that.
"Let's stop the non-thinking in labels and start talking about principles and standards."
Mostly disagreeable 7/12/2021
Indeed, this does comport with Darryl Cooper's eloquent plea for kinder informed understanding as well as our distinguished host's cogent comment.
I return to this thread having just read a brief but informative update by Ray McGovern, also posted on 7/12/2021, regarding elements of the ongoing Inquisition of Julian Assange that, while it is an obvious digression from the particular essence herein of the plea for comity and understanding between political factions, I suggest that a careful reading of this factual missive does remind the reader that before said comity can be honestly considered, open examination and resolution of ongoing misdeeds require just attention.
"It should come as no surprise that British "Justice" officials are following the detailed "Washington Playbook" approach that was exposed by WikiLeaks itself in Feb. 2012.
Some readers may recall that WikiLeaks-revealed confidential emails from the US private intelligence firm Stratfor mentioned that the US already had a secret indictment against the WikiLeaks founder. Bad enough.
What also showed up in the Stratfor emails was the unrelenting, Inspector-Javert-type approach taken by one Fred Burton, Stratfor’s Vice-President for Counterterrorism and Corporate Security. (Burton had been Deputy Chief of the Department of State’s counterterrorism division for the Diplomatic Security Service.)
Here’s Javert – I mean Burton:
"Move him [Assange] from country to country to face charges for the next 25 years. But seize everything he and his family own, to include every person linked to Wiki." [my comment: "country to country", or – equally effective – court to court]
"Pursue conspiracy and political terrorism charges and declassify the death of a source, someone which could link to Wiki."
"Assange is a peacenik. He needs his head dunked in a full toilet bowl at Gitmo."
“Take down the money. Go after his infrastructure. The tools we are using to nail and de-construct Wiki are the same tools used to dismantle and track al-Qaeda."
"Bankrupt the arsehole first; ruin his life. Give him 7-12 years for conspiracy."
"Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He’ll be eating cat food forever … extradition to the US is more and more likely.""
One must wonder, are these the words of well reasoned, respectable, let alone ethical or moral thinking public officials? Can such individuals be rehabilitated and further entrusted with any facet of public trust?
Keep in mind that "liberal" vs. "conservative", as Americans understand those terms, have little meaning outside the specific context of contemporary American politics.
This is why discussion of principles and standards is important. We get hung up on definitions. Then we have lengthy discussion of what a word actually means versus the meaning as used and principle or standard to be debated. The current debate about CRT is a great illustration. The primary debate is about what that even means. Semantic games about antiracism, diversity training and even what constitutes history cloud what the objection really is. When the specific lessons are pointed out, the response is, "That's not CRT." Then on to more semantic arguments. It is a debate tactic, not substantive discussion.
This is also a description of the motte and bailey doctrine, in which meta-arguments about definitions function as smoke bombs to aid retreat to the motte.
If you are having a discussion with people that are substituting debate tactics for honest discussion, then that is your problem right there. Not agreeing substantively on the meanings of words won't help you there.
It is impossible to understand terms unless they are clearly and consistently defined. Most people, including Americans, are talking past each other for that reason alone. Terms are bandied about, functioning at best as temporary classifiers and at worst as slurs and condemnations. Sometimes clarity about the values informing branding of self and others can be achieved by describing two things: the society in which you would be a liberal and the society in which you would be a conservative.
"we're for individual liberty and personal responsibility."
Pretty words that without any critical analysis, translate into many nasty policies. But you will get many "likes" here, and most will disagree with me. I long ago realized that we on the left who have been with Greenwald for as much as 15 years -- pre-Substack --have no place in his comments here Bye.
(Please all forgive my typos above; I have vision problems.)
Yes, you do have a place in these comments but do not expect anyone to accept your characterization of what conservatives are. It is disingenuous to state that conservatives are authoritarian (something that we despise) and then pull a victim card when you are rightly called out for it.
" It is disingenuous to state that conservatives are authoritarian "
Excuse you. I was raised by rightwingers (and read their propaganda mags and books), as I wrote above. And WAS one into my later 20s. I know you. You are authoritarian in the extreme, with the exception of only some outlying fringes who are really more libertarian.
BY DEFINITION THE RIGHT, IN THE MAIN, wants the status quo maintained by authority, or -- even more reactionary -- a return by use of authority to some imagined Golden Age of moral and political purity.
"I know you. You are authoritarian in the extreme, with the exception of only some outlying fringes who are really more libertarian."
With all due respect, I've been a registered Libertarian for most of my life. That changed in 2020 when the LP fell through the floor. But I remain, first and foremost, a civil libertarian and a classic liberal. Individualism is the hallmark of the right. Collectivism is the left. Inherently, collectivism requires authority to subdue individual interests. Individualism requires no authoritarianism.
You can say that you know me but clearly, you do not. I despise all forms of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. I believe in the individual's right to self determination. I don't think of myself as a conservative I know a lot of them. All of them would agree with me on these points. It isn't even controversial.
I consider myself conservative and believe government is a necessary evil. The smaller and more controlled the better. I also dislike the large multinational corporations. That doesn’t feel very “authoritarian” to me
I’m curious, do you personally know many conservatives, the 30-55 year olds? I’m gathering that your view of conservatives was originally shaped by your parents and the National Review of yore. Do you know conservatives who weren’t raised on NR?
And yes, there absolutely is a place for you here. There are plenty of left-wingers here.
"I’m curious, do you personally know many conservatives, the 30-55 year olds?"
Yes.
Close family, who skipped generations to be as rightwing as my parental units. We've had to agree to not discuss politics, which we mostly abide by. (I cringed when one says he saw Glenn on Tucker Carlson; through me he met Glenn, and I have to work to explain that he shouldn't take that appearance to mean Glenn is in general agreement with that Carlson shithead.)
I want "just" laws enforced by authority. I want crazy mobs suppressed, and private property rights enforced. I couldn't care less about morality crimes or the rest of the statist crap both parties spend endless time on.
" want "just" laws enforced by authority. I want crazy mobs suppressed, and private property rights enforced."
Do you denounce and disavow the immediately recent history of the conservative movement -- and National Review magazine, which from the 50s to the 80s represented the intellectual right -- on race, gays, reproductive rights, drug policy*, women's issues, labor policy?
*(NR was actually ahead of its time, to the disgust of many on the right, re: drug policy. A huge exception to their reactionary record.)
That’s hilarious. The left seems to be exclusively about unleashing their childhood trauma on unsuspecting passersby these days....and formalizing stereotypes to boot!
Amen. I'm now a knuckle-dragging conservative Leftist. Unlike the Woke, I'm still an atheist, Port Huron/FSM supporter, who *still* wouldn't trust the CIA any further than I could hurl Langley.
I am a small-l liberal with libertarian leanings. I think government should be as small as possible and government unions are an abomination. Otherwise I believe in private property, free markets, and free association with the caveat that if you're going to legally make corporations powerful in their own right that a protected labour movement is necessary to counter them. My natural inclination is towards law and order, although I now recognize that much of law and order is harnessed to protect and enrich the alread rich and powerful at the expense of the many. I guess I would now be a center-leftist if the modern Left wasn't so crazy.
Are you intentionally palming a definition card here ;?> By strict definition, "conservative" means reluctant or resistant to change, so you are, in effect, asking us to specify our "ideal" (or, at least, an acceptable) system. For me, the "ideal" would be a system in which I am at liberty to do whatever I please, as long as that doesn't involve an actual attack on another person or another person's property;, in which I am at liberty to defend my life, and family, and property, against such an attack; and in which I am not coerced or compelled under threat of violence to render my life or property to the State or any of its minions.
I find your commentay disjointed irrational and plagued by pathological anger at a world you cannot understand.
It is in fact the uberleft Neo-Marxist biden regime that is at this very moment attempting to dismantal the republic and its federal Constitution to meld with the global tyrants at Davos and their so-called 'Great Reset':
John Kerry reveals Biden's devotion to radical 'Great Reset' movement
In June 2011, elites at important international institutions such as the World Economic Forum and the United Nations launched a far-reaching campaign to “reset” the global economy.
The plan involves dramatically increasing the power of government through expansive new social programs like the Green New Deal and using vast regulatory schemes and government programs to coerce corporations into supporting left-wing causes.
The two justifications for the proposal, which has been aptly named by its supporters the “Great Reset,” are the COVID-19 pandemic (the short-term justification) and the so-called “climate crisis” caused by global warming (the long-term justification).
According to the Great Reset’s supporters, the plan would fundamentally transform much of society. As World Economic Forum (WEF) head Klaus Schwab wrote back in June, “the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”
Internationally, the Great Reset has already been backed by influential leaders, activists, academics and institutions. In addition to the World Economic Forum and United Nations, the Great Reset movement counts among its the International Monetary Fund, heads of state, Greenpeace and CEOs and presidents of large corporations and financial institutions such as Microsoft and MasterCard.
But in America, most policymakers – including President-elect Joe Biden – have been relatively quiet about the Great Reset, leaving many to speculate what a Biden administration would do to support or oppose this radical plan.
There has been some evidence suggesting that Biden and some of his biggest allies back the Great Reset and would attempt to impose it on the United States. But Biden and his team have never explicitly stated that America would be involved — that is, until now.
This isn’t the first time Kerry has thrown his weight behind the Great Reset. At a June World Economic Forum virtual event, Kerry said the coronavirus pandemic was “a big moment” that opened the door for the Great Reset and that, “The World Economic Forum – the CEO capacity of the Forum – is really going to have to play a front and center role in refining the Great Reset to deal with climate change and inequity — all of which is being laid bare as a consequence of COVID-19.”
The evidence is now crystal clear about Biden’s connection to the Great Reset. He, John Kerry and the rest of the Biden administration are planning to bring the Great Reset to the United States. And if they are successful, the country will never be the same.
Do you think it is the Right today that wants the status quo maintained? Depends on what the "status quo" actually is, correct? Seems to me the Right wants to remove the corruption accretions of the last 30-45 years. So, anything *but* preserving the status quo ... hence some of them can end up storming the Capitol.
Former President Trump sat down with ‘Fox & Friends’ Enterprise Reporter Lawrence Jones at CPAC in Dallas, arguing that in order to curb crime, ‘you have to give police back their authority.’
Proof that Biden is totally unhenged from reality:
Biden says Trump supporters are worse than slave-owning Confederates: "We are facing the most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War. That's not hyperbole...The Confederates back then never breached the Capitol as insurrectionists did"
Interesting point here, that the writer was raised by PLURAL parentage. Curious to know if she would be as healthy and conversant if she was just raised by a SINGLE "leftwinger."
I'm a Leftist. I've been following Greenwald almost that long, from platform after platform.
I have no problem believing Rightists who say "we're for individual liberty and personal responsibility". Individualism the real core to their beliefs, and the reason I think so is that it's exactly complementary to Leftists' collective/social focus. I am convinced that the two sides are complementary parts of human nature, which explains why Left/Right continue in perpetuity. IMO, neither is exclusively correct, but one can choose one as where you think society needs priority attention.
Please, stop being distracted by authoritarian eruptions -- they will happen on either side, at differing historical times.
I agree with Cicero that the government governs best which governs least. Power corrupts, so it is important to limit the amount of power one person can ever have over another. Things that don't need to be legislated shouldn't be. In order for individuals to have an authentic voice in government, it is best to decentralize down to the smallest unit possible, the individual whenever possible. Not sure what this makes me. I used to think I was progressive, now I'm registered as a libertarian. At one point I thought I was an anarchist, but those a-holes in Portland ruined the term forever.
I only wish I could stop being "distracted by authoritarian eruptions". The article Cooper provided tells me I can't. Our institutions seem to have become totally policial in a way that my experience (some 70+ years) has never encountered. I understand the press is driven by greed, the lust for clicks and the demand for ads to cover webpages beyond readability. But a Justice Department incable of blind justice? Fractures in Congress as sides form against the public. Public servants who gain wealth on a typical salary? I feel being the fool for having served the country, working my entire life, paying my taxes, doing my civic and personal duties - my culture under attack by those who really have no apparent objective beyond division and chaos. What a change from the days of my "I like Ike" pin.
You do realize that while you were wearing your "I like Ike" pin, J. Edgar Hoover was wielding the FBI as his own national personal police force in accordance with his twisted morality? Also, while Eisenhower did make some good points in his speech warning of the "Military Industrial Complex", the fact is that he had as seminal a role in enabling that monstrosity as any other single person. That included the overthrow, on his watch, of a democratically elected leader of Iran, in order to perpetuate the interests of British Petroleum. I also tend to thoughtlessly give lip-service to the "good old days", but in retrospect, it's only a trap.
Perhaps I lament the loss of a simpler life, but I'm not wanting the simplicity of the 1790's either. Retrospect is generally kind to other difficulties. The middle east of those days was a rising star to save the West with limitless cheap energy (Club of Rome arrives later in '73) but Western investments were threatened by increasing nationalist takeovers of those investments - money corrupted then as it does now.
Good 'ol J Edgar. At least his FBI had the trains run on time. He kept the politico's secrets tucked away in his girdle. But we believe his agents were less politically motivated than today's feckless bunch. We had those evil commies to root out instead of home grown angry old folk intent on violence.
Oh, I meant "authoritarian eruptions" among the people, i.e. People freak out bout something, and clamor for a strongman/woman to "take charge" to "fix" it in short order.
The development of corruption and Totalitarianism over the last few decades among the elite is an entirely different matter -- and I completely agree with you.
For many collectivists on the left and individualists on the right, it is their, "natural state". There are also those who straddle both sides of the spectrum. In time, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that evolutionary psychology could be used to explain individual temperaments and to some degree, political affiliation.
I agree. For now, it is completely taboo: For the woke (an many Leftists not-so-Woke), all differences in mental states are somehow *always learned*. The problem with that POV is that it's the evolutionary equivalent of the irrational "turtles all the way down" explanation: One has to ask, "Well, if it *can't* be biological, where and *how* did the 'first learning' occur?" But I'm sure they're hard at the Sophistic answer to that, if they sent it out already, I missed it...
I'm sure that many people would balk at the idea that their *chosen* identity on the political spectrum isn't purely a choice. That doesn't preclude the possibility that it could be but as it turns out, biology is a very powerful motivator. Many aspects of our behavior make more sense when you think about them from an anthropologlical perspective. But that doesn't mean that ethical considerations don't matter or that no one is responsible for their behavior. People need to stop being so goddamn binary and sensitive about everything.
Translation - "This isn't the echo chamber I thought it was despite me knowing Glenn personally and so I am going to throw a tantrum and go home because people dare to disagree with me on things"
Vision problems...too apropos! And I just thought it was that same old story of internal unresolved projected anger and rage thing masquerading as a pure, compassionate savior of the poor and downtrodden type but still desperately needing a scapegoat in order to avoid any real internal self-reflection! Run off now, before you inadvertently bump into that possibility.
I'm not looking to disagree or agree with people - I'm looking for intelligent people to voice their opinions whatever they are. And I think many if not most in this forum will join me in saying you've been missed here.
I'm not trying to respond personally, just make the point that "authority" means different things to different people and in the context you used as i think it was meant, I was just trying to clarify MY thoughts. Authority (rules) is important so that our civil society can work/coexist. I think of them as a soft fence that keep things on track and allow us to live our lives with as little central direction from "the state" as possible. I started following Glenn here when he was booted from his previous gig. I don't know how much we would agree on OTHER than having conversations about all the weird manipulative shit that is going on is a good thing. Can't have much of an enlightening conversation if its all with people that one would agree with or with people that don't want to try an understand what is going on.
There were probably 5 for me and she was definitely one of them along with Dysnomia. Hopefully she does not carry through with leaving. It's good to have different views here.
I'm not quite 65, I am conservative and the last thing I believe in, and pretty much all conservatives that I know believe in, is the government. Conservatives, at least most not on the fringes, believe in a smaller government. Liberals believe in a larger government. How does that translate to supporting authority? I think you've got mixed up there.
The Bush family fed into it because GW Bush was a huge intelligence community expander, which is one of many reasons why I hate that family. We saw however (as this article documents) that the left is happy to exploit and weaponize the intelligence community and the suppression of dissent in the media far more heavy-handedly than the Bushs did even at their worst after 9/11.
Want to Save America? Don't Act Like a Conservative
"But the Woke are not zany guests. They are home-invasion robbers. The structure they intend to leave behind will contain but a handful of the cultural artifacts they encountered. Bringing down statues of Abe Lincoln, books by Dr. Seuss and schools named for the country’s founders? That’s just their casing the joint. The large-scale heist hasn’t even started.
Aw Shucks Conservatives are willing to disagree with the Left, but they first want to get all the terminology right—“Now, which is it again: is ‘non-binary’ the same as they/them? Or ‘she/they?’” They don’t understand that the chaos is the point. While they strain to avoid a faux pas, they don’t even feel the dagger going in. They chuckle with their buddies that Woke beliefs are “nonsense upon stilts,” to use Bentham’s term—and that voters will surely respond in the next midterm election. They do not fight Silicon Valley—they are confused about whether their belief in free market economics allows it. They do not fight for women—not if it means any mud splashed on their full-break trousers. They have lost every important cultural battle and - if given over to their protection - we would lose America."
This is venturing into No True Scotsman territory but this is categorically false. For your entire life the conservative movement has been steadfastly in support of growing the military's power (which is the government) and fought ardently against rolling back governmental power in the criminal justice sphere. And yes, opposing the rights of criminal defendants, making punishments more onerous, and fighting the repeal of certain crimes. This is as pure a case of supporting state power as there is. This doesn't even include ways conservatives favor using governmental power to support business. What is intellectual property but governmental power? Patents don't exist in a state of nature.
Again, if you want to redefine "conservative" as "hardcore libertarian" that's one thing. But please be honest. Conservatives love governmental power, just like liberals/progressives do. They've spent both of our entite lifetimes furiously growing the powers of the state, just like FDR or LBJ. Each side just loves a government that is designed to pursue their preferred ends. Which is a totally legitimate debate to have. But there's a lot of people in these comments who are refusing to be honest with themselves about that.
I understand what you are saying regarding No True Scotsman. But the "Trump" conservative is very different from "Bush" conservative. We had the "conservative" Trump handing out pardons for drug offences and criminal justice reform while the "liberal" Biden and Kamala throwing them in prison. Worlds have collapsed.
> conservative fought ardently against rolling back governmental power in the criminal justice sphere
Last year, despite the propaganda, eighty-one percent (81%) of black Americans and eight-three percent (83%) of Hispanic Americans want either the police presence to remain the same (a majority) or to be increased:
Do you think 81% of blacks and 83% of Hispanics are conservatives?
Conservatives just like all sane people support cops. I am not the back the blue types because I know "back the blue" is who will show up to people's house to take their guns away, watch them get beaten by Antifa and arrest you for defending yourself, then arrest you for operating your business and going to church. But I am also not a freaking moron who believes this "defund the police" crap by corrupt politicians and Hollywood/Basketball elites who walk around with 24x7 security armed guards, military around the capitol and mansions protected with walls. They want to take away your protection and safety and arms while themselves sitting in their gated mansions. They are okay with honest innocent businesses being burnt down by rioters but all hell breaks lose if someone puts their feet on Nancy Pelosi's desk. They will send the american kids to foreign lands to kill people but kill her if she shows up to the politicians door step demanding election integrity. People who believed this crap are gullible useful idiots.
- While I agree with you regarding wasteful military spending and forever wars, I see military spending similar to my home country India does it. India is the 3rd largest military spender and 3% of their GDP. However despite India spending so much on it, they don't go around doing bullshit regime change wars. It's like owning guns for protection - not going around terrorizing everyone. Unfortunately both Republicans and Democrats have gone around with their regime change wars. Trump was a change - which is also why conservatives are now becoming more anti-war than the Democrats (Trump had 95% approval rating in his party). He did get duped by the CIA into the Syria gas attacks hoax and bombed them in 2017 during the Russiagate hysteria but then stopped after Tucker called him out on it. He did bring down the Afghanistan troop levels from 15000 to 2500 by the time he left. If it weren't for the corrupt military generals who lied to him about troop numbers in Syria (also encouraged by Democrats), that would have also been done. And Biden reversed Trump's pull out from Germany and postponed the Afghanistan troop withdrawal from May this year. If it weren't for the bullshit Russian bounty hoax in Afghanistan concocted by the Democrats, US would be out of Afghanistan by last year. So is the blame really to be put on Trump?
The US's military spending is just wasteful and used to give money to private contractors without accountability and for bullshit regime change wars.
Biden literally bragged about his crime bill in 1990s and even said the republicans didn't write it and were against it, he wrote it.
1994 Wrote Crime Bill (stop and frisk that singled out black people based on "they were scary looking).
1995 Wrote Omnibus Counterterrorism Act which later became the Patriot Act.
1998 Voted against Gay marriage.
1999 Repealed the Glass-Steagall Act.
2001 Voted for the Patriot Act (he wrote it after all).
2002 Voted for the Iraq War.
2005 Voted to end bankruptcy protections for students.
2017 Biden bragged on live television he held up aid to Ukraine if they didn't fire the prosecutor investigating the company his corrupt son Hunter Biden got a job at making millions with 0 experience
2018 Presented George W Bush with Liberty Medal (LMFAO)
2019 Kamala Harris called him a racist because of his incredibly long history of racist remarks.
I suppose I may be falling victim to the two camps problem, and it may be true that conservatism - as a whole - is moving towards a more libertarian view on criminal justice issues (or maybe Trump just wasn't a conservative?). I would certainly prefer you to be correct on this. I thought Trump was much better on many of these issues (although I fear the judges he appointed will not be). In fact, one of the main reasons I did not vote for Biden is that him and Kamala are abhorrent to me on criminal justice.
I do think and hope there's an opportunity for people with views like mine and Glenn's and Trump conservatives (at least those for whom the former is stronger than the latter) to forge common sense criminal justice reforms that prioritize respecting our constitutional liberties and our need to keep the public safe.
Likewise, I don't think the widespread opposition to the police abolition movement makes anyone conservative or liberal or whatever. It just means they have a functioning brain. How the same people who called for abolishing the police then voted for Biden/Harris - with the record you accurately pointed out - is mind boggling.
I agree with what CNNisFakeNews just said, as I was thinking it myself as I read your comment.
President Trump is not your "typical politician", not your "typical conservative", in fact he is not your typical anything, certainly not your typical Republican.
Trump literally transformed the Republican Party into his own image. This works because Trump loves the Constitution and the principles it is founded upon. He did his best to administer his duties as President in a fashion that the Constitution demands.
This is the core reason Trump supporters are still so loyal to him as a person and a leader.
I know that those of us who support Trump will be bashed, AS USUAL, for speaking frankly on this issue, and I simply do not care. As far as I am concerned anyone who doesn't get it, is someone who does not actually understand the Constitution and the principles it was founded upon.
Trust in institutions like FBI, CIA is higher in Democrats than in Republicans.
According to left leaning USAToday, among the conservative voters only ~4% have positive thoughts about Qanon. 31.4 percent found the movement “unfavorable,” 43.3 percent said they had “never heard” of QAnon, and 21.3 percent were undecided. What % of democrats do you think believe the Russiagate nonsense or the russian bounty nonsense?
AOC and her squad were openly tweeting about making lists of Trump supporters and getting them fired. They even created lists of judges and other appointees from Trump. Steve Scalise got shot by a Bernie supporter, Rand Paul got his lungs punctured and then harassed by the street mob "to say her name" after the RNC.
Hundreds of the Jan 6 capitol protestors are in prison while when the Democrats did the same with anti-kavanaugh protests where they stormed the capitol, senate chambers, it was all encouraged by Democrats like Pelosi and AOC.
Big Tech, Media, Corporations, Hollywood and even the FBI, CIA etc are all openly hostile to conservatives. And yet you claim Conservatives are the one who are "far right"?
So please explain all about "Conservatives per se (not all libertarians, of courser), by definition, support authority, and will revert to it as soon as their comfort levels can again be sated".
You are willing to call people "raised by far right parents" yet you don't want to be called communists - something Democrats openly push for including BLM. Is making list of Trump supporters encouraged by AOC (with millions of followers) to get them fired not communist? You created the monster and you still have blinders on.
There was a 27 minute commercial I would have had to endure before seeing that Jimmy Dore talk!!! So I just clicked off. That is how totally stupid YouTub is now.
CNNfakeNews, you remaind me of Dinesh D'Souza another Indian-American commentator. Your lucidity and rational analysis and commentary puts you on the same level. You both have the rare talent of seeing to the very core of the issues and explaining them in clear and simple terms.
"Conservatives ..., by definition, support authority, and will revert to it as soon as their comfort levels can again be sated."
Nonsense. The bone-chilling experiences of the last several years have well demonstrated that "conservatives" have absolutely nothing on "liberals" regarding authoritarianism, which I label Totalitarianism. What you call "authoritarianism" is likely their stubborness holding onto their values -- a stubbornness that anyone who respects themselves will have.
Watching this for decades, and reading the longer history, I see:
-Rightists prioritize liberty, and will sacrifice equality (of results) to get it.
-Leftists prioritize equality (of various kinds), and will sacrifice liberty to get it.
-Totalitarians prioritize power, and will sacrifice everything else to get it.
" The bone-chilling experiences of the last several years have well demonstrated that "conservatives" have absolutely nothing on "liberals""
You mean NEOLIBERALS -- most establishment Democrats, with analogs/co-ideologs all over the West. And, yes, they are also authoritarian. As opposed to the FDR liberals of yore, who were civil libertarians. (I'm not one of them as I am a social democrat.)
"-Rightists prioritize liberty, "
They do not.
Righwingers in my lifetime support: anti-sodomy laws, criminalized abortion, the prison industrial complex, nearly all that law enforcement or prosecutors wish to do or do do, and the FBI?CIA/military. Rightwingers have almost always supported capital/management in siccing violent law enforcement on striking labor, and so, so much more.
I think it’s obvious that the characterization of the majority of Trump voters here is about voters, while the characterizations of the culprits on left applies mainly to politicians & the media. For the average Democrat voter to think this piece is calling you out is a tad sensitive. Let’s just state it generalizations - Voters have come to see over the last several years that politicians & their media lapdogs do not care about them & are willing to go to any lengths to stay in power even if that means steamrolling over your vote. I think it would be easy for most people on any side & in the middle to agree with that statement - but we seem to run into problems when we have to admit that “our side” did it. I pray for the day when the general public realizes that we are not each other’s enemy. We may have differences about priorities how to achieve them but we need to wake up & realize that we are ALL being played.
Her and Art have used this defense since day 1 of this forum.
They champion leftist ideals and then say "The DNC or whoever isn't really left like I am" when you challenge them on it.
If pressed to name actual candidates who they feel are "left" they still name DNC candidates. But swear they dont support the DNC.
Its like little kids who say not it when you tag them and close their eyes. They think that type of argument still works with any critical thinker which is baffling to me.
In Art's case it's like 90% of his repertoire, poor fella. It reminds me of metalheads arguing about subgenres: "Bro, how can you think Putrid Grundle is thrashcore? Have you not even *heard* of grungecore?"
"Righwingers in my lifetime support: anti-sodomy laws, criminalized abortion, the prison industrial complex, nearly all that law enforcement or prosecutors wish to do or do do, and the FBI?CIA/military. Rightwingers have almost always supported capital/management in siccing violent law enforcement on striking labor, and so, so much more."
These are things that, IMO, are outside "Rightism". All are values pertaining to essentially preservation of their contemporary religious values and beliefs, sometimes derivative in twisted way (e.g. supporting criminally oppressive corporations in blind adherence to "free market" philosophy), but generally not something that is part of a L/R historical tradition. Remember, the Republicans were there to pander to them, especially 1980s onward -- they got the former Democrats *who had those same values*.
Today, there are plenty of a different kind of "Leftist" who support the same kind of authoritarianist and intolerant attitudes -- as you know, the primary current one being speech, and don't get me started on CRT. Meanwhile, many so-called current Leftists also support FBI/CIA/Miltary. Point is, neither actually subscribes to a coherent value philosophy like that I identified above.
They *both* simply are set in their respective, *religious* type of intolerance, supporting authorities that promise to enforce them, albeit about different sets of social values.
Probably everyone has beliefs expressing religious-style intolerance of *something* or other. Each side (if I can distill the sides to two) generally believes they are morally correct and their values should cover the entire society, while the other side sees it as outrageous overreach. IMO, each both should chill, and apply their respective religious disciplines *only* to themselves.
The religious left are unhinged in a way that the religious right could have only hoped for. But if I had to choose between them, I would pick, "None of the Above".
As a (old-fashioned) Leftist, I'd have to call it a draw. I've seen some pretty unhinged Right-wingers in my time are as crazily violent -- take the abortion doctor killers, who are uncontent even to "let God sort it out".
Neoliberals = a saliency of some Totalitarians. Neither have anything to do with "the people"; they just con them. Do you know any rank-and-file (i.e. non-power-seeking) Democrats who are Neoliberals while understanding what it means?
All these newly invented terms confuse me. When the term Neo-con was in vogue, I'm pretty sure it met those regime-change hawks like Bill Kristol, John McCain, Dick Cheney, and Hillary Clinton. Neoliberal is still a term I cannot comprehend. In two weeks, will we be calling transvestites "neo-women"?
Wikipedia: "Neoliberalism is a term used to describe the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with economic liberalism and free-market capitalism. It is generally associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, austerity ..."
Sounds Republican, no? Except when most of the *Democrats* do it, while denying it to their (mostly ignorant and/or scared sh*tless) Stockholm Syndrome voters, it takes on a new level of treachery.
Neoliberalism took hold because the socialism of the 60s and 70s produced economic stagnation and ruin. Governments probably shouldn't own airlines. They probably should own your municipal water supply. Both sides should know the limits of their abilities.
I have some knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia and the nonsense that is printed as fact. I don't care what adolescents post on Wikipedia and I don't trust a word of it. While I did not live in the 19th Century, I find it hard to believe that globalism and privatization were big issues during the American Civil War or when the West was won.
I agree that privatization and deregulation seem to be Republican favorites, yet neither of the two major political parties seem to be interested in austerity and they both contain characters who support globalism.
I think Neoliberalism is an imaginary term for an imaginary concept. But that's just my opinon.
You cannot be talking about me, since I am against such ideas, perhaps you are mistakenly replying to someone else's post. Enoy Tuesday. Tomorrow is 7.13.21. Enjoy!
Neo-liberals are not leftists of any sort; they're big-business conservatives. For that matter, most Democrats aren't "left," either, except in comparison with the really far right. Mostly, they're big-business shills.
If asked to name a leftist, I'd name Dr. Jill Stein - Green Party. And Greens aren't necessarily Marxists, another branch of the left.
And yes, I'd make similar distinctions on the right; Libertarians are very different from big-business Republicans, and we've seen the difference between Trumpist populists (hate to dignify them with that label) and, again the Business Party.
"we've seen the difference between Trumpist populists (hate to dignify them with that label)"--Oregoncharles
Why? I am a Trump supporter, and I see him as a populist. He certainly isn't a conservative in the sense of the Republicans of the Bush family era, those authoritarian Neocons of the PNAC school. They were blatant warmongers, as blatant as the Obama-Clinton click on the Democrat side.
Trump literally remade the Republican Party in his image, that of a constiutional populist hailing back to the principles of 1776.
THAT is exactly why I voted for him in 2020...
I didn't vote in 2016. I hadn't voted since voting for Ross Perot In 1992.
Trump did make America great again, he tried his best to emty the putrid swamp of bureaucrats and apparatchiks. He was only defeated in 2020 by those very authoritarian corporatist oligarchs that rigged the 2020 presidential election.
You can be a social democrat and still know unequivocally that your "team" manufactured a lie to smear the other team, using multiples levels of government, including ones they didn't actually control, to perpetuate that lie. Many Republicans came to grips a long time ago with the way the Iraq war was sold. It is past time for Democrats to do the same about Russiagate. A really good first start would in fact be a revocation of the NY Times' and Washington Post's Pulitzers and awarding them to Greenwald, Taibbi, and Mate. And maybe Devin Nunes too.
Re-assigning a past Pulitzer to Greenwald is not how institutions self-correct. When Darryl Cooper invoked that unlikely scenario, it's naturally going to excite Greenwald fans, and I kind of felt Cooper was playing to the gallery there. But if we take the bait and start saying "Yes! That's what the Pulitzer board should do", then we (Greenwald's fans) are going to rightly be seen as out of touch and too absorbed in gaudy honors. Actually I kind of hope that Greenwald himself tamps down this talk; that would be a classy move and kind of reminiscent of Chomsky at his best.
It's well-known that prizes like the Pulitzer aren't always awarded to the most deserving. The only way they self-correct for passing over a deserving winner in the past is by maybe finding a later occasion to offer that person a prize for newer work, and even that form of self-correction often gets neglected. As it is, Greenwald has some right to claim that he already got a Pulitzer, since he was a big part of the team that led The Guardian to be awarded one-half of a Pulitzer for their Snowden reporting. And Greenwald does, in fact, claim to have a Pulitzer on his record. Maybe he'll get a second Pulitzer some day, maybe he won't. He's recognized, in any case. But there are always some injustices in the Pulitzer awards. I never could understand why they didn't give a Pulitzer, or even Pulitzer finalist status, to the Allentown Morning Call for its excellent 2011 story on abusive working conditions in Amazon's warehouse: https://www.mcall.com/business/mc-sg-amazon-warehouse-series-storygallery.html
As for revoking a Pulitzer, that basically never happens. They revoked just one Pulitzer, when journalist Janet Cooke personally invented most of her Pulitzer-winning story out of whole cloth. But when the Pulitzer board was asked to revoke Walter Duranty's award for stories that propagandized for the Soviets, they said they weren't sure there was "deliberate deception", and they refused to take the "momentous step" of withdrawing the Pulitzer.
I took Darryl's comment about the Pulitzer as a sarcastic/tongue in cheek joke pointing out how absurd things have gotten. Didn't take it in a literal sense.
My message was a little different. You didn't address whether it was probable or not; I chose to do so and to give arguments to establish the point. Nice to see that we agree on this.
The idea of revoking Pulitzers and giving them to Greenwald et al. came up first in Darryl Cooper's article; it wasn't in Cooper's original Twitter thread, he just added it when he wrote for Greenwald's audience. Since you then took it up, I figured "Okay, multiple people are saying this, but is it really going to do us credit if we start clamoring for revoking others' Pulitzers and awarding them to Greenwald and company?" To be frank, I think if we start talking a lot about this we're just going to alienate most people, and I've explained why. I hope you don't read my comments as if they were sharply directed at you. I just saw you and Darryl Cooper making similar points, and wanted to raise my concerns before it became too much of a general clamor by Greenwald fans.
Your rebuttal is well stated. There are optic concerns, which to the dismay of some, do matter when attempting to persuade people. Particularly in this hyper-polarized world, so to call for both, rescinding an award from a foe and handing it to a friend, could certainly be deleterious to one's cause. There's an element that *possibly* stands counter to this - not your line of reasoning, but the actual merits to the idea in question.
Wikipedia states that Cooke returned the award, rather than it being revoked. Nevertheless, the prize was then subsequently given to the runner up. I'm not sure when *any* journalist started putting out substantive, investigative counter pieces to Russia-gate (as apposed to biased, conjecture) - but if it was in 2018, it stands to reason that they, and they alone, would be the recipients of any hypothetical revoked Pulitzer (it would certainly take revocation today - none of these narcissists are going to admit wrongdoing)
For years I used to pester people to rescind the transparency award given to Obama -- whenever I ran into someone who worked for any of the 5 organizations that gave Obama the award, I made sure to mention that the award should be withdrawn. Not sure it accomplished anything, but I wanted to try.
Still, if I had said "Take this award away from my opponent and grant it instead to one of the people I'm politically aligned with", I think that would have sounded too much like mere partisanship. Combining both these demands seems to make a worse impression on many people than doing a simple campaign to withdraw someone's award, or a simple campaign to give an award to someone you think is deserving.
I don't know anybody who is impressed with such things particularly after Mr Obama won a peace price. Even awards have become pointless political trophies, thus nobody watched Hollywood award shows. Another loss of public trust.
I believe our true enemy is the one inside that seeks to divide us from others, that seeks the label others so we can fit them in a box. I feel like this whole article at least for me is about letting go of labels because they don't work, the two-party system doesn't work, the age-old saying about divide and conquer is the true enemy, the powers that be don't give two hoots about anything we do.
New Evidence Indicates Enough Illegal Votes In Georgia To Tip 2020 Results
In Georgia, there was both an audit and a statewide recount confirming Biden’s victory, but ignored in the process was evidence that nearly 35,000 Georgians had potentially voted illegally.
By Margot Cleveland –JULY 9, 2021
New evidence indicates that more than 10,300 illegal votes were cast in Georgia in the November 2020 general election — a number that will continue to rise over the next several months, potentially exceeding the 12,670 votes that separated Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
While this evidence does not change the fact that Joe Biden is our president, all Americans who genuinely care about free and fair elections and the disenfranchisement of voters should demand both transparency and solutions to prevent a repeat in future elections. This evidence also vindicates former President Trump and his legal team for the related public (and private) comments and legal arguments made in challenging the Georgia election results.
Under the cover of COVID-19, Georgia, like many other states, flooded residents with absentee ballot applications. Also like sister states, Georgia ignored various legislative mandates designed to prevent fraud and to ensure the integrity of the vote. These facts, coupled with the closeness of the presidential contest in Georgia and other states, led to a flurry of accusations and litigation charging vote fraud, illegal voting, and violations of the Elector’s Clause of the constitution.
In Georgia, there was both an audit and a statewide recount confirming Biden’s victory, but ignored in the process was evidence that nearly 35,000 Georgians had potentially voted illegally.
Under Georgia law, residents must vote in the county in which they reside, unless they changed their residence within 30 days of the election. As Jake Evans, a well-known Atlanta election lawyer, told me, outside of the 30-day grace period, if people vote in a county in which they no longer reside, “Their vote in that county would be illegal.”
Soon after the November general election, Mark Davis, the president of Data Productions Inc. and an expert in voter data analytics and residency issues, obtained data from the National Change of Address (NCOA) database that identified Georgia residents who had confirmed moves with the U.S. Postal Service. After excluding moves with effective dates within 30 days of the general election, and by using data available from the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office, Davis identified nearly 35,000 Georgia voters who indicated they had moved from one Georgia county to another, but then voted in the 2020 general election in the county from which they had moved.
Your argument against conservatives grouping all liberals together is valid. Unfortunately you grouped all conservatives together in trying to make that argument. Its dumb. You essentially became what you hate. Listen, we’re not all trolls. I read National Review and Greenwald. In fact, the most interesting news is coming from disaffected liberals that are finally feeling the bite of illiberal liberals. I don’t care who you vote for. I care about the constitution and the idea that is America. That idea is something that both sides used to champion - individual freedom and liberty. You’ve obviously not read National Review if you think they discuss anything other than that on principle. There’s nothing more ignorant than declaring whole groups of people as being ignorant, and unable to think other than what you perceive them to think. I’m not sure if you’re a communist or whatever. Frankly I don’t care. But from what you’ve stated, you may be a bigot. Regardless, I’d highly suggest you get to know people based upon their individual characteristics and comments. All of us this thread, no matter what side of the political aisle you’re on, can tell a tale about all the idiot trolls they meet here or on Twitter or whatever. But who cares? Honestly. Who cares? Is this high school where we all need to be liked or agreed with? You didn’t mention that you’ve been beaten in the streets by “trumpers” so I’m assuming you’re hurt by mean tweets. I think you’ll good. I’ll agree with you about that last portion as well. I don’t see conservatives, in their current mindset, trusting the political left with anything. Conservatives don’t care if you’re “liberal” (whatever that even means in the Democratic Party I don’t know). But conservatives have definitely had an awakening. This article is exceptionally accurate and the point is simple - all of us that are concerned about losing our sovereignty as citizens, our freedom, our liberty should gather together and push back. It has absolutely nothing to do with who you vote for, or you’re monolithic perception of an entire group of people you’ve never met based solely upon mean tweets. The only thing that matters is the constitutional order. Reasonable people can agree that is the most important thing at risk.
@Mona: Basically all factions support authority in their own way, not just conservatives. To people on the left like us, conservatives often appear as if they were supporting authority for its own sake -- but that's largely because people on the left find it much easier to notice when conservatives' respect for authority is harmful or ill-meaning, and we find it harder to recognize that conservatives are to some extent willing to be guided by their own kind of humane values when they align themselves with authority. Your statement that "the right is the ... enemy of what is human" is, I would say, more or less dehumanizing; and it's a distorted perception. All political factions have their own characteristic ethical mistakes, and I suppose there are times when the right is opposed to what matters most in life, but I think the same is true of the left at times.
That said, you are right that Greenwald's current approach attracts mostly conservatives of one stripe or another. And as usual, you can expect people to be just as superficial about you as you are about them.
Greenwald is unabashedly liberal. That he appeals to "conservatives" only shows how fucked up the rest of the media really is. His appeal is in his intellectual honesty and his lack of sucking the teat of government power.
Partly right. But it's more complicated than that, in at least three ways.
(1) Greenwald is sometimes, though not always, able to give high-quality criticism of people on the right as well as on the left (using his intellectual honesty). If there were enough conservatives who could do that as effectively, whether they worked inside the media or not, conservative readers wouldn't so often turn to Greenwald. So something is lacking among present-day conservatives, as well as present-day liberals, and it's not just in the media It is reasonable that a substantial number of both conservatives and liberals effectively admit that lack in turning to Greenwald, and of course it shouldn't discourage conservatives or liberals from developing more people who can do this kind of work.
(2) Greenwald isn't always unfriendly to government power. I'm a leftist, perhaps an unorthodox one, and I sometimes find Greenwald is more friendly to government power than I think is right. For instance, Greenwald thinks every president should have the right to fire a DOJ official who is investigating his administration, and this view of Greenwald's will promote abuse of power.
(3) You're right that there are many issues where Greenwald is unabashedly liberal, and of course conservatives can't help seeing this about him, so they end up classifying him as a liberal. But in some areas he's not all that good at criticizing conservative leaders or conservative views. My impression is that currently, he just fails to see how to make some of these criticisms, which other progressives would see. In that sense, he may think more like someone from the right on these areas. There may also be times when he goes easy on the conservative part of his audience by not criticizing some target on the right, though it's true that he does make some criticisms of things on the right.
Still, your points are at least partly right.
Unfortunately I won't be able to discuss this further here; I've commented enough on other threads of today's article.
I disagree. But not because I am a conservative. When it comes to Team (D) vs. Team (R), I root for catastrophic knee injuries and overhead blimp accidents.
I think your personal biases have kept you from finding "conservative" sources which are intellectually honest. City Journal and National Review have been critical of "conservatives" as have individual writers such as Glenn Reynolds and Victor Hanson. Not to mention public intellectuals like Thomas Sowell, John McWhorter and Glenn Loury, who are neither "liberal or conservative" except perhaps from an economic standpoint.
In point (2), if you are claiming that he is more supportive of elected than appointed government employees, I would agree. That is a more "liberal" position to take, in that you are backing the people's choice, not Leviathan's.
Failing to criticize does not equal endorsement. That's part of the problem with today's political culture. I can choose to watch basketball and not care about LeBron James' politics. I can go to a movie with James Woods in it, and not be offended. We have to drop the concept that if someone doesn't denounce everyone and everything perceived to be a political opponent, then they are somehow on the "other side."
I would challenge your view on Thomas Sowell -- and it's got nothin' to do with economics. While "failing to criticize does not equal endorsement" sounds reasonable on the whole, it doesn't account for the hero worship around people like Sowell.
Excessive praise is endorsement by proxy -- to the point where one's credibility is extended to any and all issues (never mind if they have no idea what they're talking about).
Thomas Sowell has a record of egregious hypocrisy, gross negligence, party-line hackery, and flagrantly failing to follow the facts . . .
On a matter of world-altering magnitude, no less. But he's treated like the Godfather of "Follow the Facts."
It's a meaningless mantra -- faith-based belief driven by myth over merit.
And then you've got the likes of Loury, McWhorter and Hughes -- who sanction it all by blindly worshipping this guy.
Along with the army of sycophants who kiss his a$$.
And contrary to convenient belief -- Glenn & the Gang are actually making race relations worse. All of which I explain in detail in my blog series (and the links below).
My reply to Glenn Loury's refusal to consider the evidence he doesn't like around Sowell:
No, if a president decides to fire someone investigating issues that touch the president himself, it's likely to be for the president's own self-interest. You claim that elected politicians should have that authority because they are the "people's choice"; but being elected shouldn't entitle a politician to use power in abusive ways, because that isn't what the people asked for. Andrew Cuomo, facing multiple scandals, argued he shouldn't leave office because he said his holding power was "the people's will... That's democracy", and obviously being elected doesn't excuse his bad conduct. You argue that it's better to have elected politicians take decisions like firing investigators into their misconduct, since you think appointed officials represent Leviathan; but although that could be debated, it's not the main point and I won't go into it. What really matters here is that there are better and more democratic alternatives than giving this kind of power to elected politicians or appointed officials.
I'd say the right way to handle these issues starts with honoring whistleblowers. There should be a whistleblower award given by the voters, so that in every election, voters choose someone to honor for their whistleblowing service. The winners of the whistleblower award should be seated on a board; this would be a government body made up of people chosen by the voters but who did NOT gain power by politicians' means and instead are chosen for their demonstrated integrity. Having a government body like that is a great way to put checks and balances on those who abuse power. The whistleblower board would then hire a chief oversight officer who would hire people throughout government to perform audits, process FOIA requests, release improperly classified material, investigate elected officials when allegations reach a certain level of credibility, help ensure fair bidding on contracts and honestly administered elections, and similar tasks. The chief oversight officer would also hire ombudspeople, inspectors general, OLC lawyers, and compliance officers, as well as monitoring staff embedded all throughout the intelligence agencies and law enforcement. These embedded monitoring staff could check for abuses of power in the Deep State. The chief oversight officer, with the whistleblower board, would be the final judge of when the public's right to know about classified abuses outweighs the national-security reasons for keeping something secret. Elected politicians would still have full leeway to appoint officials who would carry out the elected politicians' platforms, except for appointed jobs that are about insuring government integrity, which would answer to the chief oversight officer instead. It's a far better solution than letting an elected politician appoint the officials who do oversight into the politician himself, and if people like Andrew Cuomo don't like my proposal, that's just a good sign.
I appreciate your list of intellectually honest people who are more on the conservative end. I hoped it would be clear that I wasn't saying there were no such intellectually honest people among conservatives; I was just saying there weren't enough. Of the people you mention, I read some, have mostly negative opinions of others, and some I don't yet read at all. Also, I think you're right that failing to criticize should not automatically be taken as endorsement; as for whether that means Greenwald is taking the right approach to those he usually refrains from criticizing, we can leave that open.
The great thing about the Constitutional republic we live in, and the states that comprise it, is that the voters can pass a verdict on shitty elected officials. The bigger problem is the duopoly - and the careerist politicians it spawns.
But this is what I as a libertarian can see - it is the Left that is now supporting a hugely and disturbingly authoritarian movement that is forcing and mandating a "Diversity/Equity/Inclusion" illiberal ideology on major institutions, corporations, universities and schools , that sounds benign and virtuous but that in practice is suppressing dissent, promoting a new form of racism in the name of Anti-racism, demonizing one race and the entire liberal project of the Enlightenment while excusing and even encouraging the rioting and destruction of our cities by other races, and countering every tenet of true liberalism - free speech, respect for true diversity of thought, and equality of opportunity which is now substituted with equality of outcome, a harbinger of nothing more than corruption of standards of excellence and merit and a blatant confession that they do not believe that Blacks can truly measure up.
You yourself may disagree with some of these ideas but they are manifest across the country in our politics, our school boards , our media and in Academia where all such destructive notions tend to incubate. Your own negative descriptions of conservatives are widespread on the Left and this is what is driving the growing alienation of decent people on the Right whose values are laughed at, sneered at and increasingly banned on social media and on nightly news. Conservatives will rightly push back on your kind of authority.
You write, "Conservatives per se . . . , by definition, support authority."
Are you sure of that even in general? Conservatives by definition support the settled order. In America the settled order (at least until recently) was based on the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment with its social contract theory of government. The dominant culture was the sort of protestantism that would take "No king but Jesus" as a slogan repudiating earthly authority.
Conservatives in societies where the settled order is based on authority, perhaps, but not here in America.
I would even go so far as to suggest that the basis for what is called "the culture war" is various authorities, judges, academicians, and the like using their authority against the settled order, thereby provoking reaction from conservatives.
How ironic for you of all people, who called me (as someone who dared to disagree with you, a former partner of Glenn's!, I mean how dare I!) all kinds of names just for disagreeing with you.
Its unfortunate you can't see the ocean from the beach, but hey it is what it is, you are biased and always will be, and you will always give anyone on the left the benefit of the doubt and anyone the right none of it.
Your beliefs about what conservatives are is incorrect. One trick in politics is to find the absolute worst person aligned with a group and use that person as the model representative for the entire group. I reject this approach when my group does it. This approach keeps us apart.
I'm not sure what you're referring to about "Your beliefs about what conservatives are is incorrect." But my experiences have nothing to do with "respect for people who disagree" (under any amount of civility).
I've been trashed for nearly 20 years for telling the truth the biggest and most costly lie in modern history -- by people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
Not only that -- they made it impossible to even get to what the debate is actually about (and still do).
You could be the first person in nearly 2 decades to discuss this issue without acting like a child.
Actually, what we have seen with the rise of wokery is that everyone supports authority, so long as it’s their side in charge. Progressives were in favor of free speech when it was their speech being restricted by the Tipper Gore’s and bluenosed church ladies of the world, and now conservatives are in favor of free speech when it’s their speech being restricted by Big Tech. This is why the American model’s emphasis on due process and checks and balances is so important.
“When I am weaker than you, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your Freedom because that is according to my principles.” ― Frank Herbert
Do conservatives support authority by definition? I don't think so, and furthermore, I would say that right now it's the progressives who are far more in support of authority.
This is really great breakdown of the key issues. Like a lot of people, I have no definite answers either but know that all of the irregularities, censorship/suppression, and outright lies by the cabal of media, government, tech and corporate elite are not an accident. The other point I would make is that if the cabal genuinely believed that 45 was a Russian asset and engaged in treasonous activities, then it would be noble and proper to collaborate and neutralize the threat in any way possible. I would expect no less.
The appropriate thing to do in that case would have been to inform flag officers, heads of agencies, politicians of both parties, and every prominent American with bipartisan credibility of the evidence, then call a press a conference where it’s presented and immediate action is demanded. We’re not talking about laundering campaign funds, after all. What you don’t do is have a special counsel staffed with known partisans conduct a secretive investigation fueled by anonymous leaks, then drop the entire thing and move on as soon as Devin Nunes no longer controls of House investigative committee.
I think what happened was that they talked themselves into a conspiracy theory to justify taking unconscionable actions against the Trump campaign, and realized they could be in a lot of trouble when it began to fall apart. So they shuffled the investigation off into the special counsel’s office so that every congressional inquiry could be answered with “I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation” until the Democrats took back the House. And maybe they hoped they could find something, related to Russia or not, damaging enough to take him down - although the record seems to indicate that they gave up on serious investigations after only a few months and spent the rest of the time trying to build an obstruction case.
Why didn't you cite the Molly Ball article in TIME Magazine of Feb 4, 2021?
You should have and left a link to the URL of that article.
That way everyone here would understand how disingenuous your commentary on that article actually is.
No matter what term you use to describe what the Molly Ball article speaks to as per the election, calling it “save”, meddling” “manipulate”, “interfere” “fix”, “rig”, “tilt”. “handle”, “intervene”, “control”, or “influence”; it amounts to the same thing: RIGGING THE ELECTION.
Oh, I absolutely agree. Millions of Americans allowed themselves to be convinced by the cabal that 45 was a Russian agent, a white supremacist/racist, a rapist, and more. I can understand why they think any and all measures to remove him are okay. Of course, that's not how a constitutional republic is supposed to function. Now we have to fight the ruling cabal with everything we've got.
"No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems -- of which getting elected and re-elected are No. 1 and No. 2. Whatever is No. 3 is far behind".
- Abolish identity politics, abolish critical race theory, discourage ad-hominen attacks from political office, biological sex in sports only
- Legalize weed, mushrooms, cocaine and pardon all non-violent/non-second crime non-dealers
- 30 million population universal health care + private health care / public option + import drugs from safe countries + price transparency + drug price matching with foreign countries + violent felons become ineligible for 3 years after serving sentencing
- Minimum wage tied as a factor to the top salary of the franchise owner and salary of the franchise owner tied to the salary of the top executive of the company
- Make universities co-sign student loans + School choice / Vouchers + potential future employers sponsor tuition + Encourage trade school + scholarships based on GPA
- Abolish corporate sponsored mass immigration: immigration of labour ONLY for those who come as students for 4 years (or their retired parents) and work to become permanent residents after 2 years of graduation and 3 years of PR to become American citizens. Non-past students do not get H1B visas. Companies must pay equal pay to immigrants as American nationals. Remove loopholes.
- Voter ID
- Opportunity zones
- Abolish insider trading for congress & senate
- Term limits for congress & senate of 12 years maximum
- Conditional birthright citizenship: either foreign national parent having a baby in USA gets conditional citizenship - must stay in USA for 6 months each year for 7 years
- Abolish buying of USA property/land by non-staying-citizens
- Trim the bloat from federal government, trim military budget to make it efficient, trim the corrupt intelligence agencies, fire unneccesary administrative work/bureaucrats/reduce private contractors, most societal issues must be dealt at the state level
For every goal, hire anti-establishment representatives from populist left & populist right to debate and achieve the end goal. For example hire Aaron Mate, Jimmy Dore, Jared Kushner, Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard and Matt Gaetz to achieve the goal of "Stop forever regime change wars, non-intervention, middle east peace deals". Hire Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Bret Weinstein, Donald Trump to achieve goal of "Free speech absolutist" and pardons.
Hmm, your post managed to endorse both "Free speech absolutist" and "Abolish identity politics, abolish critical race theory". Real free speech supporters like me laugh at that.
The problem is glaring: the US gov't and it's established ruling class haven't had a righteous cause since WWII.
They know this, and they still continue manufacturing consent for every hair-brained scheme to start wars and spend those tax dollars lining the pockets of the most wealthy people on the planet.
What's next??? Capitol Police kicking doors in with impunity and free from public knowledge of who the officers are and free from the FOIA?
The most pressing matter facing advocates of liberty today is the prospect of the political and economic establishment completing the institution of a totalitarian state. There is no other way to read the multipronged approach and the political maneuverings that political operatives are taking to rule under “Biden.” I put “Biden” in quotation marks here because the current president of the United States is not a singular person named Joe Biden. It is a politburo consisting of party rulers and advisers, ruling by executive fiat, plus, as I’ll discuss, corporate-state apparatuses. Make no mistake, the power grab that is underway poses the most grievous threat to liberty in recent history.
The signals could not be any clearer. In addition to the swath of executive orders, clearly composed by politburo members and aimed at extending federal power, the political establishment has initiated a growing body of laws which would, if passed, consolidate uniparty rule for the foreseeable future.
An Historical Juncture Demanding Human Action — Michael Rectenwald
"The other point I would make is that if the cabal genuinely believed that 45 was a Russian asset and engaged in treasonous activities, then it would be noble and proper to collaborate and neutralize the threat in any way possible. I would expect no less."--Ms. Loough
Preposterous! Rigging an election can NEVER be condoned. It is up to the people to vote for whatever candidate and issues they choose.
I cannot believe you would make such an assertion. I am sorely disappointed in you.
Darryl Cooper really captures my own journey. Until 6 years ago I was also conservative by nature, but all that changed due to life events a few years before the Trump election of 2016.
Although I soon lost faith in our institutions as hopelessly corrupt, it took longer for me to acknowledge that even democracy itself was compromised. All this despite my knowledge of what the Kennedy family did in 1960. It's amazing how easy it is to section off parts of our own knowledge when they don't match up with what we want to believe.
Admitting democracy itself is compromised became obvious the moment I gave it serious thought, but it took me longer to get their than it should have.
Incidentally, anyone who thinks democratic elections in America were running as a well oiled machine until 2020 are kidding themselves. Once I realized how our antiquated system is designed to be easily gamed at every level, I realized this problem goes back much further than just Donald Trump. Most people want to believe in democracy and fair elections so deeply that it takes a lot for them to admit it's not what it appears.
That's one thing which made me more disappointed. Even the leftists knew that Bernie got cheated out twice in primaries. Yet they can't fathom the general elections having the same shenanigans?
I'm not sure I understand this comment, but I will say this.
If we recognize that politicians love power above ideology or anything else. That absolute power corrupts absolutely and that they have been caught lying and stealing in literally every other way imaginable, it strains credibility to think that when it comes to the elections their power depends upon, they will magically become vallorious truth tellers out to uphold democracy.
From a science point of view, elections are a measurement of what the electorate wants. Every scientific measurement has errors. Some are statistical and random and some are systematic that lead to biases.
A lot of the things mentioned in the article are systematic type problems that should be removed. Nevertheless even if there are those problems, the election counts as a measurement with some errors.
Which I think is the point of the whole thread and article. The key line for me is "Many Trump supporters don’t know for certain whether ballots were faked in November 2020, but they know with apodictic certainty that the press, the FBI, and even the courts would lie to them if they were."
You are absolutely correct that voting is only an approximate test of popularity but ever since the myth of the 'emerging Democrat majority' became popular in the 1990s, the Democrats have made a fetish of generating as many votes in any given election as possible since they think this gives them an advantage. If you accept the approximation theory then what you want to focus on is making the overall process verifiable and transparent, not generating a blizzard of paper that looks like it is meant to conceal bad actions.
I was electrified by the viral thread on Twitter when it appeared and now by this long-form version. As a leftist streaked with conservatism and with no interest in IdPol, I share a lot of Greenwald’s positions, and what Darryl says resonates with me. As an immigrant from the UK, I’m also horrified by the sloppy way US elections are run. It is beyond belief that votes aren’t counted publicly and in a timely way. Did California ever finish counting the Dem primary votes in 2016? How about that bullshit app in Iowa in 2020?
"It is beyond belief that votes aren’t counted publicly and in a timely way." - indeed, so the next logical question is why that is so. They can't do it because they don't know how? With all the experience available from around the world?
I think not. I think it's convenient to have it the way it is so it could be manipulated when needed. And I don't think the operatives from any side ever hesitate to engage the mechanisms at exactly the right moments and just to the degree needed to have a required result. With the rest of the gullible either unaware or going with the "ends justify the means".
Which brings me to say - what happened with Trump is nothing new. With the internet etc the color revolutions spread around the world formerly with guns now came back home armed with big tech. You reap what you sow.
Florida fixed their shit and ran one of the smoothest elections despite having more population than NY and twice the population of GA. Florida was able to finish their election counting within 2 hours of poll closures. GA and NY took weeks....
Bernie in 2016 was certainly the better candidate. And he had the capacity to appeal to the Trump voters. In 2020 he was a different candidate, somewhat coopted by IdPol and I found it hard to listen to the Trump is an existential threat stuff, given Trump’s short attention span and other similar deficiencies. Anyway, I’ve believed for a while that there is an opportunity to unite both ends of the working-class spectrum. And I hope we seize it.
Imo, Bernie was always in on it with the establishment dems from the beginning. Mr $15 an hour Bernie Sanders refused to pay his staff $15 because his campaign couldn't afford to. He has been a Vermont senator for 30+ years! The min wage in Vermont is $10. He also used to complain about illegal immigration being "right wing proposals". Until 2016. We all know what changed in 2016. Bernie's hotel demands from his “Senator Comfort Memo”: King-size beds and 60-degree rooms. He flies on private jets plus a memo detailing minimum requirements of the private jet. He used to complain about millionaires and billionaires. Until 2 years ago when he became a millionaire. Then only the billionaires were the problem for him. He released his tax returns couple years ago. For someone complaining so much about poor people suffering, he barely paid anything in charity from his multi millions. For someone who's so anti-pharma, Bernie still gladly took $1.3 million from Pharma. Trump got $2.5 million and Biden took $8.5 million:
Then he got "cheated" out twice from the nomination and he rolled over without a fight - maybe because this was the plan all along for Democrats to use him to get the left to vote for Biden. Then he refused to look at the "cheating" allegations from Trump. He called Biden his friend and respectable man. Didn't even have the balls of calling out his obvious selling out to China and his son using his office for profit. Now he's going on CNN making excuses on why they couldn't get $15 minimum wage, why $2000 has still not gone out, why $1400 is more than enough instead of the $2000 they promised, why medicare for all is now too hard to achieve. And his supporters thought Bernie would care about them. When his supporters couldn't wake up to how big of a pathetic Bernie was when he gave up his mic to the 2 BLM activists at his own rally, how he did a full 180 flip on illegal immigration when Trump ran, then nothing will wake them up.
Unlike Bernie who rolled over at the very first sight, Trump at least put up a fight and won the nomination. Imagine Bernie rolling over like that to foreign nations.
Bernie tells people pie in the sky dreams to siphon votes to the Democrats. That's it.
The Bernie Sanders debacle was tragic, really. I really liked him in 2016 and thought he had a major chance....and here we are now. Cant stand the guy at this point. Could he have been any more spineless? I’m not naive enough to think he could have run independently and won but it grossed me out how he didn’t just capitulate to the DNC: he let them publicly teabag him and then graciously backed Biden. 🤮
Bernie giving up his mic to those 2 BLM ladies without a fight was the perfect description of how he would have sold out his country to foreign countries on trade. Once a cuck, always a cuck.
Florida fixed their shit and ran one of the smoothest elections despite having more population than NY and twice the population of GA. Florida was able to finish their election counting within 2 hours of poll closures. GA and NY and other states with less population took weeks.
India with a population of eligible voters of 900 million had over 600 million votes casted and counted last year and they have strict voter ID laws. Even poor people have it. But voter ID is suddenly racist for Democrats.
As a former lefty that is now lost in this new world I resonate with this essay a lot, even if I never could like or support Trump (is it a new world or was I just unaware?). I've starting paying attention to the right, actually I pay attention to every view, except maybe the corporate press (but still do sometimes). I've noticed there has been a mass shift on the right, they are seeing the world as it is and what forces are at play. I notice this author calls it the Regime. Others on the right call it the Cathedral. When I first heard the word Cathedral I thought it was silly and paranoid. I don't think that anymore. Regardless of how little I liked Trump I'm completely mortified at the level of coordination we saw across government, intelligence, media, protestors, and the DNC. I don't know how you put this back together. You don't need a majority to break a country, not even close. The fact that they aren't even trying to put things back together, but quite the opposite, has me worried.
This is an excellent point. I am not a Trump supporter, but am well aware of the dirty campaign against him.
I think American's want their politics clean. Even when you don't support the winner, you expect them to be treated no different than their predecessor. That was clearly not the case here.
This is key. Throughout Cooper's excellent post he says "Trump voters believe" or "know", etc. But I didn't vote for Trump and couldn't give a flying F about him. But I give many many F's about America, justice, fair play, and democracy. I'm a strong centrist and independent voter, and I know for certain that there's something deeply, deeply wrong going on in this country that is the handiwork of the Regime and current Dem-media actors he implicates.
Bah, you can also toss in the RNC, FauxNews and the establishment cunts who prance around the wrestling ring waving a folding chair to whip the crowd up against the fake opponents. It's a fucking scam.
Yes, lots of Republican PsoS like Lindsay Graham, and FauxNews clearly plays the divisive partisan role except for Tucker, but at least the R party was open enough to nominate an outsider in 2016. The D bylaws made it impossible for Bernie Sanders to have a hope, to say nothing of the evil smears Tulsi Gabbard endured.
We are seeing the living proof of what Antonio Gramsci called "cultural hegemony," with elites in power creating both the partisan political party divide and the white-black, male-female, hetero-homo, cis-trans divides in order to maintain their rule. Critical Theory is correct, but CRT miss-identifies the oppressors as "white" vs "POC" victims when in reality the only oppressors are the elites (of all races, sexes and genders) who victimize the 99%. The devotees of CRT fail to see it, but a higher percentage of minorities and women voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016, so there's some hope. (Though I still will not vote for him in 2024 because he has crossed my red lines into evil.)
As an example, this video explains how two black members of the Harvard elite, who were themselves born with silver spoons in their mouths, worked to defend the self-destructive, infantilizing CRT narrative at the expense of another black professor who truly was disadvantaged as a kid and raised in poverty. I believe the murder discussed is figurative, as I searched the web for Roland Fryer and believe he is very much alive, but his career at Harvard certainly was "killed": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8xWOlk3WIw
Cooper made his points about the Regime well, and I incorporated them, so we agree.
It’s odd, at least to me, for a centrist, independent voter, to judge the American experiment as a failure. What standard guides you in your how you rate a country the size of ours? Just curious to understand whether you are m assuring success or failure based on a benchmark existing outside of reality, or, if you are actually comparing America to any or all of the 200+ recognized countries around the globe. It seems to me you’re the victim of Leftist, anti-American propaganda.
I have had my priveleges reinstated on Quora. It was only 2 weeks.
\\][//
So you again feel complete? It would be dishonorable not to have been banned from social media.
Once you ge banned or walk away from a social media platform, you realize pretty quickly that you don't need it.
Well Swm, I was only back on Quora for one day, and I was banned permanently. I went right back to my 'dirty dissident commentary',and the very next day I was whacked! I knew I was not long for Quora. Two weeks before I was suspended I started my own blog on Wordpress. and I am now writing for Substack.
These are all "social media" It is just some social media is ripe for censorship...it is the ones that have faceless moderators ruling over the participants...ala Quora, Tweeter, & YouTube. I was bnned by YouTube more that 3 years ago. I can watch videos, but I cannot comment, or vote. YouTube is practically useless now with all the commercials you have to endure before the video shows that you want to see. BitChute is the best alternative. They have plenty of dissident content that YouTube banned.
https://thedissedent.page/blog/
https://williamwhitten.substack.com/p/dystopia-nears/
\\][//
The Democrats are too corrupted to ever be a viable party, as least to me; I will never again vote for a Democrat.
Amen from a lifelong D leaner.
While I agree with that position after Obama's betrayal of everything he ran on, does it mean you're open to voting Republican? That would be a mistake.
I left the Democrat Party in 2008 : ) happily so...never looked back, enjoy my crowd lots...
Shit, I'm much the same... I'd opt for the dirty politics we had before 2016 over this crap any day. I'd take "pretty dirty" and :mostly corrupt" over an overt display of absolute control over the world's richest country on the eve of our own environmental destruction any day.
Speaking of which... does anyone really believe that the same people would truly go to bat for climate change, pollution and environmental concerns if they treat populism in this way?
I don't.
I think we're all fucked and these cunts are driving the bus off the cliff.
When I hear people say “it doesn’t matter who’s in control because both parties” are corrupt it compels me to respond there are degrees of corruption. In my opinion, the Democratic Party has crossed a line from dirty tricks to something well beyond politics as usual. We are in dangerous times that will test us all to determine whether what the Founders created almost 240 years ago will continue to exist in the future. They created a Republic, can we keep it? In my opinion, if the Democrat Party-aligned Establishment is not defeated, and then destroyed, our Republic’s best days are behind us.
Agreed, the DNC-Clinton-corporate democrats are the worst criminals, but remember, they have the protection of our dark intel agencies...lawless.
Let's not forget way back in late 1980's it was the republican model (money grift & corporate worship) that the democrats were all too happy to adopt.
The 2-party ping-pong match got us here today. The Georgia audit going on reminds me that Tammany Hall is alive & well. But oligarchs merely have to switch funds to a red campaign using some of Trumps psychology to fool us for another 8 yrs.
A Public MANDATE/REFERRENDUM for a completely independent election Commission OUTSIDE of gov't , 1 that investigates & recommends to the PUBLIC what must be done to return democratic process to our voting apparratus (now in the 2-party-grip) could be where WE, The PEOPLE, start.
Let's review the countless "investigations" that changed NOTHING over these last 5 yrs. "Investigation" is the new psy-op to 'PROTECT" the system.
The people in democracy should be able to investigate manlfeasance & corruption where-ever they see fit..agree IS tainted. The ability to reform our political system must begin OUTSIDE of it..
While I'm no Constitutional scholar, I am not aware of a mechanism or a process exists allowing individual citizens to call for a referendum. So, unless "working for change outside of the system" means overthrow, then the best we can work for is routing the Dems, in 2022 mid-terms and again in 2024.
Replacing the Democrats with Republicans is a foolish move.
Yes, absolutely route the Democrats, but don't think the Republicans are going to be the "good guys".
Well, if citizens got behind 1 issue and organized with experts in election systems, we could "demand" a referrendum on a national election reform investigation paid for by our government.
Just because its never been done before, doesn't mean turning over our power over to the very problem.
“Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient allover the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.”
― Howard Zinn
Today, local news channel started running psa announcement on "What to do in case of nuclear attack". Is Joe Biden et al planning to declare war on Russia as an "October Surprise", and use that as an excuse to cancel the midterms? I wouldn't put it past them.
Even worse, they put the Tesla on auto-pilot, so they can sniff each others farts while they talk about privilege.
The comical thing about ALL of this is that it's caused by a stupid push for "more democratic" primaries. If the parties simply controlled the nominations the way they used to, and had never opened them up, the threats from outside "The Regime" from Trump and Sanders couldn't happen in the first place. Remember, Trump wasn't a GOP member and Sanders still isn't a Democrat.
I preferred the stability of the parties' overt control over their nominations as a way to control who got elected to the basely corrupt practices and illegal actions from bureaucrats to maintain the same control they gave up.
Maybe you're not seeing the new definition of "more democratic": (I empathize. it's hard for me to keep up.) New-Democracy is a system where votes are generated as easily as US dollars. Not voters -- but votes. To add maximum froth, the votes come from:
(1) NPCs herded into voting booths by schoolmarms waving their fingers, a la: Big Mother: "Did you vote yet?" Voter: "Um, no, I don't know most of the races and the candidates..." Big Mother: "Enough of your dithering!! Now, you march right in there and pull a lever for *every* race, just as your gut [i.e. your subconsciously ad/MSM-brainwashed mind] tells you!!"; or...
(2) well, anywhere else they can be conjured up and inserted into the electronic counting system. Real, live, legality, or legal competency in voters -- none of these things matter. So I'm sure you can be creative and find a couple dozen vectors for voting system compromise, from software development at the voting machine manufacturer to the non-public counting.
Now you know why Democrats are going nuts in Texas trying to whip up maximum hysteria against Republicans trying to keep track of voters. You know, "voters" with an "r". Voters, and their discussion of the issues, equal sides, access to candidates, you say? That's all so second millenium. Time to move on!
Ha. Only two comments to that - one, "NPCs" love it lol!
two, you are right they will conjure them up and to supplement that they create them out of felons and fake refugees, who all will have the actual vote soon enough
Don’t forget that many Trump voters also witnessed what the DNC and the Clinton machine did to Bernie Sanders.
The Democrats are corrupt through and through. And now they are trying to deep-six the Durham investigation. This is just appalling.
Durham is doing that himself. He and Bill Barr still believe in justice and whatever else used to pass for fairness, impartiality, etc. Don't expect anything from Durham except more not guiltys.
One of the easiest examples of bias is the fact that Melania, a very beautiful lady got no magazine covers and late night TV hosts kept making fun of her accent while both Michelle and Jill Biden are getting magazine covers. How more obvious can it be?
"Vogue kept supermodel Melania Trump off of their covers because of her husband & put Jill Biden on because of her husband. Remember ladies- your husband determines your worth in this new Leftist world!" - Ashley St. Clair
I saw that 'plain jane' -- totally absurd.
At least she is not a gorilla like one first lady.
It's refreshing to hear someone coming from the Left side of the aisle admit that these very damaging political shenanigans *are* going on and that there is a real and fundamental danger to the American Republic as a result. I was beginning to think that everyone on the Left (minus the paid trolls, who are evil) was either fundamentally deaf, dumb and blind or just inherently, incredibly dishonest- or both.
No. Like Darryl points out in his essay, the Regime isn't partisan and they would have taken the opposite side if it had been a Tulsi Gabbard vs. Jeb Bush race. People on the left who are paying attention and willing to speak out, like Greenwald and Taibbi, are now being perceived as conservatives and attacked by the Regime's propaganda outlets. They are not really conservative in principle, they are still pretty liberal, they are just not on the side of the scary authoritarian power-elite. The fact is that the authoritarian elites rely on most people being sheep, and unfortunately, they are.
Sadly it is not just the propaganda outlets. I have plenty of leftists as friends and they all take the pure party line on every issue.
Yes, this is the most troubling for me. Pre-Trump, for the most part, and I was just out of college then and very much enamored with the Amy Goodman™️ view of the world, politics was still very much about good natured debate. It was never serious enough to never speak again, to smear your ideological opponents out of jobs, reputations, financial stability...But this, times are brutal now. I’ve been called a “stupid, anti-vaxxer, racist, Trump supporter” by my own father (who voted for Bush twice and is a war hawk by any standard) because I pointed out that both “sides” are pretty much in it for the same reasons. I mean, these people are all at the same cocktail parties. It’s wild. I have lost some people I considered very close friends, some of over many decades.
Likewise. I've always thought I was measured and fair-minded, but I'm not going to be friends with people who build straw men so they can knock them down, or who want to take some leftist caricature of a "Trump supporter" and paste it onto me because I'm not in lock-step with the elitist authoritarian political agenda.
It's frustrating to try to have a conversation with people who don't think for themselves but just spew talking points at you. Also, I'm sure it doesn't help that part of the CIA counter-intelligence playbook is to troll social media and drop a confrontational comment here and there to make sure that people don't start working together to get rid of them.
It's all pretty frustrating. I find myself more and more agreeing with Churchill's observation that "the greatest argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter".
Well, here's your chance. See my in-depth comment above. As for people who just spew talking points -- I wrote "Mentality of a Mob" for people just like that: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/mentality-of-a-mob/
Nice, I liked your commentary there.
\\][//
Unfortunately, I know a lot of people on the right who are the same way.
Yeah it's a real problem. Civil war is getting harder to avoid.
A civil war is getting more and more likely due to the madness of the Biden regime. It was the Democrat slaveholders who started the first Civil War, and it looks like they are on track to start a another. If the Biden regime toadies actually believe the US miliatary rank and file will side with the traitorous Democrats they are delusional.
They swore an oath to defend the Constitution, not some constitution defiling regime.
\\][//
"Civil war" would imply that it's grassroots and organic -this is not. This all smacks of every dirty trick the pentagon has employed since its conception to topple governments all around the world so that the rich who fund them can get richer.
Nothing more.
To wit: the ACTUAL civil war that "ended slavery" was nothing more than rich mill owners forcing the rich agrarian land owners to open slavery up to ALL races. People died for that shit.
How truly fucked.
Funny thing a lot of the gun owner and veteran crowd who would be the ones most likely to fight a civil war cannot stand the party cheerleaders. They see them as shameless, unthinking, bootlickers.
The form will probably take a multitude of regional blood lettings similar to the Hutus and Tootsies of a while back.
I go into great detail about that in my blog series. I put the 2-part finale below (and my in-depth comment above explains some of this):
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/07/02/two-sides-of-the-same-counterfeit-coin-part-12-a/
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/07/10/two-sides-of-the-same-counterfeit-coin-part-12-b/
I still remember when the Regime pretended to give a shit about Middle America just to send its boys to fight overseas and then told them to go fuck themselves when they started to become disillusioned.
"No. Like Darren points out in his essay, the Regime isn't partisan"--Scuba Cat
And that is where Darren is totally off base. The "Regime" like all mainstream concerns is Neo-Marxist. That is why the election fraud describied by Molly Ball, who Barren quotes constantly yet never mentions or cites, rigged the 2020 presidential ellection to instal the corporatist oligarcchs meat-pupped Joe Biden.
I have transcribed Molly Ball's TIME Magazine article of feb 4, 2021 plus added proofs at thie link::
https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/01/2020-presidential-election-fraud/
\\][//
Link doesn't work
Parden my typos above. I am in a rush...many things need my attention...
\\][//
Well Mr. Walle,
I am not talking about classical Marxism.
Neo-Marxism is a Marxist school of thought encompassing 20th-century approaches that amend or extend Marxism and Marxist theory, typically by incorporating elements from other intellectual traditions such as critical theory, psychoanalysis, or existentialism (in the case of Jean-Paul Sartre).
So my main interest in Neo-Marxism is how it developed from the Frankfurt School's 'critical theory" ideology, and how that has further evolved into 'critical race theory. Which by the way is now infecting the US military under the Biden regime.
General Milley, critical race theory and why GOP's 'woke ...
https://www.nbcnews.com › think › opinion › general-...
Jun 28, 2021 — General Milley, critical race theory (CRT) and why GOP's 'woke' military concerns miss the mark.
General Milley, critical race theory and why GOP's 'woke' military concerns miss the mark
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/general-milley-critical-race-theory-why-gop-s-woke-military-ncna1272558
Also see;
https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/06/critical-race-theory-woke-agenda/
\\][//
"Yikes", very clever! You have a great vocabulary! I had to look that up...I still have no idea of what you mean by it.
\\][//
Thanks for mentioning Steven Hicks, I am listening to a coversation on YouTube with Brad Harris and Hicks.
Perhaps Hick is over your head.
\\][//
"I don't know how you put this back together."
JOE BIDEN & the DNC & the MSM liberal media & the intelligence agencies & gov't don't want it 'put back together'; They are to destroy the country and our society as we knew it.
They want to continue morphing America into an empire with an inherited oligarchy and to eventually make average Joe accept it as reality. The same place every country eventually gets to, except this one has the military might to dominate most of the world.
"Continue morphing" -that's funny... so you're saying to "continue the system of rampant grift that's always prevailed"?
To a large extent that's true, but at least they used to try to hide it. And the oligarchs used to at least pretend to be part of the country (sending their sons to serve in the military, etc), not above it.
Exactly. "It has always been thus". If not "always", for far longer than my lifetime, and I'm far from young. While it's somewhat personally gratifying to see that some people today have begun to perceive the domestic big lie, and to try to distinguish puppeteers from puppets, it doesn't really offer much promise of change. As long as a majority of even those who are conscious of their marginalization believes that this is a relatively recent phenomenon, and/or one that can be corrected as soon as "their" guy is elected, or "their" side regains a majority, the situation will remain hopeless, and the unconcealed, unapologetic, brazen usurpation of individual liberty will continue unchecked and unabated. Same is true of those from both sides of the left/right divide who naively believe that this rampant abuse of authority is confined to electoral politics, and does not extend to COVID, climate change, and pretty much any other issue that commonly appears in Google News headlines. Not that there is never any truth in any of the assertions in those articles: effective propaganda requires a bit of that to appear credible, but it is merely a thin layer of pulverized fact sprinkled over a dump truck filled with manure.
While I’m not placing you, necessarily, in the Trump Derangement Syndrome column, you seem to be hinged. Yet, you certainly display vestiges of an irrational dislike of a man you have no way of really knowing. How much of your negative opinions of about Donald Trump do you attribute to non-stop unhinged propaganda created by the Establishment? In 2015 and 2016, many voters, especially those of us who were determined to block Hilary Clinton, rightfully so, from the Presidency, were reluctant and nervous about supporting such an odd character. However, by 2018, 2019, and into 2020, any objective observer could clearly see Trump was not a Russian asset, certainly not mentally feeble, corrupt, nor did he start a war. By most every metric Trump was achieving most of what he set out to do. I must ask you, why you continue to hold, a seemingly irrational dislike, for a man who was unjustly, unfairly, and possibly illegally, pilloried by nearly all of our country’s institutions? Do you think your unwillingness to set aside personality based opposition to Trump stemmed from social pressure to hate the Orange Man?
Some of this is personal willingness to believe this stuff, but some of it is social media's effect. Remember, groups of people out there have started to believe flat earth based on how good social media AI algorithms are at feeding them bad information.
I mention not to say that the situation is OK, just to give clues to how we as a society fix it. We have to wean our society off of emotionally manipulative reaction-based platforms and back to longer time digestion of information and reasoned, slower thinking.
Whoa this is my first time being accused with (possibly) TDS. I didn’t vote for Biden and consider the left far worse (now). In my life I’ve seen the right be the worse than the left though, I certainly believe George W was the worst president of my life (Biden might beat him though). Trumps personality does bother me but I’m able to forgive that pretty easily compared to what I see other politicians doing (certainly to any pro war president). I don’t believe he achieved all he set out to do. I thought he had terrible appointment after appointment (Brennan most of all). I think far too often he easily played the villain in such a manner that easily played into the left and corporate journalists hands. I would could see myself much more amenable to a more competent Trump, but the question is do we believe it’s possible for another outsider like Trump and if not then where does that leave us?
(Typed from my phone so expect worse spelling and grammar).
Establishment Republicans were highly discouraged from providing any support to the Trump administration and the fake Russia Collusion witch-hunt, where the "walls were closing in" for 2 long years. Explicit as well as implicit, threats and warnings were made discouraging Republicans from working for Trump. Leftist, establishment Democrats, and RINOs were desperate to first prevent, and then to remove, the first successful outsider to win the presidency from fully exercising his executive power while you, and people like you, stood by and allowed the corrupt and incompetent hegemony to run roughshod over nearly half of the country. Hating Trump's so-called "mean" tweets and falling for the "Orange Man Bad" trope were always weak excuses, in my view anyway. In 2016 Trump was the only person who could even come close to blocking Hillary Clinton from becoming POTUS. In 2020, if the Democrats weren't successful changing voting rules, especially in key states like my own, Trump would have beat the corrupt and feeble-minded Biden. Changing rules in middle of a contest is cheating!
Just look at Mitch McConnell. Was great on judges. Now won't lay out a Republican platform for the Senate candidates, refuses support to Trump backed candidates.
Did you even read my response? It seems like you just have a pre-programmed response to anyone who disagrees with you about Trump. You suggest I stood by. I wonder what you did. Did you vote for Trump? Does that mean you thought the elections were fair? I find it amazing someone can make such a strong accusation to someone they don't know outside of a couple of paragraphs. Amazing.
I already said I could easily look past his tweets as I consider many things other presidents do to be far worse (especially in the arena of war). I could even make a case that trolling can be very effective and if Trump did one thing well it was trolling.
You might just have to be willing to concede that others just don't agree with you on how effective Trump was. You could believe that he just had everything against him so nothing was his fault OR you could conclude that he got played. That his rhetoric played perfectly in the hands of the "Regime" and they were able to consolidate immense power as a result and we are all worse off for it.
I'll give Trump some credit though. He opened a lot of eyes to how the world is. It used to be that the power centers within this country could happily exist in the background and he forced them to show their hand. This could have good or negative consequences but binary thinking isn't the answer so stop demanding it of others, especially others you don't know (seriously have you ever convinced anyone using this tactic?)
"consequences but binary thinking isn't the answer so stop demanding it of others,"--CTE
You use the term "binary thinking" as though it were a magic talisman that makes your spurious rhetorical sophistry turn into profound utterances of universal truths.
Binary thinking in reality means the ability to tell the distinction between good and bad behavior. Knowing that a woman is capable of being a mother and not a "birthing person".
It includes the simple ability to tell up from down, pain from pleasure. the difference between love and hate. The difference between the floor from the ceiling, the open wound from the healing. Off from on.
The world is a study in metaphor and distinction: Thus is this because That is not.
The gray scales matter as well, but they are transitions between two extremes which must first be acknowledged.
Perhaps you should study epistemology and get your own thoughts in order.
\\][//
Thank you.
Speaking of sophistry that was a lot of words to say “you are wrong”, without actually saying anything. Certainly not arguing anything.
I take back my argument. Binary thinking is the answer! Otherwise how will I know the difference between up and down!?
Honestly we might agree on a lot of stuff but I’m guessing you are too busy talking to yourself ever find out.
Same.
I consider myself on the extreme left, actually left-libertarian. I've voted mostly for Democrat candidates for state legislatures and Congress, though I did "jump" the akin to sparkplug "gap" and run for state representative as a Libertarian in 1982, then jumped back in the 1990s when I saw the results of right-libertarian thinking and their inability to recognize corporations as creatures of the State.
I've long been skeptical of the corporate media due to all Darryl has mentioned and more, but I am now totally done with the Democratic Party, which is beyond any possibility of reform. It must be totally destroyed, and I will vote for no Democrats. Evil is an absolute that has no lesser or greater, but the Democrat's willingness to destroy the country with a fake pandemic and violent riots just to hang onto power take evil to an entirely new level. Even the "Squad" is corrupted. I will vote for no Republican who has done evil, but I will vote for no Democrats whatsoever.
Darryl is correct about opportunity, but it will take years for extreme right and extreme left to understand what they have in common. The best we can hope for in the meantime is the election of multiple 3rd party delegations as occurred in the early 1850s. In 1856, Republicans were the 5th largest delegation to Congress, which elected a Know-Nothing Speaker of the House. It doesn't matter whether you vote for a Libertarian, Green, People's Party or Constitution Party candidate, as long as the Democrats go the way of the Whigs.
"I don't know how you put this back together" . . . I do.
"I've noticed there has been a mass shift on the right, they are seeing the world as it is and what forces are at play."
No, they're not -- and if you really wanna understand that, then read on.
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/07/02/two-sides-of-the-same-counterfeit-coin-part-12-a/
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/07/10/two-sides-of-the-same-counterfeit-coin-part-12-b/
Awesome. What convinced me was the obliteration of Parler by a conspiracy consisting of Amazon, Twitter and FB. This, even though the Jan 6 protesters did not even use Parler, but rather Twitter Instagram and FB, to “coordinate” their activities. Like the censorship of Biden’s laptop and its evidence of Joe and Hunter’s corruption, there was simply no excuse for it. It was simply an exercise in raw power.
This has made me look and write daily about censorship over the centuries. Our times are just like old times. Nothing changes except who is in charge gets to censor. And of course the thing carrier getting censored (stone tablets, manuscripts, magazines, web platforms). So much of the early 19th c, was dissident groups trying to get a printing press..(Dostoyevsky's Demons' "revolutionary" circle, for example).
I've learned a great deal by following your Substack. Thank you for the work you have put in.
You made my day!
I subscribed to your substack posts.
And like the public library-free. but have a day job.
I joined your Substack today and was reminded of FDR's "Department of Censorship"...
Those pesky Democrats are up to the same nonsense today, but on the huge scale of partnering with "Big Tech" to create a more stealthy department of censorship.
Cass Sunstein,was top Obama adviser on regulations,
White House regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, an intellectual mentor to President Obama whose skeptical approach to rule-making frustated the president’s liberal allies.
Sunstein became infamouse for his controversial publication 'Conspiracy Theories' with coauthor, Adrian Vermeule.
In that book Sunstein advised that the government must become proactive in countering dangerous and inacurate "conspiracy theoris" by infiltrating web forums with covert agents who would create "cognitive dissonance' in the forums by a set of techniques detailed in his manual.
There was such a backlash from those who cherish free speech, that at one point he was confronted by journalist who wanted him to defend his "fascitic views" -- Suntein was caught on video saying he had never written any such book about conspiracy thoeries. that the journalist must have him confused with someone else!!
_____________________________________________
Conspiracy Theories
Cass R. SunsteinFollow
Adrian VermeuleFollow
Publication Date
2008
Abstract
Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a “crippled epistemology,” in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics/119/
\\][//
GoToMeeting and Signal as well. They would have to shut down nearly every unified communications and social media service to expunge the baddies. You have to know that Twitter was tickled pink with that result.
Exactly Mr. Hohn:
HUNTER BIDEN’S LAPTOP
Although President Joe Biden has been known to angrily confront reporters for what he considers overly harsh questions, the legacy media have taken it remarkably easy on the president and his family. While the media have circled hungrily around every potential charge facing Allen Weisselberg and remain focused on the Trump family, they have ignored multiple scandals facing Joe Biden, his son, and his brother. Here are just a few:
1. Joe Biden reportedly met with Hunter Biden’s business partners.
Emails and photographs retrieved from Hunter Biden’s laptop appear to show that then-Vice President Joe Biden met repeatedly with his son’s business associates, raising issues of influence peddling.
A photograph shows the then-sitting vice president meeting with Hunter and two business associates, Carlos Slim and Jeff Cooper, on November 19, 2015. The New York Post’s Miranda Divine reports that Hunter had spent much of that year pursuing Slim to invest in a number of business options, including Cooper’s online gambling platform, Ocho Gaming.
https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/05/hunter-bidens-laptop/
\\][//
Does C.Slim still own a chunk of the NYTimes?
No Kathleen, Carlos Slim has sold his stock in the NY TIMES in 2018.
\\][//
Thx, you saved me a google.
I have no idea why my commen posted twice...??????
\\][//
"Look! The REICHSTAG IS BURNING!!!! KILL THE COMMUNISTS!" -unnamed German official, c. 1933
Thanks for this. The only thing that I would add is that based on my perspective, I actually saw the election being stolen in real time. Election night started very much like 2016 with Florida and Ohio getting called for Trump relatively easily. Then Texas comfortably. History says there isn't much of a path to the White House that doesn't include either Florida or Ohio. He was also up by half a million votes or something like that in Pennsylvania. But not yet called. That looks pretty much like game over. At that very moment, a questionable call of Arizona for Biden, and then as you state, the four critical swing states must stop counting. That is third world election-type sh*t. How are all the votes counted in Florida and Ohio an hour after the polls close, but "it might be days" before they get counted in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia?
But political junkie that I am, I'm still awake at 3-4 in the morning, watching to see what happens. All of the sudden, 100k 100% Biden vote "drops" just popping up in every swing state. Again, pure Third World-type sh*t. Boxes of ballots just dropped off and/or pulled out in the middle of the night, in Democrat-controlled big cities. It's not a "conspiracy"; I saw it happen in real time. Maybe those were "legal" ballots filled out by campaign workers on behalf of real voters, according to the "COVID" rules, but that's not how we understand a true democracy to work anywhere in the world. You are responsible for voting in your own name, as an individual, in a secret ballot. If voting comes down to which political party can manipulate the rules to allow them to "harvest" votes that they wouldn't otherwise have gotten, it's over. We're now something else, not a democratic republic.
Democrats being against voter id clearly tells me they enjoy cheating. It's like opposing ID for buying cigarettes or booze and then claiming no underage kid ever bought a cigarette or booze. Monmouth University released a poll on early voting and voter ID. The poll found the majority of Americans support voter ID, and more minorities support voter ID than white people. Question 31 on page 7: 84% of minorities. & 77% of white people support voter ID. Yet Democrats keep claiming voter id is somehow racist:
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_062121.pdf/
I can present hundreds of examples but I don't think it's worth it because nobody's mind will change. I like how everyone agrees Bernie got cheated out twice, DNC using the IOWA "app" to cheat again and somehow the general election was perfectly cool. I will give a few examples for the audience here:
I am sure these types of vote counts where a candidate make vertical jumps in multiple states after vote counting has stopped and at 4am when Republican observers have been sent home is totally cool:
https://archive.vn/Lqji8/a840d17932a735d5648722b6907eec28b4ce75bb.webp
Wisconsin:
https://archive.vn/Lqji8/8992469bd89042e7d89485ebbd3a104a59f37be2.webp
I am sure the 6000 votes which was exposed to have been switched from Trump to Biden in Antrim County and similarly in GA - all mistakes in one direction - was totally cool:
https://www.westernjournal.com/michigan-recount-confirms-trump-won-county-went-biden/
The typical excuses I hear when I point out how Biden won as "the most popular president with 12 million more votes than Obama" and yet couldn't get 10 people at his rallies is "Because Biden voters believe in science and didn't want to go out during a pandemic" to which I reply with "Then why did his YouTube videos and live streams also not get any views and got ratioed to the point where YouTube has to actively remove dislikes?
White House Youtube Dislike Manipulation:
https://phzoe.com/2021/01/27/white-house-youtube-dislike-manipulation/
Someone built a tracker for the likes/dislikes on Biden's White House:
https://81m.org
https://rumble.com/vdcuql-130k-dislikes-removed-from-white-house-youtube-channel-in-24-hours.html
130 Thousand dislikes were removed in a 24hr period! And this is for the most popular US President of all time!
Another response is "Trump's personality cost him the election" to which I reply with "Trump has a in party approval of 95% - highest EVER" and Republicans gained tons of house seats and even state house and senate seats. So somehow people were voting for republicans but not for Trump despite him having 95% approval? It's the opposite - people voted for Republican house and senate BECAUSE Trump asked them too. It's been shown time and time again that the constituents like Trump, they hate the establishment RINOs. Hence the 95% approval in his party.
Usually first-time mail voters ~3X more likely to spoil ballot. In GA 2016 whopping 6.4% failed, 2020 just 0.2%. In PA, rate 0.03% in 2020 vs ~1% in 2016. Nevada from 1.60% in 2016 to ~0.75% this year. N.C. rate ~2.7% in 2016 to 0.8%. Totally cool.
Biden somehow gets 12 million more votes but only in VERY select few cities - enough to push him over in the entire state. And somehow ends up losing house seats, state house, senate seats. And Trump - who's the first Republican to make major gains in blacks and hispanics, his party makes major gains everywhere from house seats to state senate races loses.
Bellwether Counties Went Overwhelmingly for Trump in 2020. All but one of the 19 bellwethers picked President Donald Trump by a margin of some 16 points on average. They all accurately picked the president since 1980. Before the elections, here's NYTimes claiming:
> "The 10 Bellwether Counties That Show How Trump Is in Serious Trouble. Each one is in a battleground state. Votes from people there will matter a lot — and offer Joe Biden several paths to victory. Conversely, Mr. Trump would likely need to win at least eight of those 10 states for a second term. A look at these bellwethers — all either tossups or leaning toward Mr. Biden — makes clear that Mr. Trump is in serious trouble." NYTimes was claiming Biden will easily win thw bell weathers too.
https://archive.ph/Ezn1d
Once the elections were over and all but one bell weather county that had chosen every presidential winner since 1980 went for President Trump in 2020, suddenly "bellwether counties are not a good way of indicating". HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAA whatever doesn't fit the narrative suddenly becomes unreliable.
I am sure those perfectly coordinated stopping of counting in the 6 states on election night was totally cool.
I am sure the GA "pipe burst" which was widely claimed as the reason for stopping counting at 10:30PM in Fulton and used to send observers home - and then for the black chick and her daughter to pull out a box with ballots and re-scan the same ballots 4 times all on video was all just totally cool. And guess what - that pipe burst story also turned out to be completely false - in fact it didn't even happen that day - it happened the day prior and has nothing to stop counting as exposed by the the FOIA requests:
https://archive.is/2Ara4
https://archive.is/5Liz7
https://archive.vn/m56Gv
https://archive.is/G7KOu
> Fulton County Elections head Richard Barron said Wednesday that the pipe dumped a lot of water, soaking the carpeting and hampering work. “It looked really like there was rain coming out of the ceiling and the entire carpeting was just covered in water,” he said. “There was no way to go in there and perform work.”
In the hearings, the state officials claimed it was a toilet leak which happened at 6am and was fixed by 8am - not at night.
All so well coordinated. Yet these people can't keep their story straight.
I am sure covering up the voting counts with boards in Detroit is totally cool.
I am sure Democrats and RINO republicans absolutely refusing to do a REAL SIGNATURE MATCH audit before certifying must be because everything was cool.
CA Governor recall petition had a signature unmatched of 20%. But for the general election, it's somehow less than 1% everywhere. Totally cool.
I am sure judge dismissing cases claiming Republicans being blocked and put over 20 feet away from counting was totally okay because they were still in same building is totally cool.
42,000 people in Nevada voted more than once, 1,500 dead, 19,000 didn't live in Nevada, 8,000 voted from a non-existent address, 15,000 registered to a commercial address and 4,000 non-citizens.
Please explain why at least 10315 dead voters, 8718 died before they voted, 66,247 underage, 2560 felons, 5300 voting in multiple states, 15700 out of state voters, 40279 voting in wrong county etc in Georgia alone.
I am sure the 3000 signed affidavits under penalty of perjury were all lying. If they were all lying, then why have none of the affidavit signers been prosecuted for lying (the DOJ is clearly very pro prosecuting Trump supporters).
The best is this 2016 BBC article "Vote rigging: How to spot the tell-tale signs". The 2020 US election passes every sign from this article. But it's totally cool. Nothing to see here, move along:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37243190
In key swing states this year, mail-in ballot rejections plummeted from 2016 rates. Rates are below historical average and significantly less than most recent presidential election - despite having massive mail in voting:
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/key-swing-states-year-mail-ballot-rejections-plummeted-2016-rates
All this doesn't even cover the unconstitutional voting law changes and mass mail-in voting using out dated voter rolls without voter ID. Or the censorship aspect.
Cooper covers but a third of your list. Those items are why so many simply refuse to accept that the election was legitimate. The efforts to avoid those issues has led to changes in laws with the hope that the 2022 election will be clean. If it doesn't appear clean expect professional cheating by both parties on a massive scale. Just imagine NY turning red.
And neither really even touch on what we've seen after the election -- the Democrats are acting like people who know they just stole an election. Put up razor wire in the capitol and ban anybody from talking about what we all remember happening. They don't even TRY to answer the questions (likely because they can't)
The latest NYC mayor elections was another disaster. Even the Democrat candidates were asking for audits and recounts. Not even Democrats trust Democrats to operate a fair election.
Yup
Yup, front in front of all of our eyes. Post election polls indicated that at least 5% of Democrats would NOT had voted for Biden had they know about Hunter's laptop, the graft, corruption, sex & drugs photos, etc....only for Joe Biden to say he had never 'talk to Hunter about business" #LIAR.
Nicely put. We saw much the same thing as the election unfolded. Cooper has captured much of our concern. Took awhile to get to read your comment, given Substack's awful threading requires me to bypass an entire block of useless debate over liberal/conservative nonsense. The scale of the issue was presented in that Time article showing the scope of activity. I'm stunned by the amount of money devoted to the effort which makes me wonder about foreign influence and how that could happen. There are uncountable way to wash money into elections well beyond simple campaign contributions. Knowing that the tech world is so flush with cash they can finance anything they wish. So my doubts persist, not at all reduced by being repeatedly told it's untrue.
If the left cared one bit for helping the poor and middle class they never would have voted for Biden, the senator from the credit card industry or Kamala the prosecutor who laughed about putting men in prison for marijuana use. They care about power.
Good point. The only thing I would add is that what you are describing is more the establishment than right or left.
Endless war, the credit card industry, mass incarceration and mass surveillance was best represented by the left in this last election, but all these things have broad bi-partisan support.
If you don't think there were people on the right just as happy to see Biden win as people on the left you are kidding yourself. To the extent this election was stolen, it was truly a bi-partisan affair.
Agree in general, but still think most of the left went for Biden/Harris.
"mass incarceration ... was best represented by the left in this last election" is a real stretch. I'm not sure you should say "left" if you mean "left plus center-left". I doubt that the left was more friendly to the credit card industry than other parts of the political spectrum, unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Joe Biden? Kamala Harris?
Bidn is literally the architect of mass incarceration in America for the past 50 years (with plenty of bi-partisan support) and Harris was a grotesque DA in California with a track record that would have put any Republican DA from the South to shame.
To follow up, Joe Biden ran on giving the cops another $350 million in the face of calls to reduce funding to the police and decided last Covid stimulus money can also be spent on more cops. Then we have the Capital Police.
How is stating the left in this election was a vote for mass incarceration a stretch?
Because Democrats are not the Left, especially not those two. They're right-wingers, corporate puppets. (I'm a Green, so I have no stake in the Democratic Party.) As you documented.
The assumption is that a lot of people on the left, the less dedicated ones, were so desperate to get rid of Trump that they voted Dem. That's likely, but it doesn't mean the left supported their atrocious records.
s
Nothing you said is wrong here, but we were having a different discussion.
We were discussing electoral politics, not the actual policy position of various groups. I argued that while both parties support mass incarceration, that support was best captured by the left in the last election. Randall Rose took this as an opportunity to discuss his definition of the left, but by point was an electoral one. To say that Biden and Kamala Harris are less pro-incarceration that Trump and Pence is not correct. No presidential candidates in US have been more tied to the industrial prison complex than Biden and Harris.
Your last sentence is not true. Harris was a prosecutor, but the same is true of a number of presidential and vice-presidential candidates, such as Mondale, Ferraro, Kerry, B. Clinton, and Lieberman. I already mentioned Mike Pence's and Bob Dole's history of backing mass incarceration (private prisons, in Pence's case). Nixon was a major figure in mass incarceration; so was Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, although technically Rockefeller was never on the ticket. You ignore the evidence I've given of Donald Trump's history of heavily backing mass incarceration. The idea that Biden and Harris are more tied to the prison-incarceration complex than any other presidential or vice-presidential candidate doesn't stand up to scrutiny; it's just something that people who like to repeat anti-Democratic talking points like to hear.
I've repeatedly refuted your attempts to back up your claim, and when the points that you claim as supporting evidence repeatedly turn out to be false, I think it's time for you to take a second look and to consider in a more open-minded way whether, perhaps, some of Nixon, Clinton, Dole, Trump, Pence, and the rest might have had a more substantial role in the prison-industrial complex.
It's a stretch because your support for the claim comes primarily from the personal history of the two candidates on the Dem national ticket, ignoring the Republicans. You mention Harris's history as a prosecutor and ignore Pence's history of supporting prisons, particularly private prisons. It's true that Biden supported the 1994 crime bill, but Trump also supported mass incarceration. In his 2000 book, Trump argued at length, "The problem isn’t that we have too many people locked up. It’s that we don’t have enough criminals locked up." https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/politics/kfile-trump-tough-on-crime-biden-2020/index.html
Also, what you say about Harris and Biden on mass incarceration is their past history, not their current or planned proposals. As far as Biden's current or planned actions go, you only mention his spending $350 million in a Covid relief bill on more police. First of all, supporting more funding for police isn't the same as supporting mass incarceration. Second, Trump backed and signed a Covid relief bill that spent even more money on grants to police, $850 million in Byrne Grants and Byrne Justice Assistance Grants. https://www.police1.com/police-grants/articles/cares-act-and-grant-funding-how-it-will-immediately-benefit-local-police-response-Qh3Njqapo5cu3nax/
Your post makes clear you're relying on one-sided talking points against Biden and Harris, without bothering to check both sides. If you had bothered to look up the easily-located facts I mention, you wouldn't say such slanted things.
I've been pretty clear in my posts that mass incarceration is bi-partisan, but claiming the Republicans are worse on this is probably the weakest argument you could make since Biden always worked with Republicans to achieve these terrible bills. Biden in the original bipartisan candidate on mass incarceration going back to 1972, which is saying something because incarceration was not that popular a goal back in 1972. I suppose if Trump had been in office 48 years we might be able to compare them and perhaps Trump would be as bad, but as it stands Trump did nothing in 4 years that could match the damage Biden did in 48 years of consistent pro-incarceration policies. Again, this is not controversial. Until the riots over police violence last year, Biden always bragged about the role he played in mass incarceration. It was one of his proudest achievements until it wasn't.
his damage goes well beyond and before the terrible Crime Bill, with it's COPS program, emphasis on drug crimes and mandatory minimums, which is by far the most influential piece of mass incarceration legislation ever. I am not a Trump fan, but can you name anything Trump did that lead directly to the incarceration of 2.5 million people a year over the past 26 years? The Crime Bill passed in 1994 and violent crime peaked in 1991, then fell more than 50% over the next 30 years, yet look at this graph of incarceration after continuing to explode based almost entirely on non-violent drug crimes.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=graph+history+of+incarceration+us&iax=images&ia=images&iai=http%3A%2F%2Finthepastlane.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F03%2Fmass-incarceration-graph.png
Biden was also the architect of the Patriot Act and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) that led to the Patriot Act. Is there a single piece of pro-incarceration legislation in the past 50 years that did not have his name on it? The answer is no. Yes, there are plenty of Republicans names too, but despite your argument there names to do remove his.
You claim there is no connection between increased policing and increased incarceration? I don't even know what to do with that statement. It seems obvious to me that more police increases the probability of arrest and being arrested increases the likelihood of prison. Do you know a way to send someone to prison without arresting them?
Here's an explainer of the link between police and incarceration:
https://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2019/01/09/charts-police-vs-prisons-in-the-us-and-europe/
you mention Trump spent $850 on Byrne Grants and that's true, but in addition to his newest proposal for $300 million in direct funding for the police, Biden spent over 2 billion on more policing in the Crime Bill alone and 10's of billions for more police when you add in the Patriot Act, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and all the additional prisons that came with them. not just Trump, but no politician has spent more on incarceration than Biden in history. Here's a pretty good list of what his 48 years of pushing endless police policy and harsher sentences looks like along with the results:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/biden-cops-office-funding-police-history.html
As for Harris, she literally fought to keep an innocent man incarcerated on a technicality when DNA proved he was innocent, did not punish OC prosecutors when they committed Brady violations, did not punish the Oakland PD when they were caught raping a 16 year old, argued that California should not have early release from prison for non-violent crimes because as she said, the State of California needed the free labor. She incarcerated a poor parent for her child not attending school, then laughed about it later at a fund raiser. As DA of SF she enforced drug and prostitution laws against the most marginalized members of society.
https://www.accuracy.org/release/kamala-harris-was-not-a-progressive-prosecutor/
https://reason.com/2019/06/03/kamala-harris-is-a-cop-who-wants-to-be-president/
Yes, Republican prosecutors like Leon Cannizzaro and Harry Connick Sr. in Lousiana are just as bad because evil prosecutors are bi-partisan, but don't pretend like the Kamala Harris who gave us SESTA/FOSTA is great because they are bad. Biden could have picked anyone for VP. That he picked a draconian DA as his VP is the prefect testament to how he spent the previous 48 years in Congress.
You left out that Trump called for the Central Park 5 to be executed, who later turned out to be innocent. Trump and Republicans have been terrible this issue. That does not make Biden and Harris good.
The Democrats did not need to nominate literally their most pro-incarceration candidates. They could have gone with Sanders, or literally any other Democrat other than Bloomberg who was better on this issue. They literally chose their most pro-incarceration candidates. It would be like Republicans nominating Tom Cotton ti end mass incarceration.
I think you are really missing the boat by making this a partisan issue. I think the smart play would be to admit Republicans and Democrats are equally bad, which I would agree with. You are not going to look credible with Biden and Harris at the top of the ticket arguing that Republicans would be worse on mass incarceration.
Some of your research is inaccurate, though I'm glad to see you posting links to DuckDuckGo.
You make some false statements when you write: "Biden was also the architect of the Patriot Act and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) that led to the Patriot Act. Is there a single piece of pro-incarceration legislation in the past 50 years that did not have his name on it? The answer is no."
This is wrong, though you may be influenced by others' false propaganda. On AEDPA (S. 735, 104th Congress), Biden was neither a sponsor nor a cosponsor, although there were cosponsors from both parties. The main sponsor of that bill was Bob Dole. So no, Biden wasn't the bill's architect. The USA PATRIOT Act (HR 3162, 107th Congress) was a House bill introduced by Rep. Sensenbrenner (based on a draft from the Justice Department); after it passed the House, the Senate immediately approved it the next day with no amendments, so Biden wasn't the architect either. The USA PATRIOT Act was partly based on a slightly earlier bill called the USA Act (S. 1510, 107th Congress), where Biden was neither a sponsor nor a cosponsor, even though there were cosponsors from both parties. As for the 1994 Crime Bill, you're right that Biden was the Senate sponsor (S. 1607, 103rd Congress), but the House version of the bill came first (H.R. 3355).
So, several inaccuracies.
--First, you exaggerate Biden's past role in mass incarceration.
--Second, you say that the left were the ones who represented mass incarceration in the 2020 election, conflating the left with the Democratic presidential ticket (which is center-left, not the same as the left). In reality, those who are on the left (not center-left) tend to be less friendly to mass incarceration.
--Third, even as far as the Democratic presidential ticket goes, your view is too much based on their past stances. Many opponents of mass incarceration (voters who are on the left, not the center-left) voted for the Dem ticket because they thought that Biden as president might not be as bad as his previous record, and because they were worried that Trump might incarcerate more immigrants than Biden would (and in less humane ways).
I more or less agree with your point that Republicans and Democrats are equally bad on mass incarceration (though I would prefer to say that the jury is still out until we see where Republicans and Democrats end up). Still, I think candidates on the actual left (not the center-left) tended to be more opposed to mass incarceration than other candidates, and this is also true of left voters. In any case, we agree on most things.
Not really evidence, but an intuition—for a long time I’ve believed that there is one issue-abortion-that is the be-all and end-all for the left. As long as Biden/Harris kept up their pro-choice creds, the left was willing to look the other way on the credit card industry, mass incarceration and of course the Big Kahuna, Wall Street.
I think you're pretty much right about *part* of the left -- so if you're around that part of the left, abortion and related issues could be the main thing for them. But other parts of the left feel differently.
Did you know that Utah was historically all blue, to include Orrin Hatch early in his career? They were party line democratic voters on every issue but one, they were pro-life.
By using that one wedge issue as a litmus test, the democratic party managed to flip the entire state into the redest of the red states.
I'm personally pro-choice, but it's interesting history.
Wikipedia says Hatch first ran for the Senate as a Republican. It was a while ago. My dad was a dem during the Depression, but that was when the Democratic Party had a serious conservative section. When they flipped out under McGovern, he turned Republican. My point is that “historically blue” was somewhat different in the time period you are referencing. Ps. I’m personally pro-life.
Ok, “part” of the left, but it’s a really big part. If the rest of the left feels differently, how has Wall Street turned the DNC into a wholly owned subsidiary? And for the record, Wall St. owns about half the Republicans as well. Awful, but not quite as bad and I vote to rid our party of the Paul Ryans and his ilk every chance I get.
National Review was not even subtle!
Here's a prime example from a recent Joe Rogan podcast. Josh Dubin, a leftist from The Innocence Project who works on getting people free from prison was criticizing Kamala before the elections for putting innocent people in prison and so on. Despite that, he said he would vote for Biden and Kamala because they are "better than whatever was currently in the White House".
Then after elections, during Christmas last year, he got a personal dinner with Trump to advocate for pardoning someone who was serving life in prison for drug related charges. He mocks Trump, how he asked for 2 scoops of ice cream, how he didn't want to clap for Trump when he came for dinner at Maralago. Then after the Jan 6 protests, he thought he had lost all chances of getting the pardon. Despite all this, on his last day in office, Trump remembered to issue the pardon. As the top comment says: "Gotta love these people....an important man invites you to dinner, takes time to listen to your story and treats you with the utmost respect, let's your criminal off with a pardon.. what do you do? Proceed to insult the man who helped you in a public forum."
He wants to fight for the forgotten and oppressed, yet he voted for Kamala Harris. That's the modern left.
Josh Dubin's Dinner with Trump That Led to a Presidential Pardon:
https://youtu.be/KUB9k6-YFEc
Interesting story. Thanks for sharing.
Correction: "Leftist" TPTB did their umpteenth round of "At least we're better than [fill-in-the-blank, e.g. last year's model: "Hitler/Godzilla Trump!!"]" pied-pipering the rank-and-file Leftist voters over the cliff.
Actually, I think it was that she was laughing and bragging about her own marijuana use even as she was putting men in prison for marijuana use.
And that wasn’t the worst. As Attorney General she fought release of an innocent man. Despicable.
Can't forget the locking parents up if their kids are truant . . .
The answer to the question, "Was the election stolen from Trump?" is absolutely maybe. If nothing else - literally nothing else - the collusion between all major media, Big Tech, and the DNC to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story - which was most definitely newsworthy, amounts to one of the most shameful moments in the history of the Fourth Estate. The degree to which the electorate would have shifted if that story had been allowed to come out fully cannot be known. Republicans have every right to be permanently pissed off about it. Cooper nails it.
The problem with election fraud is that it takes so long to prove it out in court that you might as well just accept it, the next administration will be elected before it gets unwound. That means no penalty for stealing elections, and therefore it will continue as it has in the past.
Election fraud will stop only when Republicans get good at it.
Okay. That was funny.
Election fraud claims are a lot like those questionable calls from refs in football that swing the game. If you couldn't win without that one call going your way, you probably didn't deserve to win.
The conclusion drawn is to cheat more than the other side. I don't think that bodes well for our political system.
That’s what Lyndon Johnson after his first defeat for the Senate. He won next election by less tha 200 votes when a box from South Texas showed up several days later. Just more sophisticated nowadays
I don't see it that way. It just means that you have to outplay the refs. You need a better platform, campaign and candidates. If you don't win, do better. Whining is for losers.
What if the refs shut down the game at midnight, then tinker with the scoreboard?
Didn't stop the NFL from going to instant replay.
There were recent surveys which said that 5-10% of the democrat voters wouldn't have voted for Biden if they had known about Hunter Biden stuff before elections.
"They could have managed the shock if it only involved the government. But the behavior of the press is what radicalized them. Trump supporters have more contempt for journalists than they have for any politician or government official, because they feel most betrayed by them."
I had a general disdain for the media prior to the last five years but now seething hatred is more appropriate. Don't even get me started on the intelligence community.
My bumper sticker says "All Media Lies". It's succinct and correct.
Inb4 Brian Stelter doxxes you as a "threat to his reliable sources" and "press freedom"
Except for Glenn of course. Oh, and Taibbi and Maté.
One need not be a conservative to accept that Cooper has accurately described conservative beliefs and their genesis. I am a liberal libertarian who has never been a Republican. I never voted for Trump. I watched the same things happening that Cooper relates, and objected because due process was thrown under the bus.
Denying anyone due process is denying all of us due process. "Because Trump" does not excuse perjury, using government to spy on your political opponents, Brady violations or bankrupting your political opponents for fun and profit. All of these and more occurred. The people doing these things were neither liberals nor conservatives, but authoritarians. Enough, I say. The anarchist-authoritarian movement captured the media, Big Tech, and the Democratic Party. I was inspired to become a liberal Democrat by JFK in 1960. I was inspired to become a liberal libertarian by Nancy Pelosi in 2009.
Well said, but "anarchists?"
The anarchists I know hate Biden and kept rioting after he won. In Portland they burned an effigy of him after the election. You don't have to support them, but they certainly don't align neatly with the democratic party.
Antifa aren't anarchists, they're Communist street thugs straight out the 30s.
Quite a few Antifa are anarchists.
That would make them Stalin's "useful idiots" then. Because that isn't what Antifa is fighting for, afaict.
The phrase "useful idiots" didn't come from Stalin, and researchers who've tried to trace it haven't been able to trace it back to anyone specific on the Leninist side (it's often attributed to Lenin himself but there's no record of Lenin saying it). Socialists nowadays keep saying that it wasn't ever a socialist phrase. Still, it does sound like the way that quite a few Leninists think. My guess is that originally, some minor Leninist perhaps did say something equivalent to "useful idiots" (maybe not phrased exactly that way) and over time this got distorted into the idea that the Soviet leader was talking about using "useful idiots".
I may have had a few more encounters with anarchists than you have. I would say that anarchists are willing to work sometimes with communists against capitalism, at least for now. But anarchists have their own strategy and aims, and they are well aware of the severe dangers of a communist government. I do not expect anarchists in general to get exploited by communists in the long run, even though for now anarchists and communists are sometimes seen working together.
(My own views are different; I think all forms of capitalism and all forms of socialism are bad systems, and I'm not an anarchist either.)
"My own views are different; I think all forms of capitalism and all forms of socialism are bad systems, and I'm not an anarchist either."
You just have to throw a monkey wrench into everything, don't you? 🙂
Some members of antifa call themselves anarchists, but most anarchists do not consider themselves antifa:
I think the less academic and more thoughtful question is not how to label them but how those who protested in Portland over the Summer got there and why. Full disclosure. I protested in Portland last Summer and the storied I hear from most people who weren't there are entirely disconnected from reality. It's one of the problems with making local new national. People who know little about a place come to think they know more than they do.
I don't see the word Antifa in his post, do you?
You are the second person to do this. People are attempting to explain words in this post that are not actually there. Perhaps that is what he meant, but it's not what he said. I'm sure at some point he will circle back and clear up my misunderstanding of his post.
I suppose that's true, but since Antifa are the thugs rioting constantly in Portland, it's a safe assumption. Real anarchists aren't that organized. Sort of by definition.
Organizing anarchists and libertarians is like herding cats. When no one wants to be in charge or everyone thinks they are, you definitely have a problem. They are all parodies of themselves.
It depends on the anarchist community. Anarchists are not defined by an inability to organize so much as a refusal to organize based on the force and violence of state power.
Not everyone protesting in Portland was antifa by a long shot, including myself, but that is a topic for another time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/20/christopher-david-portland-protest-video/
Anarcho-communists is a better description. There are no neat alignments, unfortunately. Communists are, by definition, organized. Organized anarchists are an oxymoron.
Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense.
Not to be the definer of all things anarchist since I'm not one, but there is actually nothing contradictory about anarchists organizing. In fact, it's encouraged for mutual support and safety. They just don't think organizations should be enforced by state violence. It's not all that different than the way US cities were organized until the rise of a standing police force in the mid 1800's.
I don't find their view realistic, but I do find it admirable. Their failure to me is their inability to acknowledge the human drive to censor, punish and control marginalized groups who fail to conform to what the majority wants. That human urge is stronger than even sex. A world where one group of people with power don't use their position to violently punish people who are not part of their group is not realistic, especially in a deeply puritanical authoritarian country like the US. It's the the Bill of Rights never had a fighting chance.
My vocabulary is necessarily limited and my understanding of philosophy in general and specific philosophies in particular is minimal. What I'm attempting to describe with the word anarchist is one possessed of what Dr. Nathan Adler referred to as an antinomian personality type. It emerges during periods of conflict about the value of shared principles, including the social contract, according to Adler. His description in Psychiatry, Volume 31, Issue 4 in 1968 fairly well matches what we're seeing in the streets.
I agree about the human drive to to censor, punish and control marginalized groups; more fundamentally I have found there to be an even stronger drive to be superior to some other group. Throughout history it has been Jews, homosexuals, smokers, the obese, blacks, and now heterosexual white males. I don't know how to treat this drive; it can be diverted, but extinguishing it is a far more difficult undertaking. When a group with an unquenchable thirst for dominance, expressed as censorship, punishment and control gains power, it carries with itself the seeds of its own destruction.
I suppose this is as good a time as any to tell you how much I enjoy your thoughtful posts here. I don't always agree, but they are always accessible, reasonable, well stated and not reactionary. I'm often worried to ask people questions like "What do you mean by anarchist here" out of fear it will be seen as a challenge, which it's not and I appreciate that you took it in the spirit it was intended.
In the end, if I'm interested enough to ask someone a question it's because I value their thought process behind it behind their statement.
Adler. His description in Psychiatry, Volume 31, Issue 4 in 1968. I will need to look one up. Thank you for the reference.
There's no secret involved; I'm not a partisan. I was inspired by JFK to become a liberal Democrat in 1960, In 2009 I was inspired to become a liberal independent, finally realizing that I was a small l libertarian. I don't have to defend or attack any party's position.
I tend to go after Democrats more than Republicans because I'm a former Democrat. Look at discussions about smoking. The people toughest on smokers are ex-smokers. I'm an ex-Democrat.
Anarchy isn't anarchism. One's burning buildings and shit. The other is rule by collectivism without any institutional regime (the one Daryl talks about here) in charge. The latter would be a welcome change to our current political system. The former was what we had last summer. Which no one but the ruling class wants.
You're right, but he used the term "anarchist-authoritarian," not anarchy.
The only interpretation I can think of is conflating anarchism with authoritarianism, which makes little sense.
yeah I hate the label stuff. I wanna a rule by the people enabled by distributed internet and block chain that no one has control over. everyone gets a say. no power structures. no corp voices. I also want a unicorn cause fuck it I'm saying fantastical shit that will never happen.
Well said.
Bill Heath is a thoughtful poster. Thoughtful enough that I was curious what he meant here. Not a challenge, just curiosity.
I've talked a little with anarchists, and have some sympathy with their views. I do think there's a bit of an authoritarian streak in some (not all) anarchists, whether they recognize it or not.
It might be more than a little. Feudalism comes to mind as well.
That I'm not seeing. What, in contemporary anarchism, would correspond to fealty in feudalism?
I intentionally avoided providing a definition of anarchism here because this is a poor format for complex political theory, but Rousseau's general will is more a reflection of American Liberatarianism than Anarchism.
The central tenant of Rousseau's general will was that cooperation was motivated by universal love. This idea of human nature as fundamentally good is the opposite of anarchism, which is exactly why they are reluctant to give some people guns with a monopoly on violence over others. For many anarchists authority is defined by more than a monopoly on state violence.
Not only do anarchists not believe in universal love as a motivator, they believe absolute power corrupts absolutely. See French Revolution for Rousseau in practice. Peter Kropotkin's "Universal Aid" provides a better definition of anarchism.
Also, in your comment:
"anarchists - (or anyone who has done a little reading on the subject) are generally anti-authoritarian and anti-hierarchical, and basically voluntary association is the organizing principle."
Your "generally" is carrying an awful lot of water here. There are plenty of anarchists that think both hierarchy and authority are natural result of human society that cannot be avoided, but simply don't believe they should be enforced by state violence. They explain this by making a distinction between government (which they support) and the state (which they don't support).
Here's a useful definition for you:
https://blackrosefed.org/difference-between-libertarianism-and-anarchism/
"As anarchist thinker Peter Kropotkin pointed out, there is a distinction between the state and government. Government consists of the institutions of governance which would be making rules, adjudicating disputes, and social self-defense. A state, on the other hand, is a top down bureaucratic apparatus with command over military & police forces, separate from real control by the mass of the people."
To me, the media's glib and completely corrupt abdication of its fundamental role is captured in a single headline from the once mighty CBS News:
"Trump pushes baseless voter fraud claims at Georgia rally."
When did rank editorializing and conclusion-drawing (in the fucking headline no less) become part of journalism? EVERY major media outlet covering the 202 election did the SAME thing. It comes down to syntax and it's why people are pissed and distrustful.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-rally-georgia-senate-election-false-voter-fraud-claims/
The words "baseless", "debunked", "unsubstantiated", etc. as adjectives in any news report ensures the report is biased.
Yep, and Huffington Post is probably the most blatant. Corporate media doesn’t even pretend to try anymore…they have all become Fox News for their own pet causes.
Actually Needham FOX News is so popular, especially Tucker Carlson, because the corporate media has been disingenuous prevaricators for their enire existance.
Look up Operation Mockingbird.
\\][//
Errr…Fox News…IS corporate media.
FOX News is alternative media, the legacy media is "corporatist Media"
\\][//
Geeze, you and Whoopi Goldberg should get together; she says that Roman Polanski’s sodomy of a 12 year old girl wasn’t “rape-y rape”, and you can say that Fox News isn’t “corp-y corporate”.
Why are you bothering me with your goofy bullshit Needlham?
Just buzz off.
\\][//
Wow. This dude is spot on. And funny. A GREAT READ. Some high points:
"It was used as an open threat to keep people from working in the administration."
EXACTLY! This was the whole MESSAGE of the Manafort, Papadopoulos, Stone et al scorched earth approach. It wasn't to turn anybody or get them to make up stories on Orange Man, IT WAS TO KILL THE POSSIBILITY THAT ANYONE WOULD EVER WORK FOR A NON-ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE IN THE FUTURE.
"But many Trump supporters see clearly that the Regime is not partisan."
YES! This is why a Paul Ryan can go to DC as a kid, get GROOMED by the SWAMP and become a republican speaker that did nothing but be a placeholder and let the House be lost in 2018.
"This is where people whose political identities have for decades been largely defined by a naïve belief in what they learned in civics class began to see the outline of a Regime that crossed not only partisan, but all institutional boundaries."
DING! DING! DING! DING!
EXCELLENT PIECE! WELL DONE SIR!
Lost? Won? Do those things have any meaning?
Do you think Biden's administration has done anything meaningful to impact your life?
The uniparty is in control, as usual.
It's a big club and you and I ain't in it.
While I disagree with significant and important portions of this well-written piece, it is totally worth reading and contemplating. As a sociological matter, much of it is almost certainly correct.
But this bit at the end, I reject:
"But if in 2004 I had told you that the majority of the GOP voter base would soon be seeing the folly of the Iraq War, becoming skeptical of state surveillance, and beginning to see the need for action to help the poor and working classes, you’d have told me such a thing would transform the country. Take the opportunity. These people are not demons, and they are ready to listen in a way they haven’t in a long, long time."
They may not be demons, but a 65-year-old who was raised by National Review, far right parents -- in their milieu and their church -- I assure you this is wrong. Conservatives per se (not all libertarians, of courser), by definition, support authority, and will revert to it as soon as their comfort levels can again be sated. I'm a social democrat now -- a leftwinger -- and I know, from long and painful exposure, that the right is the enemy of what I value, of what is human and humane.
In Greenwald's threads the majority are Trumper rightwingers and numerous are the insulting and ignorant comments ranting that people like me are Communists, leading all to death camps & etc ad stupidum. So, no, I don't sign on at all to that last graf.
This is, essentially, about the definitions informing labels. Let's stop the non-thinking in labels and start talking about principles and standards. Banish the labels and the values will be revealed.
That's exactly it. A lot of people have trouble accepting that the labels they grew up with and were so immoveable and reliable have greatly eroded and no longer apply. All anyone has to do is listen to the *winning* GOP rhetoric of the Trump campaign during the 2016 primary -- running against Reaganomics, the Bush/Cheney wars, cuts to social programs, etc. -- to see how radically it's all shifted. The more limited success of Ron Paul also proved that -- getting massive vote totals in GOP primaries in Iowa and South Carolina while ranting against imperialism, corporatism, the Drug War etc.
Cooper himself is a perfect example. I defy anyone to read his writing or listen to his podcast on issues like Palestine, the Civil Rights movement, Jim Jones and so much more and tell me if he's on "the right" or "the left" as those terms were understood in the 60s or 80s or even the aughts.
Glenn is right. The only hope for this country lies in right/left coalitions. In the past these coalitions were often known as "popular fronts." I see no other alternatives but that this country becomes so divided it leads to civil war. If you don't see this I would say you have your head in the sand. All politics is compromise and compromise begins with seeing it from the other guys perspective. In order to do that we must put aside preconceived notions about how the other guy thinks. The government agencies are assiduously working on "divide and conquer" strategies to prevent any consensus that could bring down the neoliberal ascendency. Failing systems often rely on their intelligence agencies for support when they lose popular support. It was the neoliberal machinations of the "Chicago Boys" that caused a civil war there. I suspect Trump was a victim of foolishly trying to free himself from the strings that bind Presidents. I particularly had no respect for the man anymore than I do Biden but I wonder myself if the vote wasn't rigged.
Yeah Trump was a waste of space, but what was done to him was so blatant it can't be unseen.
There’s no way I can interpret what was done to Trump as anything other than what was done to half the nation who dared vote for him.
Quite literally. There are those who want to destroy anyone who voted for the man.
AOC: "Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future? I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets, writings, photos in the future."
THAT is really the key. Much moreso than Trump, it was an attack on Americans right to choose their leader via the ballot box. The Dems love to talk about supposed GOP efforts to disenfranchise groups if voters. Yet it is the Dems who blatantly attempted to disenfranchise 10s of millions of Trump voters.
And that is something we should all be fighting against.
And what people in power of various levels anywhere in the world have been doing to people without it for as long as time has existed.
Copy pasting someone else's old comment:
We are at a crossroad. If you value your rights and the safety of our nation, regardless of political affiliation, we all have to do everything within our power to come together for now and protect those things.
I firmly believe we can argue about things like tax rates and military budgets later; now we need to unite to protect our constitutional rights for us and future generations or else we won't be legally allowed to argue at all!
I am not worried about the national debt, budgets ect - those will be what they will be - the NO. 1 fight at the moment is getting politics out of culture, out of schools, out of corporate America - without doing this the budget and taxes won't matter.
1) Share articles like this.
2) Support groups and individuals (like Glenn!) who are valiantly defending the truth and liberty.
3) Stand up for our values in our personal and professional lives.
4) Vote for quality people locally.
5) Vote out these reprobates from Congress in 2022 and the White House in 2024.
6) Turn off and tune out from MSM propaganda. Let it wither and die (figuratively) for lack of attention and advertising dollars.
7) Delete big tech SNS like Twitter and Facebook. Look to alternatives if need be or stay on them and post solely to help get others to wake up.
8) Anything else your skills and means allow for. (I'm a writer, so I have started putting a few articles of my own on Substack here, for example.) Maybe you can make music or movies! Daily Wire and Tim Pool, for example, are working on those kind of projects.
9) Use ad blocker everywhere from your browser to your phone. Don't let big tech make a penny off of you.
10) Buy used/refurbished tech products from sellers/local stores instead of giving money to big tech.
https://www.fairforall.org/
The latest salvo: https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/a-witch-trial-at-the-legal-aid-society You can donate to assist Maud Maron with legal fees. Incredibly brave American.
Chicago boys and Chile and Pinochet and Kissinger and Milton Friedman and slaughter. Neoliberalism 101.
ugottabkidin, Thanks for remembering relevant history.
\\][//
A must read:
https://williamwhitten.substack.com/p/liberty-at-stake
\\][//
ugottabkidin, How could the patriots of this great nation ever come together with these Neo-Marxist traitors who stole the 2020 Presidential election and put that senile old asshole Joe Biden in the White House as a meat puppit for the corporatist oligarchs?
No dice, no compromise with anti-American villains. NEVER!!!
\\][//
"The only hope for this country lies in right/left coalitions."--ugottabkidin
How can you expect the "right" to join with the Neo-Marxist Left who have an agenda to destroy the sovereignty of the United States of America?
If I have to explain this to you then you need a skull enema.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/528482-john-kerry-reveals-bidens-devotion-to-radical-great-reset-movement
\\][//
"common sense" Amy?
How can you expect the "right" to join with the Neo-Marxist Left who have an agenda to destroy the sovereignty of the United States of America?
If I have to explain this to you then you need a skull enema.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/528482-john-kerry-reveals-bidens-devotion-to-radical-great-reset-movement
\\][//
I have always found there to be a divide between two different groups of conservatives. On one hand you have what I like to call the "institutional" conservatives. They tend to have a lot of faith in institutions like the police, military, judicial system, media, corporations, and the government. They just want to pay their taxes and keep food on the table and still find themselves unable to criticize Ronald Regan for anything. They have little problem with authority because as far as they are concerned, they are a good, law abiding, taxpayers and therefore their institutions will always protect them. Just as The View watching suburban wine moms are neoliberals’ best friend these are neoconservatives’ favorite voters. The other group are what I like to call the “leave me the hell alone” conservatives. They distrust authority and institutions by default. Libertarians tend to get along well with them because they care little about how other people live their lives, but they hate being told how to live theirs. The “leave me the hell alone” conservatives believe that any institutional power that can be used against them, probably will be at some time and tend to more aware of its abuses. The one institution they tended to have faith in was the military but even that is changing. Needless to say, these two groups do not always get along, but the “leave me alone” crowd is having a lot of “I told you so’s” right now.
That's the difference between the "Trump" conservative and the "Jeb Bush/Liz Cheney" conservative. Based on the 95% approval of Trump in his constituents as well as the only 10% trust in media amongst Republicans, I think vast majority of the conservatives have joined the “leave me the hell alone” conservatives. And it doesn't just consist of "conservatives". It contains ex-liberals like myself.
As per Pew Research, 55% Republicans trusted the FBI as of couple years ago whereas 78% of Democrats trust the FBI. These numbers have probably changed even more now. At 7:43 mark, Jimmy Dore shows it:
https://youtu.be/BYVY7PRH7ro?t=463
And ex-liberals like myself. Although I haven't given up on the principles just yet. That said, I do find myself opening up to conservative thought and straddling more divides. I just finished "White Guilt" by Shelby Steele and it really nails the genesis for what is going on right now. https://www.amazon.com/White-Guilt-Together-Destroyed-Promise/dp/0060578637
Fave quote: “To see humanity across racial lines one must see frankly how people of other races live as human beings, not as members of a race.”
Race does not exist. That’s a biological fact. Begin acting like it.
Gonna purchase that book.
"As per Pew Research, 55% Republicans trusted the FBI as of couple years ago whereas 78% of Democrats trust the FBI."
I think we can safely say that those numbers have changed. You can't do much better than 78% approval for a law enforcement agency but I believe that neoliberals can push that into the 80th percentile. As for Republicans, I'll be disappointed if it isn't in the low 40's.
Those are rookie numbers, gotta push them down!
Anyone who trusts any of the agencies of the deep state is a naive fool.
See: Operation Paperclip, Operation Northwoods, Opweration Mockingbird. MKUltra and Artichoke.
See; COINTELPRO
The utter corruption and malfeasance of the FBI & CIA are legendary.
https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/02/why-the-u-s-is-government-corrupt/
\\][//
Yeah I voted for Trump, but I'm firmly in the 'leave me the hell alone' camp. So I'd say that I'm a registered republican in the same sense that Ron Paul was.
Yes Jimmy Dore is on spot, the warmonger neocons that perpetrated 9/11 and blamed it on al Qaeda in order to establish the US constabulatory as per the PNAC document's "New Pearl Harbor"
John Pilger reveals the American plan: a new Pearl Harbour
Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was a “catastrophic and catalysing event”.
https://www.newstatesman.com/node/192545
\\][//
In the end, it's about money. Those who work in Fortune 500 companies, and/or make their wealth in the capital markets are in line with the old Rs. Those who supported Trump are small-time entrepreneurs, who believe in working for their own piece of the pie. Think plumbing contractors, restauranteurs, franchise operators, small-firm professionals (accountants, consultants, etc.).... These are people with "family" businesses, looking to build intergenerational wealth to give their kids a headstart.
And, at the end of the day, Trump was that kind of guy, too. He ran a small successful family business (magnified in dollars by the craziness that is NYC real estate), and acted as such. In many ways, his business was more of a marketing firm, and less real-estate based than people thought - and he had a bit of PT Barnum in him, for good or ill.
He was an imperfect president, and remains an imperfect man. But his instincts jived with a significant proportion of the populace - something that the blob doesn't understand.
While labels are always limiting, this is a far more workable definition than trying to paint every conservative as Murray Rothbard.
As just one example, police, prosecutors and judges are overwhelmingly conservative. Is anyone going to credibly argue these are people fighting for smaller government and more civil rights?
"As just one example, police, prosecutors and judges are overwhelmingly conservative. "--Areslent
That assertion is nonsense. Just like the other branches of the US government at this time the judicial branch is overwhelmingly corporatist oliigarchs.
\\][//
WHY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”—Lord Acton
The U.S. Governmnet is absolutely corrupt.
Let me be perfectly clear here. My critique is not against the constitutional republic established in 1789. My critique is of the corruption that has subverted the Constitution of the United States of America. I am a proud patriot of the principles that founded this great nation. Especially the superbly eloquent Declaration of Independence, which excites my heart everytime I read it!
From Republic to Corporatist State
https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/02/why-the-u-s-is-government-corrupt/
\\][//
👍🏼
Judges maybe but regardless, I'm a down ballot no guy when voting for judges. I also have a tendency to avoid police and I would never talk to a prosecutor or a cop without an attorney in an official capacity. Guess which one of the conservatives I am.
We'll, I'm not a conservative, but if I were you would be my kind of conservative. The smart kind, especially about the attorney.
In fairness, the criminal system needs to be conservative by it's nature so it's not an insult. Just a recognition of what Matt330 said. Even as a non-conservative, I know there are many different kinds.
> I would never talk to a prosecutor or a cop without an attorney in an official capacity.
Cops helped me out when I had an accident. They were quite friendly.
It seems to me that this is one of the weird anomalies of our time, that there so many people out there who are trapped in an old worldview that no longer approximates reality enough to be useful, so they're fighting an opposition that used to be real but now primarily exists in their imaginations
Makes me wonder if these people always lacked principle but only talked about it for clout or they lost the principles?
This reminded me of a passage from Eliot's East Coker stanzas, from the Four Quartets (https://oedipa.tripod.com/eliot-2.html)
So here I am, in the middle way, having had twenty years—
Twenty years largely wasted, the years of l'entre deux guerres
Trying to learn to use words, and every attempt
Is a wholly new start, and a different kind of failure
Because one has only learnt to get the better of words
For the thing one no longer has to say, or the way in which
One is no longer disposed to say it. And so each venture
Is a new beginning, a raid on the inarticulate
With shabby equipment always deteriorating
In the general mess of imprecision of feeling,
Undisciplined squads of emotion. And what there is to conquer
By strength and submission, has already been discovered
Once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot hope
To emulate—but there is no competition—
There is only the fight to recover what has been lost
And found and lost again and again: and now, under conditions
That seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain nor loss.
For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.
Brilliant
People are tribal. It makes the world a lot easier to understand.
All of us are like that sometimes.
So many tilting at windmills.
"That's wizard's chess."
-Ron Weasley, c. 2001
I've had this thought as well. Don Quixotes?
The chance for a unification amongst the Plebes is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. Nobody wants more stupid wars. We're all sick to death of them. Same with monopolies and corporatocracy. Same with job outsourcing. Same with predatory sickcare at 20% of GDP.
There is a "middle ground" that perhaps 70% of the US population would all unify behind. This absolutely terrifies the gang in charge. That's why Old Corrupt Joe was shoehorned into place - rather than Scary Bernie Sanders, whom they absolutely could not control. Or, of course, the Bad Orange Man, who is the ostensible topic of this piece.
"the Bad Orange Man, who is the ostensible topic of this piece."--David Pare
Yes, more needs to be said about Trump and his accomplishments.
Here is a rundown of some of President Trumps best accomplishmentis in the four short years of his administration:
https://www.magapill.com/
\\][//
Ok. So not happy with Bernie. :) I agree about the $15 min wage, and SALT. But even with all the groveling - DNC still didn't allow him to win the primary. Why do we think that is? My claim: he's a lot less controllable than Old Corrupt Joe, whom both the CCP, and corporate interests appear to own lock, stock and barrel.
As currently implemented, M4A is really just a closet-gift from taxpayers to Pharma. Notice the FDA approval of that $56,000/year alzheimers drug that doesn't work? That medicare will be paying for? Its a big club, and we're not in it. I'd be all for M4A if they only pay for generic drugs. Most of the stupidity would go away if we did that. And healthcare costs would probably drop by 50% too. Effectively we'd get care for free. But Pharma and Sickcare would lose big time. Just my opinion.
There's a lot of overlap out there among normal people. They're scared of that. That's why Old Corrupt Joe is in power.
For someone who's so anti-pharma, Bernie still gladly took $1.3 million from Pharma. Trump got $2.5 million and Biden took $8.5 million:
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2020&ind=h04
I am surprised it took this long for people to see through AOC and Bernie. I was mostly politically uneducated till 2015 but even then I was able to see through Bernie sanders fraud when he did a complete 180 flip on his stance on illegal immigration when trump announced his run. He used to hate illegal immigration, called it a “right wing proposal” “using a dollar or two wages to drive down wages of Americans”. And then he did a flip calling trump a racist and xenophobic etc and became open border advocate. Just listen to his own words in this VOX interview and tell me how what he used to say was any different from Trump?:
https://youtu.be/vf-k6qOfXz0
Bernie is there to tell you nice things to get votes for Democrats. He was never there to win.
This is rat-holing on health care, but I don't think this is big picture enough. Drugs contribute greatly to human health and are expensive to research. Deciding how much to spend on them, what the goals of research should be, and how to achieve that, is among the most important questions in medicine. You're on to something to say that no punt is acceptable here: costs are spiraling to take over the entire economy, and there's no way to control costs without making these decisions. But "only pay for generic drugs" is kind of a punt.
It means:
- the wealthy and foreigners will direct drug research. lots of fertility treatments and life extension, little to help children or the mentally ill.
- Americans will be 20 years behind the rest of the world.
- Some of the research may move overseas, closer to the money.
I agree the alzheimers drug repeating the AZT fiasco is a wake-up call but don't think "give them less money" is an optimistic-enough attempted solution to the regulatory capture problem. We need capacity to regulate effectively even when large amounts of money are involved.
So many casting of aspersions. People you've lost the point of the article. It's about building coalitions and finding common understandings. There's really no such things as liberals and conservatives. The meaning have been lost to clever manipulators sowing the seeds of dissention. Most Americans are natural lovers of freedom but this bickering will only lead to moving to separate corners where you will be unable to agree on the real issues here. ECONOMIC SURVIVAL!
Glenn you got your work cut out for you because Oprah and Limbaugh certainly did their work well.
This^^^^^^!!!!
I agree. And this applies as well to those on the "left" today. When I was in college in the early 70s, liberals were at the vanguard of the free speech and free assembly movement. We truly believed Voltaire's maxim. We understood on principle the ACLU's commitment to free speech in defending neo-Nazi's in Skokie, even though we violently disagreed with white supremacy. Progressives today no longer support classical liberal concepts of free speech, free assembly, and due process. These are now limited, qualified rights, depending on who is doing the speaking, and what is being uttered. This limitation extends even to non-partisan scientists, as we've seen in the COVID lab-leak saga. We were committed anti-authoritarians and were skeptics of executive power. Today, progressive ideology, in theory and in practice, is both authoritarian and anti-democratic, and rather than constrain executive power progressives affirmatively seek to expand it in order to carry out their programs without congressional input. It's ironic, but conservatives today are (and for many years have been) the supporters of individual freedoms and due process. Due to the experiences of the past 20 years, they are the ones more likely to be skeptical not only of executive power, but also the largely unconstrained power of our intelligence agencies. And I believe they see more clearly than the left the risks to individual liberty posed by Big Tech. I don't think these beliefs are simply a partisan reaction to progressive ideology. I think they are now central to conservatives' belief in individual liberty. I think this is why many folks of my generation are rethinking their political alignment.
"I think they are now central to conservatives' belief in individual liberty. I think this is why many folks of my generation are rethinking their political alignment."--TW52
I totally agree, I was born in 1947....another babyboomer who cherishes the Declaration of Independence and the priciples it establishes.
\\][//
I'm a late boomer (b. 1956) and totally agree. It's as if younger progressives are rejecting the enlightenment and classic liberal values that were fundamental to the American founding. I find this distressing.
Yes TW I agree with you on many levels. Certainly the societal consensus of the late sixties and seventies was for social justice and it was moving forward. As you and I have witnessed there was a societal shift a lot of people contribute to the Reagan Administration. It's also said it began in the late Carter administration. Reagan has always appered to me as a an apostle of Goldwater. An ultra conservative (old meaning) backlash to a short-lived nouvo enlightment period now being buried and rewrote in history. In the same way people remember their pay being about the same thirty years ago but when you tell people who weren't there they're incredulous and find it hard to believe. The society went through a very well crafted and financed transformation. Many books have been written on how this conspiracy was laid out. Much like in Orwells 1984 language was one of strategic goals of this "Robber Baron" counteroffensive. We have all been "had" an find ourselves in the Matrix for various reasons, but I think everyone is starting to unplug. Everyone is pointing fingers at the cause and these arguments over whose fault it is detract from the goal and I feel counterproductive. And the foundations and media, realizing the jig is up are hard at work diverting the blame in this depression. They're hoping the looting of America and the world under the neoliberal regime can precede unabated.
It's time to fix this. It's hard to place blame on the collaborators by simply saying a particular philosophy led to this since they've (conspirators paid accomplices in various foundations) confused the meaning of terms people are idenifying with. I think most people wonder, worldwide, if this nation has lost it's mind but it's all social manipulation. Is this possible? Well didn't the Nazis and Stalin pull it off. Don't panic just dont be intimidated by paid schills with senseless agendas, covertly financed, taking up some banner to implicate a philosophy whose original meaning is now lost in confusion. Forget the labels. It's a mistake now to label yourself because then your expected to march lockstep to the music and the bandmaster is usual in the pay of the power structure. One thing remains right is right and people still comprehend, I hope, what is unacceptably unamerican. People are being led astray by fear of the other guys philosophy. People come from varying degrees of liberal and conservative thinking (Old understanding of terms) but we either unite now and nip this in the bud or we soon won't be talking like this. It will be considered subversive.
Communism may have been a failure, but its collapse in the Soviet Union ironically allowed our elites to destroy functional regulated capitalism and replace it with crony corporatism buy simply labeling any regulation designed to safeguard competition or protect against monopolies or illegal activity as "socialist". Never mind that these protections had been around for a long time. They also found that if you put crushing regulations on small businesses, then you can get people to support deregulation schemes that only ease the burden on large corporations.
Yes the labels are meaningless, but the principles can be stated clearly.
To me it is still the same principles estabblished in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence. Neither left or right, simply patriotic.
Individual rights to inalienable Liberty are the standard. A rejection of collectivism and statism, coersion and corporatism. These "isms" do have distinct and current meanings. There are empirical facts, and a difference between Truth and Falsehood. There is a difference between right and wrong.
The counterpart of our rights are our responsibilities.
I thank Glenn Greenwald for his dedication to unfettered truth. And for allowing us to make our opinions known under his hosting of these articles.
\\][//
Michael Malice said something true about how resistance to thinking in labels can be cultivated: learn a foreign language--it teaches you to think in concepts.
Love Michael Malice!
Exactly. I know that is what people would be inclined to do: find the one thing that could peg him as an enemy. But if you listen to him -- you find someone who is thoughtful, insightful and someone who looks at the bigger picture.
Greenwald sounds too confidently optimistic. There's ideological change, sure, but by no means does that entail that the ideological problems of political factions are going away. When you're in a period of ideological change, and not much effort is being made to avoid the abuses that typically attach themselves to political factions, you're not headed for a good place.
In the 60's I was registered with the "Socialist Worker's Party, YSA, SDS and NOW." Look at me now ... a Civil Libertarian who saw where Biden was going. But I have never registered with either the Democratic or Repubiclican Party ... why wave the flag for hypocrites who lie.?
Same here. I always "knew" something wasn't right. I voted for JoJo in 2020 and I'll never vote D or R again!
I reserve the right to vote for a (D) or (R), but I will never give money to such grifters, nor ever associate my name with either party.
Which means I am forbidden from voting in primary elections (which usually determines the eventual winner.) Somehow Nancy Pelosi, AOC, Joe Biden and Stacey Abrams don't have a problem with this kind of "voter suppression."
I don't think we're headed for a good place. I really do think we're headed for some kind of war. Hot war.
Wait til they start drone-striking on US soil.
Listen in horror as your well-to-do Eastern Seaboard Lib friends chuckle glibly about it.
We're going there, for sure. Are we the only people not taking crazy-Nazi-pills??????
Ask David Koresh... (who was a scumbag nutcase, but still)
Au contraire... if the 99% gain enough steam, you'd need" F-15s and nukes" to fight it. Someone said that recently.
Greenwald did not say anything like what you attribute to him. I would include Greenwald as one of those, if not the preeminent soul, who is making the effort to avoid the abuses.
Greenwald's post mentioned that some currently active political forces (Trump's 2016 campaign and some anti-anti-Trump people, as well as their precursors) mix together some longstanding ideas from the left with some from the right. Greenwald implied that this is a great development. I replied that he "sounds too confidently optimistic" about the ideological change that's going on; I meant to suggest, in particular, that he may be too confidently optimistic about the Trumpist movement and perhaps also some of the anti-anti-Trump forces. I wasn't quoting him exactly, which is why I used the word "sounds". I said that his overall tone in talking about Trump and anti-anti-Trump forces that show some influence from the left seemed too confidently optimistic to me. I do have some hopes about a convergence of right and left myself, but I see a mix of good and bad signs there. Maybe that's because I tend to look for the potential for good and bad in most political movements, and because I'm on the lookout for that, I don't 100% share the amount of confident optimism that Greenwald's tone displays (in this post of his and in other similar writings by Greenwald). But of course, I'm not all that pessimistic either, and I would like to see something good come out of a convergence of right and left. My post was a nuanced one.
As for Greenwald's efforts or non-efforts to avoid the abuses: it's complicated. I think that he's great on criticizing abuses by Democrats, by more-left-than-liberal people, by news media to the left of Fox, by certain progressive nonprofits, and by the security state on issues other than immigration. And sometimes (but only sometimes) he is willing to vocally criticize more moderate and right-leaning people on the same grounds as he criticizes progressives. This is an asymmetric position. It is kind of as if he thinks this asymmetric position (including certain criticisms of Israel) is his niche, if that's the right term. I am examining whether this asymmetric position is defensible. I don't start out assuming the asymmetry is okay, and I see some potential problems with it. To me, Greenwald's approach looks significantly different from what someone would do who is generally "making the effort to avoid the abuses" of all factions. So, although I recognize that Greenwald is well above average in his degree of principledness, I have my doubts, and I am looking into the possibility that his current approach may do more harm than good in some areas. He is, of course, perfectly capable of changing his positions. I don't assume anything about whether the change will be for the better or for the worse, but that is what I care about.
Amy, you might enjoy this post by Abigail Shrier on the spineless incompetent Republicans:
> Want to Save America? Don't Act Like a Conservative: Chest-Thumpers and ‘Aw, Shucks’ Conservatives Personify the Right’s Love Affair with Losing
https://abigailshrier.substack.com/p/want-to-save-america-dont-act-like
Wow! This is incredibly lucid. Great writing.
Hmm, so this Shrier link is a conservative woman saying things like "I prefer a man who's good at lying so that he and I and our allies will win together?" That is a strand among some conservatives, and there can be sexual overtones to it, but it's one of the ethically worse strands on the right. (The right is a mix of ethically good and ethically bad strands, just as the left is too in its own way.)
Even though Trumpers are arming themselves more, attempted an insurrection, and aren't afraid to threaten violence against anyone perceived as their enemies?
Mr. Balfour has been disinformed by the lying mainstream media. There was no" attempted insurrection" by "Trumpers". In fact it is more likely that the riot on 1/6 was a false flag operation by FBI agents.
Mr/ Greenwald wrote a persuasive article on this himself.
I also speak to it in my own blog:
https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/01/fbi-role-in-1-6-2021/
\\][//
Are you referring to the FBI informants who led the alleged kidnapping attempt in MN? Or the FBI informants who had infiltrated the Jan 6th "insurrection" and helped to direct the festivities of that fateful day?
Next thing you're going to tell us is that the Reichstag was burned by Blosheviks.
PARTISAN HACK ALERT: Anyone who uses the term "insurrection" unironically has no opinions worth hearing.
Calling it an "insurrection" is comic gold.
Oh, really. Where was this armed insurrection on the right?
insurrection ..... look at YOU proving Gruber's point ........
Troll alert.
Until now, I saw NO ONE on the left deploring these sleazy and illegal tactics. In fact, all I saw was the left cheering them on. So you’ll have to excuse me if have zero trust in leftists, much less warm and fuzzy feelings leading to a Kumbaya moment.
I’m not only referring to politicians and media, I am referring to comments sections such as this one.
I agree Cathie, the Neo-Marxists leftists are still ass up with their heads in the sand. Their ommentary on Greenwald's forums show they still don't get get it.
\\][//
It is interesting how the parties have evolved. I've long thought that it's silly to think that one party will become dominate for very long. Notice you don't hear the Dems bragging about how demography will make them more or less dominate for years. The evolution of the Dem party is no less remarkable than the GOP. The Dems have become much more bicoastal and progressive. They can no longer claim to be the party of the little guy and blue collar America. They have operated on the assumption that minorities and working class voters will continue to vote for them. But increasingly the GOP has made inroads into these voters. I see that continuing to evolve. It's only one issue, but the cancelation of the Keystone XL pipeline permit is emblematic. The Dem party and its bicoastal progressive elites care more about climate change than good paying jobs for pipefitters and maintaining energy affordability for lower to middle class folks. So they shouldn't be surprised when some of their traditional voters recognize they are no longer a priority and look elsewhere for politicians who will advocate for things important to them
Jeff, are you implying that all those "Demographics is Destiny" articles I have read were actually really racist?
No, actually I'm not. As far as I'm concerned the only thing racist is racism. Only Democrats, corporate media, and left wing idiots, call everything include the kitchen sink racist. (Before anyone pops a gasket, I don't think everyone on the left is an idiot. I'm referring to a specific subset).
I don't think Democrats are racist in assuming that minorities and and working class people will continue to vote for them. I think they are lazily taking these folks for granted. I've seen a few Dems raising the yellow flag but so far they seem like outliers.
The imprecision of labels such as right and left ought to motivate one to look for better ways to analyze political reality. I use the following: The politics of those who allocate capital, our ruling class, and the politics of those who do not allocate capital—-the vast majority of people who spend their lives working for the capitalists. Within this later group are people who adjust to being exploited in various ways. If you understand what is in your interest economically and what you have in common with your fellow non capital allocating human beings from an economic point of view, you don’t waste your time on left vs right. You demand that capital be allocated for your benefit not so Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos can fly to Mars. You don’t arm yourself to the teeth just in case your fellow human pisses you off. You demand capital be allocated in the most efficient and productive manner to provide universal healthcare, childcare, housing, and education. You don’t fight it out in the trenches of warfare like in WW1 with some stupid philosophy that lets you take pride in victimizing other non capital allocators who are 99.9% of the people on this planet. You don’t fight for the ruling class. You don’t follow Trump Biden and the rest of the false prophets, you learn to think for yourself.
It would be helpful to define capital and how it comes into existence.
Simplest definition would be funds available for investment. Capital comes into existence as accumulated surplus value, that not needed for consumption. Only the wealthy and the state have sufficient accumulated capital to effect production. Everyone else sells their labor. Ask Warren Buffet.
For the state, capital comes into existence by virtue of confiscation and money-printing monopoly.
Thank you Glenn. My Sheila (14 1/2) was euthanized recently. Trying to figure out my next move now that I am alone. The point of this post ... I so TOTALLY agree with. My friends who do not read enough "diversity" and then mentally collate (as I always do) thought I had lost my mind (or started taking LSD) but I was an English Lit Major/Philosophy Minor (so the leap was a mere skip). I had read enough folks like "Swift" to make the connection! Love, love the article ... thanks for posting! Eileen
IMHO dogs are preferable to humans. Humans lack the ability to express unconditional love. It is no wonder they are called "man's best friend". I pray for your peace of mind and acceptance that you have done a kind thing in releasing Sheila from her pain. I was brought up to believe that dogs have no souls and will not go to Heaven. If there is an afterlife and those who love and are loved will be there, there will be a preponderance of dogs and few humans.
Cats>dogs>humans.
Hmmmm something about your name and picture tells me you might be biased? lol ;)
humans > {cats, dogs}
[just speaking up for common sense here]
dogs>humans>cats
Dogs, just like humans, are only as good as how they are trained. Cats on the other hand are impossible to be trained :(
I love my African Gray Parrot like that and I am convinced we will be together forever in our "after-life"
I have had her for 28 years, since she was 3 monthos old. Now we are best friends for ever and ever.
We just came in from sitting on the balcony at dusk watching the fireflies in a deepening dark sky with a cresent moon.
\\][//
Parrots can live far longer than dogs and cats, so that might just be a good choice. And some of them seem to understand what they're saying.
Not that I've had one.
Many happy days with your companion.
Thank you Amy. <3
Hear, hear.
Yes ideed Amy this Critical Race Theory nonsense must be defeated.
Even Biden's military adviser is with the Woke bullshit program!
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/general-milley-critical-race-theory-why-gop-s-woke-military-ncna1272558
\\][//
I came across Cooper’s thread on RCP (like a lot of what you’d call “conservatives”, I don’t do social media). I read it several times because I think it perfectly captures the disillusionment so many people feel.
I had been on the verge of subscribing to Glenn’s excellent newsletter for some time, but this article finally spurred me to join to offer my perspective,
Let me say first, I could not bring myself to vote for Trump in 2016, refusing to give up the quaint belief some of us still hold, that character counts.
Although I liked his policies and the fact that he was willing, unlike most “conservatives”, to fight, I was never a strong supporter. What I saw was a president who did some positive things, but mostly stroked his own ego and engaged in petty, needless antagonism of anyone he thought slighted him in the least.
BTW, what Cooper refers to as a “regime” is known as the “deep state” among Trump supporters. So don’t laugh or dismiss them as idiots when you see or hear that term.
I disagree that the Russia collusion fiasco was the sobering event, though it did help illustrate how deeply the “regime” ran.
The big-bang reveal was the James Comey press conference in July 2016. This was after months of being assured by conservative media that Comey was a straight arrow and above reproach.
No one was naive enough to think that prominent politicians weren’t allowed to take liberties with the law the rest of us couldn’t, but to see the institution that was regarded as the last bastion thumb their nose sent many over the edge. I firmly believe it was the July 5th press conference, and not Comey’s later re-opening of the case, that cost Clinton the election, as it convinced a lot of people our government rotten to the core, and a man many perceived as vile was the only hope.
There are still some true-believers I see occasionally on comment boards who think someone might actually be held accountable for the perceived vote fraud, but the majority know that will never happen unless it somehow serves the regime.
Exactly the same motivation to subscribe after reading several of Glenn's recent columns at wendymcelroy.com. I am (mostly) an anarcho-libertarian who typically finds somewhat more benefit on the political right than on the left, so in theory I should very much be a Greenwald opponent. In reality, the rational thought and integrity of those columns trump (sorry!) all that.
This is an excellent suggestion:
"Let's stop the non-thinking in labels and start talking about principles and standards."
Mostly disagreeable 7/12/2021
Indeed, this does comport with Darryl Cooper's eloquent plea for kinder informed understanding as well as our distinguished host's cogent comment.
I return to this thread having just read a brief but informative update by Ray McGovern, also posted on 7/12/2021, regarding elements of the ongoing Inquisition of Julian Assange that, while it is an obvious digression from the particular essence herein of the plea for comity and understanding between political factions, I suggest that a careful reading of this factual missive does remind the reader that before said comity can be honestly considered, open examination and resolution of ongoing misdeeds require just attention.
https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/56643.htm
Here is a large taste of a very sad affaire.
"It should come as no surprise that British "Justice" officials are following the detailed "Washington Playbook" approach that was exposed by WikiLeaks itself in Feb. 2012.
Some readers may recall that WikiLeaks-revealed confidential emails from the US private intelligence firm Stratfor mentioned that the US already had a secret indictment against the WikiLeaks founder. Bad enough.
What also showed up in the Stratfor emails was the unrelenting, Inspector-Javert-type approach taken by one Fred Burton, Stratfor’s Vice-President for Counterterrorism and Corporate Security. (Burton had been Deputy Chief of the Department of State’s counterterrorism division for the Diplomatic Security Service.)
Here’s Javert – I mean Burton:
"Move him [Assange] from country to country to face charges for the next 25 years. But seize everything he and his family own, to include every person linked to Wiki." [my comment: "country to country", or – equally effective – court to court]
"Pursue conspiracy and political terrorism charges and declassify the death of a source, someone which could link to Wiki."
"Assange is a peacenik. He needs his head dunked in a full toilet bowl at Gitmo."
“Take down the money. Go after his infrastructure. The tools we are using to nail and de-construct Wiki are the same tools used to dismantle and track al-Qaeda."
"Bankrupt the arsehole first; ruin his life. Give him 7-12 years for conspiracy."
"Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He’ll be eating cat food forever … extradition to the US is more and more likely.""
One must wonder, are these the words of well reasoned, respectable, let alone ethical or moral thinking public officials? Can such individuals be rehabilitated and further entrusted with any facet of public trust?
As Usual,
EA
Arrogance in spades. Unfortunately, this attitude is not uncommon among Washington careerists and the chattering class.
More specifically, sadism and arrogance.
His entire fate/future lies in the sliding scale definition of one word: journalist.
Ray McGovern is till at the top of his class. Thanks for the link!
\\][//
Keep in mind that "liberal" vs. "conservative", as Americans understand those terms, have little meaning outside the specific context of contemporary American politics.
This is why discussion of principles and standards is important. We get hung up on definitions. Then we have lengthy discussion of what a word actually means versus the meaning as used and principle or standard to be debated. The current debate about CRT is a great illustration. The primary debate is about what that even means. Semantic games about antiracism, diversity training and even what constitutes history cloud what the objection really is. When the specific lessons are pointed out, the response is, "That's not CRT." Then on to more semantic arguments. It is a debate tactic, not substantive discussion.
This is also a description of the motte and bailey doctrine, in which meta-arguments about definitions function as smoke bombs to aid retreat to the motte.
If you are having a discussion with people that are substituting debate tactics for honest discussion, then that is your problem right there. Not agreeing substantively on the meanings of words won't help you there.
It is impossible to understand terms unless they are clearly and consistently defined. Most people, including Americans, are talking past each other for that reason alone. Terms are bandied about, functioning at best as temporary classifiers and at worst as slurs and condemnations. Sometimes clarity about the values informing branding of self and others can be achieved by describing two things: the society in which you would be a liberal and the society in which you would be a conservative.
See: Confucius, on the rectification of names.
Yes! I'm sick of labels.
Indeed.
If socialism always fails, why does The West persist in sanctions, like petulant babies?
Iran and Cuba, for example, embarrassed the Americans by chasing their thugs out if the country.
No we're not all for authority, we're for individual liberty and personal responsibility.
"we're for individual liberty and personal responsibility."
Pretty words that without any critical analysis, translate into many nasty policies. But you will get many "likes" here, and most will disagree with me. I long ago realized that we on the left who have been with Greenwald for as much as 15 years -- pre-Substack --have no place in his comments here Bye.
(Please all forgive my typos above; I have vision problems.)
Yes, you do have a place in these comments but do not expect anyone to accept your characterization of what conservatives are. It is disingenuous to state that conservatives are authoritarian (something that we despise) and then pull a victim card when you are rightly called out for it.
" It is disingenuous to state that conservatives are authoritarian "
Excuse you. I was raised by rightwingers (and read their propaganda mags and books), as I wrote above. And WAS one into my later 20s. I know you. You are authoritarian in the extreme, with the exception of only some outlying fringes who are really more libertarian.
BY DEFINITION THE RIGHT, IN THE MAIN, wants the status quo maintained by authority, or -- even more reactionary -- a return by use of authority to some imagined Golden Age of moral and political purity.
"I know you. You are authoritarian in the extreme, with the exception of only some outlying fringes who are really more libertarian."
With all due respect, I've been a registered Libertarian for most of my life. That changed in 2020 when the LP fell through the floor. But I remain, first and foremost, a civil libertarian and a classic liberal. Individualism is the hallmark of the right. Collectivism is the left. Inherently, collectivism requires authority to subdue individual interests. Individualism requires no authoritarianism.
You can say that you know me but clearly, you do not. I despise all forms of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. I believe in the individual's right to self determination. I don't think of myself as a conservative I know a lot of them. All of them would agree with me on these points. It isn't even controversial.
Ditto.
I consider myself conservative and believe government is a necessary evil. The smaller and more controlled the better. I also dislike the large multinational corporations. That doesn’t feel very “authoritarian” to me
I disagree with the adjective "necessary". But if you could get it reduced to the minimum, I'd be ecstatic while I quibbled with you on that point.
I’m curious, do you personally know many conservatives, the 30-55 year olds? I’m gathering that your view of conservatives was originally shaped by your parents and the National Review of yore. Do you know conservatives who weren’t raised on NR?
And yes, there absolutely is a place for you here. There are plenty of left-wingers here.
"I’m curious, do you personally know many conservatives, the 30-55 year olds?"
Yes.
Close family, who skipped generations to be as rightwing as my parental units. We've had to agree to not discuss politics, which we mostly abide by. (I cringed when one says he saw Glenn on Tucker Carlson; through me he met Glenn, and I have to work to explain that he shouldn't take that appearance to mean Glenn is in general agreement with that Carlson shithead.)
I want "just" laws enforced by authority. I want crazy mobs suppressed, and private property rights enforced. I couldn't care less about morality crimes or the rest of the statist crap both parties spend endless time on.
" want "just" laws enforced by authority. I want crazy mobs suppressed, and private property rights enforced."
Do you denounce and disavow the immediately recent history of the conservative movement -- and National Review magazine, which from the 50s to the 80s represented the intellectual right -- on race, gays, reproductive rights, drug policy*, women's issues, labor policy?
*(NR was actually ahead of its time, to the disgust of many on the right, re: drug policy. A huge exception to their reactionary record.)
By definition, the left, and specifically right now, are pushing authoritarian everything.
Shame on you for not calling it what it is because you like their other ideals.
Shame shame shame on you. The hippies of the 60's would call you a fucking fascist and you know it!
Let your White Rage out, Mona. There will be plenty of room inside you once you've spit out all of your venom.
I thought the Left didn't externalize their childhood issues by stereotyping other people?
That’s hilarious. The left seems to be exclusively about unleashing their childhood trauma on unsuspecting passersby these days....and formalizing stereotypes to boot!
No you didn't. There's no such trope. You just thought it would be good snark.
Not true-- perhaps your definition of right winger is different than others. Check your anger--
A challenge for all: describe the society in which you would be a conservative.
Amen. I'm now a knuckle-dragging conservative Leftist. Unlike the Woke, I'm still an atheist, Port Huron/FSM supporter, who *still* wouldn't trust the CIA any further than I could hurl Langley.
I am a small-l liberal with libertarian leanings. I think government should be as small as possible and government unions are an abomination. Otherwise I believe in private property, free markets, and free association with the caveat that if you're going to legally make corporations powerful in their own right that a protected labour movement is necessary to counter them. My natural inclination is towards law and order, although I now recognize that much of law and order is harnessed to protect and enrich the alread rich and powerful at the expense of the many. I guess I would now be a center-leftist if the modern Left wasn't so crazy.
Are you intentionally palming a definition card here ;?> By strict definition, "conservative" means reluctant or resistant to change, so you are, in effect, asking us to specify our "ideal" (or, at least, an acceptable) system. For me, the "ideal" would be a system in which I am at liberty to do whatever I please, as long as that doesn't involve an actual attack on another person or another person's property;, in which I am at liberty to defend my life, and family, and property, against such an attack; and in which I am not coerced or compelled under threat of violence to render my life or property to the State or any of its minions.
Ms. Holland,
I find your commentay disjointed irrational and plagued by pathological anger at a world you cannot understand.
It is in fact the uberleft Neo-Marxist biden regime that is at this very moment attempting to dismantal the republic and its federal Constitution to meld with the global tyrants at Davos and their so-called 'Great Reset':
John Kerry reveals Biden's devotion to radical 'Great Reset' movement
In June 2011, elites at important international institutions such as the World Economic Forum and the United Nations launched a far-reaching campaign to “reset” the global economy.
The plan involves dramatically increasing the power of government through expansive new social programs like the Green New Deal and using vast regulatory schemes and government programs to coerce corporations into supporting left-wing causes.
The two justifications for the proposal, which has been aptly named by its supporters the “Great Reset,” are the COVID-19 pandemic (the short-term justification) and the so-called “climate crisis” caused by global warming (the long-term justification).
According to the Great Reset’s supporters, the plan would fundamentally transform much of society. As World Economic Forum (WEF) head Klaus Schwab wrote back in June, “the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”
Internationally, the Great Reset has already been backed by influential leaders, activists, academics and institutions. In addition to the World Economic Forum and United Nations, the Great Reset movement counts among its the International Monetary Fund, heads of state, Greenpeace and CEOs and presidents of large corporations and financial institutions such as Microsoft and MasterCard.
But in America, most policymakers – including President-elect Joe Biden – have been relatively quiet about the Great Reset, leaving many to speculate what a Biden administration would do to support or oppose this radical plan.
There has been some evidence suggesting that Biden and some of his biggest allies back the Great Reset and would attempt to impose it on the United States. But Biden and his team have never explicitly stated that America would be involved — that is, until now.
This isn’t the first time Kerry has thrown his weight behind the Great Reset. At a June World Economic Forum virtual event, Kerry said the coronavirus pandemic was “a big moment” that opened the door for the Great Reset and that, “The World Economic Forum – the CEO capacity of the Forum – is really going to have to play a front and center role in refining the Great Reset to deal with climate change and inequity — all of which is being laid bare as a consequence of COVID-19.”
The evidence is now crystal clear about Biden’s connection to the Great Reset. He, John Kerry and the rest of the Biden administration are planning to bring the Great Reset to the United States. And if they are successful, the country will never be the same.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/528482-john-kerry-reveals-bidens-devotion-to-radical-great-reset-movement
\\][//
Do you think it is the Right today that wants the status quo maintained? Depends on what the "status quo" actually is, correct? Seems to me the Right wants to remove the corruption accretions of the last 30-45 years. So, anything *but* preserving the status quo ... hence some of them can end up storming the Capitol.
Dude, if the Right "stormed" the capitol they would have brought real weapons and people would have died.
Agreed. Many of our institutions must be extensively reformed, or better yet, scratched
Was it the Right wing who stormed the Bastille? Why or why not? Please tell me the big differences, in your opinion.
And yet you seem incapable of seeing your own zealotry and blind rage...that's deeper than vision problems.
Former President Trump sat down with ‘Fox & Friends’ Enterprise Reporter Lawrence Jones at CPAC in Dallas, arguing that in order to curb crime, ‘you have to give police back their authority.’
Subscribe to Fox News! https://bit.ly/2vBUvAS
Watch more Fox News Video: http://video.foxnews.com
Watch Fox News Channel Live: http://www.foxnewsgo.com/
\\][//
Proof that Biden is totally unhenged from reality:
Biden says Trump supporters are worse than slave-owning Confederates: "We are facing the most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War. That's not hyperbole...The Confederates back then never breached the Capitol as insurrectionists did"
https://headlineusa.com/biden-bellyache-election-scrutiny/
\\][//
Are you talking to me Ph8drus?
Because if you are you are full of shit. I have no blind rage nor zealotry. My commentay is fact based and sourced with viable citations.
Try actually reading the links I give rather that having your reactionary hissy fit.
\\][//
Interesting point here, that the writer was raised by PLURAL parentage. Curious to know if she would be as healthy and conversant if she was just raised by a SINGLE "leftwinger."
Disingenuous, but completely within type.
I'm a Leftist. I've been following Greenwald almost that long, from platform after platform.
I have no problem believing Rightists who say "we're for individual liberty and personal responsibility". Individualism the real core to their beliefs, and the reason I think so is that it's exactly complementary to Leftists' collective/social focus. I am convinced that the two sides are complementary parts of human nature, which explains why Left/Right continue in perpetuity. IMO, neither is exclusively correct, but one can choose one as where you think society needs priority attention.
Please, stop being distracted by authoritarian eruptions -- they will happen on either side, at differing historical times.
I agree with Cicero that the government governs best which governs least. Power corrupts, so it is important to limit the amount of power one person can ever have over another. Things that don't need to be legislated shouldn't be. In order for individuals to have an authentic voice in government, it is best to decentralize down to the smallest unit possible, the individual whenever possible. Not sure what this makes me. I used to think I was progressive, now I'm registered as a libertarian. At one point I thought I was an anarchist, but those a-holes in Portland ruined the term forever.
Libertarian sounds about right. Just keep your expectations low when dealing with the LP.
And stay away from Reason Magazine for your own sanity!
True. Losing John McAfee was a dark day.
Perhaps Scuba Cat, you should simply refer to yourself as a 'Patriot'.
That is what I do.
\\][//
I only wish I could stop being "distracted by authoritarian eruptions". The article Cooper provided tells me I can't. Our institutions seem to have become totally policial in a way that my experience (some 70+ years) has never encountered. I understand the press is driven by greed, the lust for clicks and the demand for ads to cover webpages beyond readability. But a Justice Department incable of blind justice? Fractures in Congress as sides form against the public. Public servants who gain wealth on a typical salary? I feel being the fool for having served the country, working my entire life, paying my taxes, doing my civic and personal duties - my culture under attack by those who really have no apparent objective beyond division and chaos. What a change from the days of my "I like Ike" pin.
You do realize that while you were wearing your "I like Ike" pin, J. Edgar Hoover was wielding the FBI as his own national personal police force in accordance with his twisted morality? Also, while Eisenhower did make some good points in his speech warning of the "Military Industrial Complex", the fact is that he had as seminal a role in enabling that monstrosity as any other single person. That included the overthrow, on his watch, of a democratically elected leader of Iran, in order to perpetuate the interests of British Petroleum. I also tend to thoughtlessly give lip-service to the "good old days", but in retrospect, it's only a trap.
Perhaps I lament the loss of a simpler life, but I'm not wanting the simplicity of the 1790's either. Retrospect is generally kind to other difficulties. The middle east of those days was a rising star to save the West with limitless cheap energy (Club of Rome arrives later in '73) but Western investments were threatened by increasing nationalist takeovers of those investments - money corrupted then as it does now.
Good 'ol J Edgar. At least his FBI had the trains run on time. He kept the politico's secrets tucked away in his girdle. But we believe his agents were less politically motivated than today's feckless bunch. We had those evil commies to root out instead of home grown angry old folk intent on violence.
Oh, I meant "authoritarian eruptions" among the people, i.e. People freak out bout something, and clamor for a strongman/woman to "take charge" to "fix" it in short order.
The development of corruption and Totalitarianism over the last few decades among the elite is an entirely different matter -- and I completely agree with you.
For many collectivists on the left and individualists on the right, it is their, "natural state". There are also those who straddle both sides of the spectrum. In time, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that evolutionary psychology could be used to explain individual temperaments and to some degree, political affiliation.
I agree. For now, it is completely taboo: For the woke (an many Leftists not-so-Woke), all differences in mental states are somehow *always learned*. The problem with that POV is that it's the evolutionary equivalent of the irrational "turtles all the way down" explanation: One has to ask, "Well, if it *can't* be biological, where and *how* did the 'first learning' occur?" But I'm sure they're hard at the Sophistic answer to that, if they sent it out already, I missed it...
I'm sure that many people would balk at the idea that their *chosen* identity on the political spectrum isn't purely a choice. That doesn't preclude the possibility that it could be but as it turns out, biology is a very powerful motivator. Many aspects of our behavior make more sense when you think about them from an anthropologlical perspective. But that doesn't mean that ethical considerations don't matter or that no one is responsible for their behavior. People need to stop being so goddamn binary and sensitive about everything.
Translation - "This isn't the echo chamber I thought it was despite me knowing Glenn personally and so I am going to throw a tantrum and go home because people dare to disagree with me on things"
Vision problems...too apropos! And I just thought it was that same old story of internal unresolved projected anger and rage thing masquerading as a pure, compassionate savior of the poor and downtrodden type but still desperately needing a scapegoat in order to avoid any real internal self-reflection! Run off now, before you inadvertently bump into that possibility.
Whatever your views, taking a shot at her eyesight and telling her to "run along" because you don't like her views doesn't help.
I have felt just like you about some posts so I am certainly not trying to take the high ground here. It's better if we don't post that type of stuff.
Umm, She said she was leaving because she didn't like what she was seeing here anymore.
Yes she did. Do you think an insult about her vision is going to improve her opinion of those she disagreed with?
You are only confirming what she already believes about the right. Why not offer her a less hostile alternative?
I'm not looking to disagree or agree with people - I'm looking for intelligent people to voice their opinions whatever they are. And I think many if not most in this forum will join me in saying you've been missed here.
I don't even agree with myself all of the time.
And I advise avoiding tribe and label, for they short-circuit critical thinking.
I'm not trying to respond personally, just make the point that "authority" means different things to different people and in the context you used as i think it was meant, I was just trying to clarify MY thoughts. Authority (rules) is important so that our civil society can work/coexist. I think of them as a soft fence that keep things on track and allow us to live our lives with as little central direction from "the state" as possible. I started following Glenn here when he was booted from his previous gig. I don't know how much we would agree on OTHER than having conversations about all the weird manipulative shit that is going on is a good thing. Can't have much of an enlightening conversation if its all with people that one would agree with or with people that don't want to try an understand what is going on.
"authority" means different things to different people "--Bill G
It is important to distinguish between "authority" and "expertise".
'Expertise' is competance and ability. 'Authourity has the power to proclaim and rule, whether authentic or not.
\\][//
Agree, in the main.
I've been with Greenwald for 15 years as well, since I actually was on the left, until now where I'm probably somewhere in the middle. Stay!
Mona, your comments are always appreciated. (Same as was the case under GG’s Intercept pieces.)
Speak for yourself Lovric.
\\][//
You beat me to it.
I didn't realize it was the same Mona. I love her comments!
Mona’s were practically the only comments I would actually take the trouble to read back at the Intercept.
There were probably 5 for me and she was definitely one of them along with Dysnomia. Hopefully she does not carry through with leaving. It's good to have different views here.
It would be a shame to lose you.
"we're for individual liberty and personal responsibility."
"Pretty words that without any critical analysis,"-- Mona Holland
Look Mona, it=f you want to grasp what those words mean, simply read the Declaration of Independence. It is all explained in great detail.
\\][//
I'm not quite 65, I am conservative and the last thing I believe in, and pretty much all conservatives that I know believe in, is the government. Conservatives, at least most not on the fringes, believe in a smaller government. Liberals believe in a larger government. How does that translate to supporting authority? I think you've got mixed up there.
This is one of the lefts many big lies.
The Bush family fed into it because GW Bush was a huge intelligence community expander, which is one of many reasons why I hate that family. We saw however (as this article documents) that the left is happy to exploit and weaponize the intelligence community and the suppression of dissent in the media far more heavy-handedly than the Bushs did even at their worst after 9/11.
Iconoclast , you might enjoy this post by Abigail Shrier on the spineless incompetent Republicans:
> Want to Save America? Don't Act Like a Conservative: Chest-Thumpers and ‘Aw, Shucks’ Conservatives Personify the Right’s Love Affair with Losing
https://abigailshrier.substack.com/p/want-to-save-america-dont-act-like
Want to Save America? Don't Act Like a Conservative
"But the Woke are not zany guests. They are home-invasion robbers. The structure they intend to leave behind will contain but a handful of the cultural artifacts they encountered. Bringing down statues of Abe Lincoln, books by Dr. Seuss and schools named for the country’s founders? That’s just their casing the joint. The large-scale heist hasn’t even started.
Aw Shucks Conservatives are willing to disagree with the Left, but they first want to get all the terminology right—“Now, which is it again: is ‘non-binary’ the same as they/them? Or ‘she/they?’” They don’t understand that the chaos is the point. While they strain to avoid a faux pas, they don’t even feel the dagger going in. They chuckle with their buddies that Woke beliefs are “nonsense upon stilts,” to use Bentham’s term—and that voters will surely respond in the next midterm election. They do not fight Silicon Valley—they are confused about whether their belief in free market economics allows it. They do not fight for women—not if it means any mud splashed on their full-break trousers. They have lost every important cultural battle and - if given over to their protection - we would lose America."
_________________________________________________
Splendid commentary there. thanks for the link!
See my blog on this subject:
https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/06/critical-race-theory-woke-agenda/
\\][//
\\][//
This is venturing into No True Scotsman territory but this is categorically false. For your entire life the conservative movement has been steadfastly in support of growing the military's power (which is the government) and fought ardently against rolling back governmental power in the criminal justice sphere. And yes, opposing the rights of criminal defendants, making punishments more onerous, and fighting the repeal of certain crimes. This is as pure a case of supporting state power as there is. This doesn't even include ways conservatives favor using governmental power to support business. What is intellectual property but governmental power? Patents don't exist in a state of nature.
Again, if you want to redefine "conservative" as "hardcore libertarian" that's one thing. But please be honest. Conservatives love governmental power, just like liberals/progressives do. They've spent both of our entite lifetimes furiously growing the powers of the state, just like FDR or LBJ. Each side just loves a government that is designed to pursue their preferred ends. Which is a totally legitimate debate to have. But there's a lot of people in these comments who are refusing to be honest with themselves about that.
I understand what you are saying regarding No True Scotsman. But the "Trump" conservative is very different from "Bush" conservative. We had the "conservative" Trump handing out pardons for drug offences and criminal justice reform while the "liberal" Biden and Kamala throwing them in prison. Worlds have collapsed.
> conservative fought ardently against rolling back governmental power in the criminal justice sphere
Last year, despite the propaganda, eighty-one percent (81%) of black Americans and eight-three percent (83%) of Hispanic Americans want either the police presence to remain the same (a majority) or to be increased:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx
Do you think 81% of blacks and 83% of Hispanics are conservatives?
Conservatives just like all sane people support cops. I am not the back the blue types because I know "back the blue" is who will show up to people's house to take their guns away, watch them get beaten by Antifa and arrest you for defending yourself, then arrest you for operating your business and going to church. But I am also not a freaking moron who believes this "defund the police" crap by corrupt politicians and Hollywood/Basketball elites who walk around with 24x7 security armed guards, military around the capitol and mansions protected with walls. They want to take away your protection and safety and arms while themselves sitting in their gated mansions. They are okay with honest innocent businesses being burnt down by rioters but all hell breaks lose if someone puts their feet on Nancy Pelosi's desk. They will send the american kids to foreign lands to kill people but kill her if she shows up to the politicians door step demanding election integrity. People who believed this crap are gullible useful idiots.
- While I agree with you regarding wasteful military spending and forever wars, I see military spending similar to my home country India does it. India is the 3rd largest military spender and 3% of their GDP. However despite India spending so much on it, they don't go around doing bullshit regime change wars. It's like owning guns for protection - not going around terrorizing everyone. Unfortunately both Republicans and Democrats have gone around with their regime change wars. Trump was a change - which is also why conservatives are now becoming more anti-war than the Democrats (Trump had 95% approval rating in his party). He did get duped by the CIA into the Syria gas attacks hoax and bombed them in 2017 during the Russiagate hysteria but then stopped after Tucker called him out on it. He did bring down the Afghanistan troop levels from 15000 to 2500 by the time he left. If it weren't for the corrupt military generals who lied to him about troop numbers in Syria (also encouraged by Democrats), that would have also been done. And Biden reversed Trump's pull out from Germany and postponed the Afghanistan troop withdrawal from May this year. If it weren't for the bullshit Russian bounty hoax in Afghanistan concocted by the Democrats, US would be out of Afghanistan by last year. So is the blame really to be put on Trump?
The US's military spending is just wasteful and used to give money to private contractors without accountability and for bullshit regime change wars.
Biden literally bragged about his crime bill in 1990s and even said the republicans didn't write it and were against it, he wrote it.
Watch his record in his own words:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/495yffnnZK2I/
Kamala literally hid evidence from innocent people and kept them in prison because she didn't want a failed prosecution:
https://youtu.be/Y8zh1fIaneY
^Same dude Josh Dubin's Dinner with Trump That Led to a Presidential Pardon:
https://youtu.be/KUB9k6-YFEc
1994 Wrote Crime Bill (stop and frisk that singled out black people based on "they were scary looking).
1995 Wrote Omnibus Counterterrorism Act which later became the Patriot Act.
1998 Voted against Gay marriage.
1999 Repealed the Glass-Steagall Act.
2001 Voted for the Patriot Act (he wrote it after all).
2002 Voted for the Iraq War.
2005 Voted to end bankruptcy protections for students.
2017 Biden bragged on live television he held up aid to Ukraine if they didn't fire the prosecutor investigating the company his corrupt son Hunter Biden got a job at making millions with 0 experience
2018 Presented George W Bush with Liberty Medal (LMFAO)
2019 Kamala Harris called him a racist because of his incredibly long history of racist remarks.
I suppose I may be falling victim to the two camps problem, and it may be true that conservatism - as a whole - is moving towards a more libertarian view on criminal justice issues (or maybe Trump just wasn't a conservative?). I would certainly prefer you to be correct on this. I thought Trump was much better on many of these issues (although I fear the judges he appointed will not be). In fact, one of the main reasons I did not vote for Biden is that him and Kamala are abhorrent to me on criminal justice.
I do think and hope there's an opportunity for people with views like mine and Glenn's and Trump conservatives (at least those for whom the former is stronger than the latter) to forge common sense criminal justice reforms that prioritize respecting our constitutional liberties and our need to keep the public safe.
Likewise, I don't think the widespread opposition to the police abolition movement makes anyone conservative or liberal or whatever. It just means they have a functioning brain. How the same people who called for abolishing the police then voted for Biden/Harris - with the record you accurately pointed out - is mind boggling.
DonT,
I agree with what CNNisFakeNews just said, as I was thinking it myself as I read your comment.
President Trump is not your "typical politician", not your "typical conservative", in fact he is not your typical anything, certainly not your typical Republican.
Trump literally transformed the Republican Party into his own image. This works because Trump loves the Constitution and the principles it is founded upon. He did his best to administer his duties as President in a fashion that the Constitution demands.
This is the core reason Trump supporters are still so loyal to him as a person and a leader.
I know that those of us who support Trump will be bashed, AS USUAL, for speaking frankly on this issue, and I simply do not care. As far as I am concerned anyone who doesn't get it, is someone who does not actually understand the Constitution and the principles it was founded upon.
\\][//
Media trust is at an all time high of 76% in Democrats as of September 2020. Media trust is at an all time low of 10% in Republicans:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx
Trust in institutions like FBI, CIA is higher in Democrats than in Republicans.
According to left leaning USAToday, among the conservative voters only ~4% have positive thoughts about Qanon. 31.4 percent found the movement “unfavorable,” 43.3 percent said they had “never heard” of QAnon, and 21.3 percent were undecided. What % of democrats do you think believe the Russiagate nonsense or the russian bounty nonsense?
https://www.suffolk.edu/-/media/suffolk/documents/academics/research-at-suffolk/suprc/polls/issues-polls/2021/2_22_2021_marginals_pdftxt.pdf?la=en&hash=90BD0E21168399E259262CD994978737F5D7F929
https://www.westernjournal.com/new-poll-shatters-lefts-qanon-narrative-4-trump-supporters-believe/
AOC and her squad were openly tweeting about making lists of Trump supporters and getting them fired. They even created lists of judges and other appointees from Trump. Steve Scalise got shot by a Bernie supporter, Rand Paul got his lungs punctured and then harassed by the street mob "to say her name" after the RNC.
Hundreds of the Jan 6 capitol protestors are in prison while when the Democrats did the same with anti-kavanaugh protests where they stormed the capitol, senate chambers, it was all encouraged by Democrats like Pelosi and AOC.
Big Tech, Media, Corporations, Hollywood and even the FBI, CIA etc are all openly hostile to conservatives. And yet you claim Conservatives are the one who are "far right"?
So please explain all about "Conservatives per se (not all libertarians, of courser), by definition, support authority, and will revert to it as soon as their comfort levels can again be sated".
You are willing to call people "raised by far right parents" yet you don't want to be called communists - something Democrats openly push for including BLM. Is making list of Trump supporters encouraged by AOC (with millions of followers) to get them fired not communist? You created the monster and you still have blinders on.
I didn't even mention the recent $2 billion in additional funding for Capitol police by Democrats all opposed by Republicans.
Which is little more than a weaponized secret police who are controlled by the House which is typically DNC.
Yep. They never believed in "defund the police". They want the police to be used for their own purposes.
for now.
Forgot to include the source for "Trust in institutions like FBI, CIA is higher in Democrats than in Republicans."
Jimmy Dore talks about the Pew Research here:
https://youtu.be/BYVY7PRH7ro
Glenn also cited this very data in his recent articles about media telling lies and then confirming them themselves.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/questions-about-the-fbis-role-in
Yes that is an important article from Greenwald, I certainly agree on that Iconoclast.
\\][//
There was a 27 minute commercial I would have had to endure before seeing that Jimmy Dore talk!!! So I just clicked off. That is how totally stupid YouTub is now.
\\][//
CNNfakeNews, you remaind me of Dinesh D'Souza another Indian-American commentator. Your lucidity and rational analysis and commentary puts you on the same level. You both have the rare talent of seeing to the very core of the issues and explaining them in clear and simple terms.
Love your stuff!
\\][//
"Conservatives ..., by definition, support authority, and will revert to it as soon as their comfort levels can again be sated."
Nonsense. The bone-chilling experiences of the last several years have well demonstrated that "conservatives" have absolutely nothing on "liberals" regarding authoritarianism, which I label Totalitarianism. What you call "authoritarianism" is likely their stubborness holding onto their values -- a stubbornness that anyone who respects themselves will have.
Watching this for decades, and reading the longer history, I see:
-Rightists prioritize liberty, and will sacrifice equality (of results) to get it.
-Leftists prioritize equality (of various kinds), and will sacrifice liberty to get it.
-Totalitarians prioritize power, and will sacrifice everything else to get it.
" The bone-chilling experiences of the last several years have well demonstrated that "conservatives" have absolutely nothing on "liberals""
You mean NEOLIBERALS -- most establishment Democrats, with analogs/co-ideologs all over the West. And, yes, they are also authoritarian. As opposed to the FDR liberals of yore, who were civil libertarians. (I'm not one of them as I am a social democrat.)
"-Rightists prioritize liberty, "
They do not.
Righwingers in my lifetime support: anti-sodomy laws, criminalized abortion, the prison industrial complex, nearly all that law enforcement or prosecutors wish to do or do do, and the FBI?CIA/military. Rightwingers have almost always supported capital/management in siccing violent law enforcement on striking labor, and so, so much more.
I think it’s obvious that the characterization of the majority of Trump voters here is about voters, while the characterizations of the culprits on left applies mainly to politicians & the media. For the average Democrat voter to think this piece is calling you out is a tad sensitive. Let’s just state it generalizations - Voters have come to see over the last several years that politicians & their media lapdogs do not care about them & are willing to go to any lengths to stay in power even if that means steamrolling over your vote. I think it would be easy for most people on any side & in the middle to agree with that statement - but we seem to run into problems when we have to admit that “our side” did it. I pray for the day when the general public realizes that we are not each other’s enemy. We may have differences about priorities how to achieve them but we need to wake up & realize that we are ALL being played.
>>You mean NEOLIBERALS
You paint your political opposites with a very broad brush, and then insist upon fine distinctions for those politically adjacent to yourself.
You leftists are such charming people. ALL of you.
Her and Art have used this defense since day 1 of this forum.
They champion leftist ideals and then say "The DNC or whoever isn't really left like I am" when you challenge them on it.
If pressed to name actual candidates who they feel are "left" they still name DNC candidates. But swear they dont support the DNC.
Its like little kids who say not it when you tag them and close their eyes. They think that type of argument still works with any critical thinker which is baffling to me.
It's No-True-Scotsman fallacy.
"But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
"If you don't vote for me, then you ain't black."
In Art's case it's like 90% of his repertoire, poor fella. It reminds me of metalheads arguing about subgenres: "Bro, how can you think Putrid Grundle is thrashcore? Have you not even *heard* of grungecore?"
You're not wrong about much of the right. The extreme right and extreme left look pretty similar in real life.
Relevant comedy: When Wokes and Racists Actually Agree on Everything:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg
You seem to be stuck in the last century.
"Righwingers in my lifetime support: anti-sodomy laws, criminalized abortion, the prison industrial complex, nearly all that law enforcement or prosecutors wish to do or do do, and the FBI?CIA/military. Rightwingers have almost always supported capital/management in siccing violent law enforcement on striking labor, and so, so much more."
These are things that, IMO, are outside "Rightism". All are values pertaining to essentially preservation of their contemporary religious values and beliefs, sometimes derivative in twisted way (e.g. supporting criminally oppressive corporations in blind adherence to "free market" philosophy), but generally not something that is part of a L/R historical tradition. Remember, the Republicans were there to pander to them, especially 1980s onward -- they got the former Democrats *who had those same values*.
Today, there are plenty of a different kind of "Leftist" who support the same kind of authoritarianist and intolerant attitudes -- as you know, the primary current one being speech, and don't get me started on CRT. Meanwhile, many so-called current Leftists also support FBI/CIA/Miltary. Point is, neither actually subscribes to a coherent value philosophy like that I identified above.
They *both* simply are set in their respective, *religious* type of intolerance, supporting authorities that promise to enforce them, albeit about different sets of social values.
Probably everyone has beliefs expressing religious-style intolerance of *something* or other. Each side (if I can distill the sides to two) generally believes they are morally correct and their values should cover the entire society, while the other side sees it as outrageous overreach. IMO, each both should chill, and apply their respective religious disciplines *only* to themselves.
The religious left are unhinged in a way that the religious right could have only hoped for. But if I had to choose between them, I would pick, "None of the Above".
As a (old-fashioned) Leftist, I'd have to call it a draw. I've seen some pretty unhinged Right-wingers in my time are as crazily violent -- take the abortion doctor killers, who are uncontent even to "let God sort it out".
Never heard of "a la carte." hmmmmm
Neoliberals = a saliency of some Totalitarians. Neither have anything to do with "the people"; they just con them. Do you know any rank-and-file (i.e. non-power-seeking) Democrats who are Neoliberals while understanding what it means?
All these newly invented terms confuse me. When the term Neo-con was in vogue, I'm pretty sure it met those regime-change hawks like Bill Kristol, John McCain, Dick Cheney, and Hillary Clinton. Neoliberal is still a term I cannot comprehend. In two weeks, will we be calling transvestites "neo-women"?
Wikipedia: "Neoliberalism is a term used to describe the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with economic liberalism and free-market capitalism. It is generally associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, austerity ..."
Sounds Republican, no? Except when most of the *Democrats* do it, while denying it to their (mostly ignorant and/or scared sh*tless) Stockholm Syndrome voters, it takes on a new level of treachery.
Neoliberalism took hold because the socialism of the 60s and 70s produced economic stagnation and ruin. Governments probably shouldn't own airlines. They probably should own your municipal water supply. Both sides should know the limits of their abilities.
I have some knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia and the nonsense that is printed as fact. I don't care what adolescents post on Wikipedia and I don't trust a word of it. While I did not live in the 19th Century, I find it hard to believe that globalism and privatization were big issues during the American Civil War or when the West was won.
I agree that privatization and deregulation seem to be Republican favorites, yet neither of the two major political parties seem to be interested in austerity and they both contain characters who support globalism.
I think Neoliberalism is an imaginary term for an imaginary concept. But that's just my opinon.
You cannot be talking about me, since I am against such ideas, perhaps you are mistakenly replying to someone else's post. Enoy Tuesday. Tomorrow is 7.13.21. Enjoy!
Neo-liberals are not leftists of any sort; they're big-business conservatives. For that matter, most Democrats aren't "left," either, except in comparison with the really far right. Mostly, they're big-business shills.
If asked to name a leftist, I'd name Dr. Jill Stein - Green Party. And Greens aren't necessarily Marxists, another branch of the left.
And yes, I'd make similar distinctions on the right; Libertarians are very different from big-business Republicans, and we've seen the difference between Trumpist populists (hate to dignify them with that label) and, again the Business Party.
"we've seen the difference between Trumpist populists (hate to dignify them with that label)"--Oregoncharles
Why? I am a Trump supporter, and I see him as a populist. He certainly isn't a conservative in the sense of the Republicans of the Bush family era, those authoritarian Neocons of the PNAC school. They were blatant warmongers, as blatant as the Obama-Clinton click on the Democrat side.
Trump literally remade the Republican Party in his image, that of a constiutional populist hailing back to the principles of 1776.
THAT is exactly why I voted for him in 2020...
I didn't vote in 2016. I hadn't voted since voting for Ross Perot In 1992.
Trump did make America great again, he tried his best to emty the putrid swamp of bureaucrats and apparatchiks. He was only defeated in 2020 by those very authoritarian corporatist oligarchs that rigged the 2020 presidential election.
Solid undeniable proof at this link:
https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/01/2020-presidential-election-fraud/
\\][//
You can be a social democrat and still know unequivocally that your "team" manufactured a lie to smear the other team, using multiples levels of government, including ones they didn't actually control, to perpetuate that lie. Many Republicans came to grips a long time ago with the way the Iraq war was sold. It is past time for Democrats to do the same about Russiagate. A really good first start would in fact be a revocation of the NY Times' and Washington Post's Pulitzers and awarding them to Greenwald, Taibbi, and Mate. And maybe Devin Nunes too.
Re-assigning a past Pulitzer to Greenwald is not how institutions self-correct. When Darryl Cooper invoked that unlikely scenario, it's naturally going to excite Greenwald fans, and I kind of felt Cooper was playing to the gallery there. But if we take the bait and start saying "Yes! That's what the Pulitzer board should do", then we (Greenwald's fans) are going to rightly be seen as out of touch and too absorbed in gaudy honors. Actually I kind of hope that Greenwald himself tamps down this talk; that would be a classy move and kind of reminiscent of Chomsky at his best.
It's well-known that prizes like the Pulitzer aren't always awarded to the most deserving. The only way they self-correct for passing over a deserving winner in the past is by maybe finding a later occasion to offer that person a prize for newer work, and even that form of self-correction often gets neglected. As it is, Greenwald has some right to claim that he already got a Pulitzer, since he was a big part of the team that led The Guardian to be awarded one-half of a Pulitzer for their Snowden reporting. And Greenwald does, in fact, claim to have a Pulitzer on his record. Maybe he'll get a second Pulitzer some day, maybe he won't. He's recognized, in any case. But there are always some injustices in the Pulitzer awards. I never could understand why they didn't give a Pulitzer, or even Pulitzer finalist status, to the Allentown Morning Call for its excellent 2011 story on abusive working conditions in Amazon's warehouse: https://www.mcall.com/business/mc-sg-amazon-warehouse-series-storygallery.html
As for revoking a Pulitzer, that basically never happens. They revoked just one Pulitzer, when journalist Janet Cooke personally invented most of her Pulitzer-winning story out of whole cloth. But when the Pulitzer board was asked to revoke Walter Duranty's award for stories that propagandized for the Soviets, they said they weren't sure there was "deliberate deception", and they refused to take the "momentous step" of withdrawing the Pulitzer.
I took Darryl's comment about the Pulitzer as a sarcastic/tongue in cheek joke pointing out how absurd things have gotten. Didn't take it in a literal sense.
The Pulitzer, like the Nobel Prizes are generally for the "Official Narrative" crowd. Dissidents rarely get them while they are still alive.
Obama winning the Nobel Peace Price is a telling instance of how absurd the whole game is.
\\][//
Do you actually imagine that I'm confused as to the probability of this happening?
My message was a little different. You didn't address whether it was probable or not; I chose to do so and to give arguments to establish the point. Nice to see that we agree on this.
The idea of revoking Pulitzers and giving them to Greenwald et al. came up first in Darryl Cooper's article; it wasn't in Cooper's original Twitter thread, he just added it when he wrote for Greenwald's audience. Since you then took it up, I figured "Okay, multiple people are saying this, but is it really going to do us credit if we start clamoring for revoking others' Pulitzers and awarding them to Greenwald and company?" To be frank, I think if we start talking a lot about this we're just going to alienate most people, and I've explained why. I hope you don't read my comments as if they were sharply directed at you. I just saw you and Darryl Cooper making similar points, and wanted to raise my concerns before it became too much of a general clamor by Greenwald fans.
Your rebuttal is well stated. There are optic concerns, which to the dismay of some, do matter when attempting to persuade people. Particularly in this hyper-polarized world, so to call for both, rescinding an award from a foe and handing it to a friend, could certainly be deleterious to one's cause. There's an element that *possibly* stands counter to this - not your line of reasoning, but the actual merits to the idea in question.
Wikipedia states that Cooke returned the award, rather than it being revoked. Nevertheless, the prize was then subsequently given to the runner up. I'm not sure when *any* journalist started putting out substantive, investigative counter pieces to Russia-gate (as apposed to biased, conjecture) - but if it was in 2018, it stands to reason that they, and they alone, would be the recipients of any hypothetical revoked Pulitzer (it would certainly take revocation today - none of these narcissists are going to admit wrongdoing)
While it isn't going to happen, I think it's important to talk about it, publicly and repeatedly, for posterity's sake.
For years I used to pester people to rescind the transparency award given to Obama -- whenever I ran into someone who worked for any of the 5 organizations that gave Obama the award, I made sure to mention that the award should be withdrawn. Not sure it accomplished anything, but I wanted to try.
Still, if I had said "Take this award away from my opponent and grant it instead to one of the people I'm politically aligned with", I think that would have sounded too much like mere partisanship. Combining both these demands seems to make a worse impression on many people than doing a simple campaign to withdraw someone's award, or a simple campaign to give an award to someone you think is deserving.
I don't know anybody who is impressed with such things particularly after Mr Obama won a peace price. Even awards have become pointless political trophies, thus nobody watched Hollywood award shows. Another loss of public trust.
I believe our true enemy is the one inside that seeks to divide us from others, that seeks the label others so we can fit them in a box. I feel like this whole article at least for me is about letting go of labels because they don't work, the two-party system doesn't work, the age-old saying about divide and conquer is the true enemy, the powers that be don't give two hoots about anything we do.
New Evidence Indicates Enough Illegal Votes In Georgia To Tip 2020 Results
In Georgia, there was both an audit and a statewide recount confirming Biden’s victory, but ignored in the process was evidence that nearly 35,000 Georgians had potentially voted illegally.
By Margot Cleveland –JULY 9, 2021
New evidence indicates that more than 10,300 illegal votes were cast in Georgia in the November 2020 general election — a number that will continue to rise over the next several months, potentially exceeding the 12,670 votes that separated Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
While this evidence does not change the fact that Joe Biden is our president, all Americans who genuinely care about free and fair elections and the disenfranchisement of voters should demand both transparency and solutions to prevent a repeat in future elections. This evidence also vindicates former President Trump and his legal team for the related public (and private) comments and legal arguments made in challenging the Georgia election results.
Under the cover of COVID-19, Georgia, like many other states, flooded residents with absentee ballot applications. Also like sister states, Georgia ignored various legislative mandates designed to prevent fraud and to ensure the integrity of the vote. These facts, coupled with the closeness of the presidential contest in Georgia and other states, led to a flurry of accusations and litigation charging vote fraud, illegal voting, and violations of the Elector’s Clause of the constitution.
In Georgia, there was both an audit and a statewide recount confirming Biden’s victory, but ignored in the process was evidence that nearly 35,000 Georgians had potentially voted illegally.
Under Georgia law, residents must vote in the county in which they reside, unless they changed their residence within 30 days of the election. As Jake Evans, a well-known Atlanta election lawyer, told me, outside of the 30-day grace period, if people vote in a county in which they no longer reside, “Their vote in that county would be illegal.”
Soon after the November general election, Mark Davis, the president of Data Productions Inc. and an expert in voter data analytics and residency issues, obtained data from the National Change of Address (NCOA) database that identified Georgia residents who had confirmed moves with the U.S. Postal Service. After excluding moves with effective dates within 30 days of the general election, and by using data available from the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office, Davis identified nearly 35,000 Georgia voters who indicated they had moved from one Georgia county to another, but then voted in the 2020 general election in the county from which they had moved.
Casting Doubt on Potential Illegal Votes…
https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/09/new-evidence-indicates-enough-illegal-votes-in-georgia-to-tip-2020-results/
\\][//
I think Mr. Cooper's article is meant to twist and spin the article he never cited by name or link:
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
Read it. And then read my transcript and interpretation at:
https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/01/2020-presidential-election-fraud/
\\][//
Your argument against conservatives grouping all liberals together is valid. Unfortunately you grouped all conservatives together in trying to make that argument. Its dumb. You essentially became what you hate. Listen, we’re not all trolls. I read National Review and Greenwald. In fact, the most interesting news is coming from disaffected liberals that are finally feeling the bite of illiberal liberals. I don’t care who you vote for. I care about the constitution and the idea that is America. That idea is something that both sides used to champion - individual freedom and liberty. You’ve obviously not read National Review if you think they discuss anything other than that on principle. There’s nothing more ignorant than declaring whole groups of people as being ignorant, and unable to think other than what you perceive them to think. I’m not sure if you’re a communist or whatever. Frankly I don’t care. But from what you’ve stated, you may be a bigot. Regardless, I’d highly suggest you get to know people based upon their individual characteristics and comments. All of us this thread, no matter what side of the political aisle you’re on, can tell a tale about all the idiot trolls they meet here or on Twitter or whatever. But who cares? Honestly. Who cares? Is this high school where we all need to be liked or agreed with? You didn’t mention that you’ve been beaten in the streets by “trumpers” so I’m assuming you’re hurt by mean tweets. I think you’ll good. I’ll agree with you about that last portion as well. I don’t see conservatives, in their current mindset, trusting the political left with anything. Conservatives don’t care if you’re “liberal” (whatever that even means in the Democratic Party I don’t know). But conservatives have definitely had an awakening. This article is exceptionally accurate and the point is simple - all of us that are concerned about losing our sovereignty as citizens, our freedom, our liberty should gather together and push back. It has absolutely nothing to do with who you vote for, or you’re monolithic perception of an entire group of people you’ve never met based solely upon mean tweets. The only thing that matters is the constitutional order. Reasonable people can agree that is the most important thing at risk.
@Mona: Basically all factions support authority in their own way, not just conservatives. To people on the left like us, conservatives often appear as if they were supporting authority for its own sake -- but that's largely because people on the left find it much easier to notice when conservatives' respect for authority is harmful or ill-meaning, and we find it harder to recognize that conservatives are to some extent willing to be guided by their own kind of humane values when they align themselves with authority. Your statement that "the right is the ... enemy of what is human" is, I would say, more or less dehumanizing; and it's a distorted perception. All political factions have their own characteristic ethical mistakes, and I suppose there are times when the right is opposed to what matters most in life, but I think the same is true of the left at times.
That said, you are right that Greenwald's current approach attracts mostly conservatives of one stripe or another. And as usual, you can expect people to be just as superficial about you as you are about them.
Greenwald is unabashedly liberal. That he appeals to "conservatives" only shows how fucked up the rest of the media really is. His appeal is in his intellectual honesty and his lack of sucking the teat of government power.
Partly right. But it's more complicated than that, in at least three ways.
(1) Greenwald is sometimes, though not always, able to give high-quality criticism of people on the right as well as on the left (using his intellectual honesty). If there were enough conservatives who could do that as effectively, whether they worked inside the media or not, conservative readers wouldn't so often turn to Greenwald. So something is lacking among present-day conservatives, as well as present-day liberals, and it's not just in the media It is reasonable that a substantial number of both conservatives and liberals effectively admit that lack in turning to Greenwald, and of course it shouldn't discourage conservatives or liberals from developing more people who can do this kind of work.
(2) Greenwald isn't always unfriendly to government power. I'm a leftist, perhaps an unorthodox one, and I sometimes find Greenwald is more friendly to government power than I think is right. For instance, Greenwald thinks every president should have the right to fire a DOJ official who is investigating his administration, and this view of Greenwald's will promote abuse of power.
(3) You're right that there are many issues where Greenwald is unabashedly liberal, and of course conservatives can't help seeing this about him, so they end up classifying him as a liberal. But in some areas he's not all that good at criticizing conservative leaders or conservative views. My impression is that currently, he just fails to see how to make some of these criticisms, which other progressives would see. In that sense, he may think more like someone from the right on these areas. There may also be times when he goes easy on the conservative part of his audience by not criticizing some target on the right, though it's true that he does make some criticisms of things on the right.
Still, your points are at least partly right.
Unfortunately I won't be able to discuss this further here; I've commented enough on other threads of today's article.
I disagree. But not because I am a conservative. When it comes to Team (D) vs. Team (R), I root for catastrophic knee injuries and overhead blimp accidents.
I think your personal biases have kept you from finding "conservative" sources which are intellectually honest. City Journal and National Review have been critical of "conservatives" as have individual writers such as Glenn Reynolds and Victor Hanson. Not to mention public intellectuals like Thomas Sowell, John McWhorter and Glenn Loury, who are neither "liberal or conservative" except perhaps from an economic standpoint.
In point (2), if you are claiming that he is more supportive of elected than appointed government employees, I would agree. That is a more "liberal" position to take, in that you are backing the people's choice, not Leviathan's.
Failing to criticize does not equal endorsement. That's part of the problem with today's political culture. I can choose to watch basketball and not care about LeBron James' politics. I can go to a movie with James Woods in it, and not be offended. We have to drop the concept that if someone doesn't denounce everyone and everything perceived to be a political opponent, then they are somehow on the "other side."
I would challenge your view on Thomas Sowell -- and it's got nothin' to do with economics. While "failing to criticize does not equal endorsement" sounds reasonable on the whole, it doesn't account for the hero worship around people like Sowell.
Excessive praise is endorsement by proxy -- to the point where one's credibility is extended to any and all issues (never mind if they have no idea what they're talking about).
Thomas Sowell has a record of egregious hypocrisy, gross negligence, party-line hackery, and flagrantly failing to follow the facts . . .
On a matter of world-altering magnitude, no less. But he's treated like the Godfather of "Follow the Facts."
It's a meaningless mantra -- faith-based belief driven by myth over merit.
And then you've got the likes of Loury, McWhorter and Hughes -- who sanction it all by blindly worshipping this guy.
Along with the army of sycophants who kiss his a$$.
And contrary to convenient belief -- Glenn & the Gang are actually making race relations worse. All of which I explain in detail in my blog series (and the links below).
My reply to Glenn Loury's refusal to consider the evidence he doesn't like around Sowell:
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/07/11/what-a-fool-believes-he-sees/
The case against Sowell:
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/07/05/call-sign-maverick/
The 2-part finale of my blog series:
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/07/02/two-sides-of-the-same-counterfeit-coin-part-12-a/
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/07/10/two-sides-of-the-same-counterfeit-coin-part-12-b/
No, if a president decides to fire someone investigating issues that touch the president himself, it's likely to be for the president's own self-interest. You claim that elected politicians should have that authority because they are the "people's choice"; but being elected shouldn't entitle a politician to use power in abusive ways, because that isn't what the people asked for. Andrew Cuomo, facing multiple scandals, argued he shouldn't leave office because he said his holding power was "the people's will... That's democracy", and obviously being elected doesn't excuse his bad conduct. You argue that it's better to have elected politicians take decisions like firing investigators into their misconduct, since you think appointed officials represent Leviathan; but although that could be debated, it's not the main point and I won't go into it. What really matters here is that there are better and more democratic alternatives than giving this kind of power to elected politicians or appointed officials.
I'd say the right way to handle these issues starts with honoring whistleblowers. There should be a whistleblower award given by the voters, so that in every election, voters choose someone to honor for their whistleblowing service. The winners of the whistleblower award should be seated on a board; this would be a government body made up of people chosen by the voters but who did NOT gain power by politicians' means and instead are chosen for their demonstrated integrity. Having a government body like that is a great way to put checks and balances on those who abuse power. The whistleblower board would then hire a chief oversight officer who would hire people throughout government to perform audits, process FOIA requests, release improperly classified material, investigate elected officials when allegations reach a certain level of credibility, help ensure fair bidding on contracts and honestly administered elections, and similar tasks. The chief oversight officer would also hire ombudspeople, inspectors general, OLC lawyers, and compliance officers, as well as monitoring staff embedded all throughout the intelligence agencies and law enforcement. These embedded monitoring staff could check for abuses of power in the Deep State. The chief oversight officer, with the whistleblower board, would be the final judge of when the public's right to know about classified abuses outweighs the national-security reasons for keeping something secret. Elected politicians would still have full leeway to appoint officials who would carry out the elected politicians' platforms, except for appointed jobs that are about insuring government integrity, which would answer to the chief oversight officer instead. It's a far better solution than letting an elected politician appoint the officials who do oversight into the politician himself, and if people like Andrew Cuomo don't like my proposal, that's just a good sign.
I appreciate your list of intellectually honest people who are more on the conservative end. I hoped it would be clear that I wasn't saying there were no such intellectually honest people among conservatives; I was just saying there weren't enough. Of the people you mention, I read some, have mostly negative opinions of others, and some I don't yet read at all. Also, I think you're right that failing to criticize should not automatically be taken as endorsement; as for whether that means Greenwald is taking the right approach to those he usually refrains from criticizing, we can leave that open.
The great thing about the Constitutional republic we live in, and the states that comprise it, is that the voters can pass a verdict on shitty elected officials. The bigger problem is the duopoly - and the careerist politicians it spawns.
Oh, please. Enough of the divisive BS.
They can't help it. It's an inadvertent re-enactment of Life of Brian. This is the People's Front of Judea.
But this is what I as a libertarian can see - it is the Left that is now supporting a hugely and disturbingly authoritarian movement that is forcing and mandating a "Diversity/Equity/Inclusion" illiberal ideology on major institutions, corporations, universities and schools , that sounds benign and virtuous but that in practice is suppressing dissent, promoting a new form of racism in the name of Anti-racism, demonizing one race and the entire liberal project of the Enlightenment while excusing and even encouraging the rioting and destruction of our cities by other races, and countering every tenet of true liberalism - free speech, respect for true diversity of thought, and equality of opportunity which is now substituted with equality of outcome, a harbinger of nothing more than corruption of standards of excellence and merit and a blatant confession that they do not believe that Blacks can truly measure up.
You yourself may disagree with some of these ideas but they are manifest across the country in our politics, our school boards , our media and in Academia where all such destructive notions tend to incubate. Your own negative descriptions of conservatives are widespread on the Left and this is what is driving the growing alienation of decent people on the Right whose values are laughed at, sneered at and increasingly banned on social media and on nightly news. Conservatives will rightly push back on your kind of authority.
You write, "Conservatives per se . . . , by definition, support authority."
Are you sure of that even in general? Conservatives by definition support the settled order. In America the settled order (at least until recently) was based on the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment with its social contract theory of government. The dominant culture was the sort of protestantism that would take "No king but Jesus" as a slogan repudiating earthly authority.
Conservatives in societies where the settled order is based on authority, perhaps, but not here in America.
I would even go so far as to suggest that the basis for what is called "the culture war" is various authorities, judges, academicians, and the like using their authority against the settled order, thereby provoking reaction from conservatives.
The settled order recognizes that time and nature are implacable authorities, and that all others are mere pretenders at their peril.
"Are you sure of that even in general? "
Largely, yes.
Not that I disagree in the most part with your socio-historical analysis.
How ironic for you of all people, who called me (as someone who dared to disagree with you, a former partner of Glenn's!, I mean how dare I!) all kinds of names just for disagreeing with you.
Its unfortunate you can't see the ocean from the beach, but hey it is what it is, you are biased and always will be, and you will always give anyone on the left the benefit of the doubt and anyone the right none of it.
For shame to call yourself progressive.
Your beliefs about what conservatives are is incorrect. One trick in politics is to find the absolute worst person aligned with a group and use that person as the model representative for the entire group. I reject this approach when my group does it. This approach keeps us apart.
I'm not sure what you're referring to about "Your beliefs about what conservatives are is incorrect." But my experiences have nothing to do with "respect for people who disagree" (under any amount of civility).
I've been trashed for nearly 20 years for telling the truth the biggest and most costly lie in modern history -- by people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
Not only that -- they made it impossible to even get to what the debate is actually about (and still do).
You could be the first person in nearly 2 decades to discuss this issue without acting like a child.
How about it?
You can start with my 7-part 2-hours and 40 minute documentary that nails both Democrats and Republicans to the wall: https://mounteverestoftheobvious.com/documentary/prologue/
Or this 5-minute excerpt on the most critical part of the doc: https://youtu.be/X9Si5T2EmZA
Or this 3:25 excerpt on the essence of it: https://youtu.be/p4hMfZfN8WA
Or this I just posted: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/07/19/picture-pages/
Or this 13-part blog series: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/05/18/two-sides-of-the-same-counterfeit-coin-part-1/
Your move.
Actually, what we have seen with the rise of wokery is that everyone supports authority, so long as it’s their side in charge. Progressives were in favor of free speech when it was their speech being restricted by the Tipper Gore’s and bluenosed church ladies of the world, and now conservatives are in favor of free speech when it’s their speech being restricted by Big Tech. This is why the American model’s emphasis on due process and checks and balances is so important.
“When I am weaker than you, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your Freedom because that is according to my principles.” ― Frank Herbert
Agree but with the caveat that the judiciary and the legal system was compromised long ago.
Do conservatives support authority by definition? I don't think so, and furthermore, I would say that right now it's the progressives who are far more in support of authority.
Kudos to Cooper and Glenn. Expect to vilified by the usual suspects. Tell them to "Go shit in their hats" as my tough Irish mother would say.
This. Is. Awesome.
This is really great breakdown of the key issues. Like a lot of people, I have no definite answers either but know that all of the irregularities, censorship/suppression, and outright lies by the cabal of media, government, tech and corporate elite are not an accident. The other point I would make is that if the cabal genuinely believed that 45 was a Russian asset and engaged in treasonous activities, then it would be noble and proper to collaborate and neutralize the threat in any way possible. I would expect no less.
The appropriate thing to do in that case would have been to inform flag officers, heads of agencies, politicians of both parties, and every prominent American with bipartisan credibility of the evidence, then call a press a conference where it’s presented and immediate action is demanded. We’re not talking about laundering campaign funds, after all. What you don’t do is have a special counsel staffed with known partisans conduct a secretive investigation fueled by anonymous leaks, then drop the entire thing and move on as soon as Devin Nunes no longer controls of House investigative committee.
I think what happened was that they talked themselves into a conspiracy theory to justify taking unconscionable actions against the Trump campaign, and realized they could be in a lot of trouble when it began to fall apart. So they shuffled the investigation off into the special counsel’s office so that every congressional inquiry could be answered with “I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation” until the Democrats took back the House. And maybe they hoped they could find something, related to Russia or not, damaging enough to take him down - although the record seems to indicate that they gave up on serious investigations after only a few months and spent the rest of the time trying to build an obstruction case.
"Realized they could be in a lot of trouble" when he WON ANYWAY. And thanks for the great breakdown in your main post!
Why didn't you cite the Molly Ball article in TIME Magazine of Feb 4, 2021?
You should have and left a link to the URL of that article.
That way everyone here would understand how disingenuous your commentary on that article actually is.
No matter what term you use to describe what the Molly Ball article speaks to as per the election, calling it “save”, meddling” “manipulate”, “interfere” “fix”, “rig”, “tilt”. “handle”, “intervene”, “control”, or “influence”; it amounts to the same thing: RIGGING THE ELECTION.
Here is the link:
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
\\][//
I believe that none other than Peter Strzok said "...there's no 'there' there" in a text message to his mistress.
Oh, I absolutely agree. Millions of Americans allowed themselves to be convinced by the cabal that 45 was a Russian agent, a white supremacist/racist, a rapist, and more. I can understand why they think any and all measures to remove him are okay. Of course, that's not how a constitutional republic is supposed to function. Now we have to fight the ruling cabal with everything we've got.
"Now we have to fight the ruling cabal with everything we've got."
Yes indeed! And the titular head of that cabal is the Biden regime.
Fix your sights on that target.
\\][//
"No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems -- of which getting elected and re-elected are No. 1 and No. 2. Whatever is No. 3 is far behind".
Thomas Sowell, Economist
Missing drug legalization and making universities co-sign student loans. Also encourage trade school instead of degrees.
- Free speech absolutist: pardon Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Ross Ulbricht, Kyle Lamar Myers and others from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers
- Big Tech/Corporations/Banks with over 1 million daily active user-content generating users in the USA should be declared common carriers
- Right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Abolish the ATF.
- Stop forever regime change wars, non-intervention, middle east peace deals, reduce private contractors
- Abolish identity politics, abolish critical race theory, discourage ad-hominen attacks from political office, biological sex in sports only
- Legalize weed, mushrooms, cocaine and pardon all non-violent/non-second crime non-dealers
- 30 million population universal health care + private health care / public option + import drugs from safe countries + price transparency + drug price matching with foreign countries + violent felons become ineligible for 3 years after serving sentencing
- Minimum wage tied as a factor to the top salary of the franchise owner and salary of the franchise owner tied to the salary of the top executive of the company
- Make universities co-sign student loans + School choice / Vouchers + potential future employers sponsor tuition + Encourage trade school + scholarships based on GPA
- Abolish corporate sponsored mass immigration: immigration of labour ONLY for those who come as students for 4 years (or their retired parents) and work to become permanent residents after 2 years of graduation and 3 years of PR to become American citizens. Non-past students do not get H1B visas. Companies must pay equal pay to immigrants as American nationals. Remove loopholes.
- Voter ID
- Opportunity zones
- Abolish insider trading for congress & senate
- Term limits for congress & senate of 12 years maximum
- Conditional birthright citizenship: either foreign national parent having a baby in USA gets conditional citizenship - must stay in USA for 6 months each year for 7 years
- Abolish buying of USA property/land by non-staying-citizens
- Trim the bloat from federal government, trim military budget to make it efficient, trim the corrupt intelligence agencies, fire unneccesary administrative work/bureaucrats/reduce private contractors, most societal issues must be dealt at the state level
For every goal, hire anti-establishment representatives from populist left & populist right to debate and achieve the end goal. For example hire Aaron Mate, Jimmy Dore, Jared Kushner, Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard and Matt Gaetz to achieve the goal of "Stop forever regime change wars, non-intervention, middle east peace deals". Hire Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Bret Weinstein, Donald Trump to achieve goal of "Free speech absolutist" and pardons.
Hmm, your post managed to endorse both "Free speech absolutist" and "Abolish identity politics, abolish critical race theory". Real free speech supporters like me laugh at that.
No, not by lying to the American public about the fake dossier. That would never be justified
They didn't believe that in the slightest.
I don’t think they did either but they certainly convinced half of the voting public they were saving America by voting for Biden!
The difference between the Russians and the Americans is that Russians know that their media is propaganda.
Isn't that the truth!
It was evil.
So you think the FBI should pick the President? Why have elections at all?
The problem is glaring: the US gov't and it's established ruling class haven't had a righteous cause since WWII.
They know this, and they still continue manufacturing consent for every hair-brained scheme to start wars and spend those tax dollars lining the pockets of the most wealthy people on the planet.
What's next??? Capitol Police kicking doors in with impunity and free from public knowledge of who the officers are and free from the FOIA?
Probably.
The most pressing matter facing advocates of liberty today is the prospect of the political and economic establishment completing the institution of a totalitarian state. There is no other way to read the multipronged approach and the political maneuverings that political operatives are taking to rule under “Biden.” I put “Biden” in quotation marks here because the current president of the United States is not a singular person named Joe Biden. It is a politburo consisting of party rulers and advisers, ruling by executive fiat, plus, as I’ll discuss, corporate-state apparatuses. Make no mistake, the power grab that is underway poses the most grievous threat to liberty in recent history.
The signals could not be any clearer. In addition to the swath of executive orders, clearly composed by politburo members and aimed at extending federal power, the political establishment has initiated a growing body of laws which would, if passed, consolidate uniparty rule for the foreseeable future.
An Historical Juncture Demanding Human Action — Michael Rectenwald
https://www.michaelrectenwald.com/essays/an-historical-juncture-demanding-human-action
\\][//
"The other point I would make is that if the cabal genuinely believed that 45 was a Russian asset and engaged in treasonous activities, then it would be noble and proper to collaborate and neutralize the threat in any way possible. I would expect no less."--Ms. Loough
Preposterous! Rigging an election can NEVER be condoned. It is up to the people to vote for whatever candidate and issues they choose.
I cannot believe you would make such an assertion. I am sorely disappointed in you.
\\][//
The media charged with reporting facts and reality are now committed to The Party above the truth. We defeated the Soviet Union only to become it.
Or were we always more like it than we thought..just kept in the dark longer?
Darryl Cooper really captures my own journey. Until 6 years ago I was also conservative by nature, but all that changed due to life events a few years before the Trump election of 2016.
Although I soon lost faith in our institutions as hopelessly corrupt, it took longer for me to acknowledge that even democracy itself was compromised. All this despite my knowledge of what the Kennedy family did in 1960. It's amazing how easy it is to section off parts of our own knowledge when they don't match up with what we want to believe.
Admitting democracy itself is compromised became obvious the moment I gave it serious thought, but it took me longer to get their than it should have.
Incidentally, anyone who thinks democratic elections in America were running as a well oiled machine until 2020 are kidding themselves. Once I realized how our antiquated system is designed to be easily gamed at every level, I realized this problem goes back much further than just Donald Trump. Most people want to believe in democracy and fair elections so deeply that it takes a lot for them to admit it's not what it appears.
Largest data breach in the history of America, Largest censorship of half the population's voice. Also most secure election ever! - CISA.gov
You left out "greatest over reach" in US history.
This has clearly been going on for a long time and we have examples stretching from Kennedy in 1960 to Bernie Sanders in 2020.
They simply got too greedy this time. It was so bad even people like me started to question the narrative.
That's one thing which made me more disappointed. Even the leftists knew that Bernie got cheated out twice in primaries. Yet they can't fathom the general elections having the same shenanigans?
If we recognize democractic voting as an approximate test of which candidate is more popular, reality becomes less disappointing.
I'm not sure I understand this comment, but I will say this.
If we recognize that politicians love power above ideology or anything else. That absolute power corrupts absolutely and that they have been caught lying and stealing in literally every other way imaginable, it strains credibility to think that when it comes to the elections their power depends upon, they will magically become vallorious truth tellers out to uphold democracy.
From a science point of view, elections are a measurement of what the electorate wants. Every scientific measurement has errors. Some are statistical and random and some are systematic that lead to biases.
Posted too soon...
A lot of the things mentioned in the article are systematic type problems that should be removed. Nevertheless even if there are those problems, the election counts as a measurement with some errors.
I see. Yes, elections are always messy, but are a measurement of the popularity of the choices provided (what you called "what the electorate wants").
It's problematic that so many people from the local city council member on up benefit from keeping it messy.
Which I think is the point of the whole thread and article. The key line for me is "Many Trump supporters don’t know for certain whether ballots were faked in November 2020, but they know with apodictic certainty that the press, the FBI, and even the courts would lie to them if they were."
You are absolutely correct that voting is only an approximate test of popularity but ever since the myth of the 'emerging Democrat majority' became popular in the 1990s, the Democrats have made a fetish of generating as many votes in any given election as possible since they think this gives them an advantage. If you accept the approximation theory then what you want to focus on is making the overall process verifiable and transparent, not generating a blizzard of paper that looks like it is meant to conceal bad actions.
I was electrified by the viral thread on Twitter when it appeared and now by this long-form version. As a leftist streaked with conservatism and with no interest in IdPol, I share a lot of Greenwald’s positions, and what Darryl says resonates with me. As an immigrant from the UK, I’m also horrified by the sloppy way US elections are run. It is beyond belief that votes aren’t counted publicly and in a timely way. Did California ever finish counting the Dem primary votes in 2016? How about that bullshit app in Iowa in 2020?
"It is beyond belief that votes aren’t counted publicly and in a timely way." - indeed, so the next logical question is why that is so. They can't do it because they don't know how? With all the experience available from around the world?
I think not. I think it's convenient to have it the way it is so it could be manipulated when needed. And I don't think the operatives from any side ever hesitate to engage the mechanisms at exactly the right moments and just to the degree needed to have a required result. With the rest of the gullible either unaware or going with the "ends justify the means".
Which brings me to say - what happened with Trump is nothing new. With the internet etc the color revolutions spread around the world formerly with guns now came back home armed with big tech. You reap what you sow.
Florida fixed their shit and ran one of the smoothest elections despite having more population than NY and twice the population of GA. Florida was able to finish their election counting within 2 hours of poll closures. GA and NY took weeks....
I believe that is commonly referred to as an oligarchy.
Bernie was a greater threat to the establishment than Trump in 2016. I won't be convinced Hillary won all those random coin tosses.
Bernie may have actually won. He was the better candidate.
Bernie in 2016 was certainly the better candidate. And he had the capacity to appeal to the Trump voters. In 2020 he was a different candidate, somewhat coopted by IdPol and I found it hard to listen to the Trump is an existential threat stuff, given Trump’s short attention span and other similar deficiencies. Anyway, I’ve believed for a while that there is an opportunity to unite both ends of the working-class spectrum. And I hope we seize it.
Bernie listened to all the wrong people in 2020.
Imo, Bernie was always in on it with the establishment dems from the beginning. Mr $15 an hour Bernie Sanders refused to pay his staff $15 because his campaign couldn't afford to. He has been a Vermont senator for 30+ years! The min wage in Vermont is $10. He also used to complain about illegal immigration being "right wing proposals". Until 2016. We all know what changed in 2016. Bernie's hotel demands from his “Senator Comfort Memo”: King-size beds and 60-degree rooms. He flies on private jets plus a memo detailing minimum requirements of the private jet. He used to complain about millionaires and billionaires. Until 2 years ago when he became a millionaire. Then only the billionaires were the problem for him. He released his tax returns couple years ago. For someone complaining so much about poor people suffering, he barely paid anything in charity from his multi millions. For someone who's so anti-pharma, Bernie still gladly took $1.3 million from Pharma. Trump got $2.5 million and Biden took $8.5 million:
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2020&ind=h04
Then he got "cheated" out twice from the nomination and he rolled over without a fight - maybe because this was the plan all along for Democrats to use him to get the left to vote for Biden. Then he refused to look at the "cheating" allegations from Trump. He called Biden his friend and respectable man. Didn't even have the balls of calling out his obvious selling out to China and his son using his office for profit. Now he's going on CNN making excuses on why they couldn't get $15 minimum wage, why $2000 has still not gone out, why $1400 is more than enough instead of the $2000 they promised, why medicare for all is now too hard to achieve. And his supporters thought Bernie would care about them. When his supporters couldn't wake up to how big of a pathetic Bernie was when he gave up his mic to the 2 BLM activists at his own rally, how he did a full 180 flip on illegal immigration when Trump ran, then nothing will wake them up.
Unlike Bernie who rolled over at the very first sight, Trump at least put up a fight and won the nomination. Imagine Bernie rolling over like that to foreign nations.
Bernie tells people pie in the sky dreams to siphon votes to the Democrats. That's it.
The Bernie Sanders debacle was tragic, really. I really liked him in 2016 and thought he had a major chance....and here we are now. Cant stand the guy at this point. Could he have been any more spineless? I’m not naive enough to think he could have run independently and won but it grossed me out how he didn’t just capitulate to the DNC: he let them publicly teabag him and then graciously backed Biden. 🤮
Bernie giving up his mic to those 2 BLM ladies without a fight was the perfect description of how he would have sold out his country to foreign countries on trade. Once a cuck, always a cuck.
Florida fixed their shit and ran one of the smoothest elections despite having more population than NY and twice the population of GA. Florida was able to finish their election counting within 2 hours of poll closures. GA and NY and other states with less population took weeks.
India with a population of eligible voters of 900 million had over 600 million votes casted and counted last year and they have strict voter ID laws. Even poor people have it. But voter ID is suddenly racist for Democrats.
Some states are very efficient. Some are a shit show.