1231 Comments

Remember, kids, authoritarianism is something that ever always only happens in other countries!

Expand full comment

We're going full shithole!

Expand full comment

we are full shithole.

Expand full comment

I can't agree with that, given that Matt has repeatedly pointed out the difference between actual police states and the freedoms of an open society that we still have available in the US.

Matt's warning about a perilous trend. That's different than actually having arrived in the pit.

I just got done reading the Wired article about the deployment of Hikvision facial surveillance technology in the PRC. https://www.wired.com/story/surveillance-china-security-camera-giant-ipvm/

Now THAT is what actual totalitarian control is.

The American company that exposed Hikvision: https://ipvm.com/

Expand full comment

Yeah, but the fact remains that our rights, services and peace of mind are all being eroded at a shocking pace, by both parties, making elections increasingly pointless even as the language around them become incredibly histrionic.

Perhaps other nations are more "police state", but we definitely are moving in that direction, quickly, with no ability to influence our path.

Expand full comment

“Matt's warning about a perilous trend. That's different than actually having arrived in the pit. “

Time is what keeps everything from happening at once

See: how to boil a live frog

Expand full comment

Osiris was right. You never go Full Retard.

Expand full comment
Apr 27, 2023·edited Apr 27, 2023

I never thought that, and the old Indian and cowboys told you so. It was their land, but we came over and took it , but they were bad for fighting for what was theirs. As a kid it told me we are not who we say we are.

Expand full comment

In the “meta” sense it shows the true dangers of “tribalism”(a synonym for diversity). If the Indians (early on) could have set their differences aside and recognized the existential threat Europeans posed to them they could have easily eliminated their small nascent communities. At least for awhile. King Phillip made a valiant effort but failed.

Expand full comment

Tribalism is not a synonym for diversity. Not in any thesaurus or dictionary. Most people have a suspicious idea of "tribalism," that it might not be good. And you seem to want to somehow drag diversity into it?

If anything, diversity is an antonym of tribalism.

Expand full comment

Diversity IS an antonym of tribalism, but we are practicing tribalism and calling it diversity. Kind of like how "freedom" meant mass surveillance in past moral panics.

Expand full comment

Tribalism is a synonym for diversity.

Expand full comment

I'm sure you'll provide us with the link to that source. The famous synonym guy, Roget, says you are incorrect.

Expand full comment

I am the source, the only one of importance here on this thread. Resorting to a thesaurus is past folly, it veers into stupidity.

Expand full comment

Wrongo.

Expand full comment

it's quite correct actually.

Expand full comment

I always remembered reading that a pope in the 15 century gave all those headed off to claim new land a thumbs up, and a sense of entitlement to the land of the infidels, and killing them off was indeed an option, and I'm sure what you're saying is true.

Expand full comment

Might have something to do with the old Testament where God literally tells the Isaelites to kill tribe after tribe after tribe.

Expand full comment

Kill yes, all of them, and then rape and enslave their women. I've actually read the bible, all of it. Some really seriously nasty and weird stuff in there.

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

2 Kings 2:23

Expand full comment

Wow. Little gem of a story like that should be tip off that most cults are started by complete psychopaths with violent delusions of revenge and power.

Expand full comment

As a baldy, this has always been one of my favorite bible stories.

Expand full comment
Apr 27, 2023·edited Apr 28, 2023

When I was a kid and I would hear things on a par with this I use to think maybe these people were deaf and couldn't hear right, and God got it all wrong.

Expand full comment

Sounds like you were a very interesting kid! I also remember looking around with skepticism about the human approach to life, social, political and religious assertions that were obviously contradicted by what I saw. But because everyone else seemed okay with the status quo, by my 20's I'd pivoted to doubting myself.

Expand full comment

Reminded me of this article full of cold, hard and uncomfortable truths.

https://thesaker.is/nations-built-on-lies-how-the-us-became-rich/

"Good mental health was not a prerequisite for European settlers emigrating to the New World. We are fond of reminding ourselves that Australia was (and mostly still is) populated primarily with murderers, thieves and sexual perverts, but the immigrants to America were not noticeably better. Indeed, the inscription on the Statue of Liberty got the words more or less correct in referring to “the wretched refuse of your teeming shore”. While the Australians had their serial killers and muggers, the Europeans went one better with their Christian extremists who spent their weekdays burning witches and killing Indians, and their Sundays in church thanking God for the opportunity. The Australians have marginally improved their habits over the centuries while the Americans have not.

America is widely accepted, and indeed even prides itself, on being a deeply Christian country, with 65% or more of the population declaring religion important in their lives. This would be supported by history, since the major migrations to the New World consisted of a long list of flaky religious sects whose primary goal in emigration was the opportunity to build a society entirely based on those isolationist and extremist heresies. It is probably safe to say that Salem witchcraft was the seedbed in which the peculiarly American version of Christian theology sprouted and flourished, and which also served as a practical introduction to mass hysteria which would later be so usefully applied to the concepts of patriotism and democracy. The enduring echoes of this religious ancestry have been highly influential in all of subsequent American history.

The Preamble to the American Declaration of Independence (“The most famous words in the English language”, if you’re American; just another Hello Kitty greeting card, if you’re not), states: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all White Men were created superior and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, the most important of which is slavery”. In the recent history of the modern world, only two nations of people have so thoroughly embraced slavery as to have practiced it on an immense scale for hundreds of years: the Christians in America and the Dalai Lamas in Tibet. And only these two groups so cherished slavery in their hearts they fought a civil war over the right to maintain it. It is hardly a moral selling point that both sets of racist bigots lost the war and, while Mao cleaned up Tibet, the racism and bigotry persisted in America, often violently, for another 200 years and is still widely in evidence today. Christian virtue does not die easily."

It goes on...at great length.

Expand full comment

The cited article *is* good--at least as propaganda.

"In the recent history of the modern world, only two nations of people have so thoroughly embraced slavery as to have practiced it on an immense scale for hundreds of years: the Christians in America and the Dalai Lamas in Tibet [stopped by Mao]."

But definitely no slavery under Mao (no genocide, no forced labor, or any other stuff like that), definitely not!

And America (as the USA nation, anyway, since "nations" is the category used) definitely had slavery, at least in some states, from 1776 to 1860--1.04 centuries, to be precise, so definitely "centuries." (Although it is hard to say whether the nation as a whole "embraced" slavery.)

And if pre-independence time is being counted here, there are certainly more than "only two nations" with a "long history of slavery" into "modern times." Just in the Americas, for instance, there is Brazil, with slavery of Africans there starting as early as 1540 and extending into the 1860's.

Expand full comment

HAHAHA slavery of Africans in Brazil since the 1540s. LMAO at whose hands? Name names.

Expand full comment

Another HOWLER - *only* since 1776 in "America"? Really? ! LOL show your sources bot.

Expand full comment

LOL you're what's known as a comprador. If Joachim is really your name. You're fucking more than worthless - you're a useful idiot for the CIA.

Expand full comment

A lot of the original immigrants to what is now the United States were on the run from their creditors.

This is one reason why US bankruptcy law is particularly debtor-friendly, and certain state-law considerations in Texas and Florida especially so.

Expand full comment

My great great grandfather, whose name and memory I carry as my middle names, was kicked off his croft in Rogart Scotland in the highlands during the clearances. So he made his way to Pictou Nova Scotia where he did rather well.

When my Palestinian friends complain about losing their land I reply, "Tell me about it!"

If you ever get a chance to visit NS I highly recommend it. Cape Breton is one of the great places in the world.

Expand full comment

True enough. My husband and I just returned from Netherlands and Belgium because we were tracing the roots of his paternal grandfather whose family came to America because their horse trading business owed money.

Expand full comment

Bankruptcy law is friendly to well heeled debtors inclusive of those who can afford a good bankruptcy lawyer. But while it may have started as a means to protect many debtors, it has morphed into something quite different. https://www.amazon.com/Courting-Failure-Competition-Corrupting-Bankruptcy/dp/0472031708

And new(ish) legislation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/10/27/biden-bankruptcy-reform/

Hint to those not in the know: The "reforms" they're implementing are making bankruptcy law more friendly to creditors, not debtors.

Expand full comment

I guess the TL/DR version is that personal bankruptcy laws favor the creditors whereas corporate bankruptcy laws and courts favor the well heeled debtors with the money and connections to sway the system.

Expand full comment

Thanks for the article, I'll read it. Looks good. As a kid I always had difficulty with my religious upbringing. Lots to question and interestingly the same applied to what they told me about history, like men with property could vote, but others couldn't didn't seem democratic to me, etc. I liked reading this. Thank you.

Expand full comment

15th century? "...headed off to claim a *new land*, and a sense of entitlement to the land of infidels and killing them"? You got a little more reading to do. Better go read up on a "crusade" that happened from the middle of the 7th century to the 14th. Look up the geographical location of Al-Andalus and the Umayyad Caliphate and how it came to be. Read past the historical re-writes of how living in dhimmitude was cool beans(someone forgot to give some Frenchman named Chuck Martel the news that it was great). "New lands" only when they decided to embark on kicking the invaders asses all the way back to where they came from and plundered on the way back home(went Viking) because that shit cost$$$ and they were broke. You see when pushing back on and evening things up with your centuries long oppressors and you do this in silly outfits, swing cords to chop and crush up close and personal........well you tend to be brutal hard SOB's. Not putting a smiley face on it but look at it from the proper perspective not through the prism of today. This wasn't just some random "hey lets go kill these a-holes and take their shit cuz we're greedy and have nothing else better to do because Christianity".

The latter crusades we're questionable but the early ones had a purpose. Unfortunately chasing these oppressors back to where they came from the, Christian Crusaders discovered new resources of worth and good ol' human nature(conquest) took over.

Expand full comment

The Papal Bull "Inter Caetera," issued by Pope Alexander VI on May 4, 1493, played a central role in the Spanish conquest of the New World. The document supported Spain’s strategy to ensure its exclusive right to the lands discovered by Columbus the previous year. It established a demarcation line one hundred leagues west of the Azores and Cape Verde Islands and assigned Spain the exclusive right to acquire territorial possessions and to trade in all lands west of that line. All others were forbidden to approach the lands west of the line without special license from the rulers of Spain. This effectively gave Spain a monopoly on the lands in the New World.

The Bull stated that any land not inhabited by Christians was available to be "discovered," claimed, and exploited by Christian rulers and declared that "the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself." This "Doctrine of Discovery" became the basis of all European claims in the Americas as well as the foundation for the United States’ western expansion. In the US Supreme Court in the 1823 case Johnson v. McIntosh, Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in the unanimous decision held "that the principle of discovery gave European nations an absolute right to New World lands." In essence, American Indians had only a right of occupancy, which could be abolished.

The Bull Inter Caetera made headlines again throughout the 1990s and in 2000, when many Catholics petitioned Pope John Paul II to formally revoke it and recognize the human rights of indigenous "non-Christian peoples."

An English translation is available.

EXCERPT

Wherefore, as becomes Catholic kings and princes, after earnest consideration of all matters, especially of the rise and spread of the Catholic faith, as was the fashion of your ancestors, kings of renowned memory, you have purposed with the favor of divine clemency to bring under your sway the said mainlands and islands with their residents and inhabitants and to bring them to the Catholic faith. Hence, heartily commending in the Lord this your holy and praiseworthy purpose, and desirous that it be duly accomplished, and that the name of our Savior be carried into those regions, we exhort you very earnestly in the Lord and by your reception of holy baptism, whereby you are bound to our apostolic commands, and by the bowels of the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, enjoy strictly, that inasmuch as with eager zeal for the true faith you design to equip and despatch this expedition, you purpose also, as is your duty, to lead the peoples dwelling in those islands and countries to embrace the Christian religion; nor at any time let dangers or hardships deter you therefrom, with the stout hope and trust in your hearts that Almighty God will further your undertakings. And, in order that you may enter upon so great an undertaking with greater readiness and heartiness endowed with benefit of our apostolic favor, we, of our own accord, not at your instance nor the request of anyone else in your regard, but out of our own sole largess and certain knowledge and out of the fullness of our apostolic power, by the authority of Almighty God conferred upon us in blessed Peter and of the vicarship of Jesus Christ, which we hold on earth, do by tenor of these presents, should any of said islands have been found by your envoys and captains, give, grant, and assign to you and your heirs and successors, kings of Castile and Leon, forever, together with all their dominions, cities, camps, places, and villages, and all rights, jurisdictions, and appurtenances, all islands and mainlands found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered towards the west and south, by drawing and establishing a line from the Arctic pole, namely the north, to the Antarctic pole, namely the south, no matter whether the said mainlands and islands are found and to be found in the direction of India or towards any other quarter, the said line to be distant one hundred leagues towards the west and south from any of the islands commonly known as the Azores and Cape Verde. With this proviso however that none of the islands and mainlands, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered, beyond that said line towards the west and south, be in the actual possession of any Christian king or prince up to the birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ just past from which the present year one thousand four hundred ninety-three begins. And we make, appoint, and depute you and your said heirs and successors lords of them with full and free power, authority, and jurisdiction of every kind; with this proviso however, that by this our gift, grant, and assignment no right acquired by any Christian prince, who may be in actual possesssion of said islands and mainlands prior to the said birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ, is hereby to be understood to be withdrawn or taking away. Moreover we command you in virtue of holy obedience that, employing all due diligence in the premises, as you also promise—nor do we doubt your compliance therein in accordance with your loyalty and royal greatness of spirit—you should appoint to the aforesaid mainlands and islands worthy, God-fearing, learned, skilled, and expeienced men, in order to instruct the aforesaid inhabitants and residents in the Catholic faith and train them in good morals. Furthermore, under penalty of excommunication "late sententie" to be incurred "ipso facto," should anyone thus contravene, we strictly forbid all persons of whatsoever rank, even imperial and royal, or of whatsoever estate, degree, order, or condition, to dare without your special permit or that of your aforesaid heirs and successors, to go for the purpose of trade or any other reason to the islands or mainlands, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered, towards the west and south, by drawing and establishing a line from the Arctic pole to the Antarctic pole, no matter whether the mainlands and islands, found and to be found, lie in the direction of India or toward any other quarter whatsoever, the said line to be distant one hundred leagues towards the west and south, as is aforesaid, from any of the islands commonly known as the Azores and Cape Verde; apostolic constitutions and ordinances and other decrees whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding. We trust in Him from whom empires and governments and all good things proceed, that, should you, with the Lord’s guidance, pursue this holy and praiseworthy undertaking, in a short while your hardships and endeavors will attain the most felicitious result, to the happiness and glory of all Christendom.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

Read the introduction and the document transcript in order to answer these questions.

By what authority did Pope Alexander VI claim the power to give Spain nearly exclusive possession of the New World?

Why do you think Spain wanted exclusive rights to the New World?

Along with the right to possess the land, the Papal Bull also indicated that Spain had specific responsibilities. List and explain these duties.

Why was it impossible for Spain, or indeed any other European nation, to realize the extent of the territory Spain controlled after May 1493?

A printer-friendly version is available here.

Expand full comment
Apr 28, 2023·edited Apr 28, 2023

Holy shit!(facepalm) I literally gave you a very condensed version of exactly this as it applied to the Christian Crusades. Spain was called Al-Andalus for a reason before the date at the top of this decree. Nothing like brainwashed agenda driven narrative to omit pertinent parts of history. Your ilk always shit the bed with the crybaby BS of the Christian Crusades blessed by the pope to drive out the poor poor muslims and kick their asses back to where they came from. WTF do you think the muslims were doing there IN SPAIN? Painting pictures and gardening? Why do you think the Pope whipped out the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch and blessed this decree? I explained it above.

Expand full comment

The "Inter Caetera" was the first official document by Western ruling elite to promote and promulgate "Disaster Capitalism."

Expand full comment
founding

I think I see Madjack's point. So-called diversity ISN'T diversity of ideas/thinking reasonably. It's the opposite, fractionating people into superficial tribal categories, i.e. white=oppressors, blacks=victims, questioning trans ideology's enforced demands=transphobia, etc. And so it goes.

Expand full comment

I think you could argue there's two completely different word senses of 'tribalism' now. One is political tribalism (diversity being ONLY ONE of the many totem poles of a particular tribe, say, "protect the borders" would a the right-wing totem pole) and the other is actual tribal behaviors in real human contexts (like, tribes in Africa, etc.).

You make a good point about indigenous American tribes though.

Expand full comment

I believe "antonym" is the word you're searching for, rather than "synonym."

Expand full comment

Would that have worked out better for them? Both Persia and China were centralized empires and they didn’t fare any better against the guns and cannons of industrialized Europe. The Chinese empire had some outdated respect for the land due to their old Shamanistic beliefs and didn’t want to mine coal for industrialization. Same thing happened to the native Americans. Only when China had arms production on par with the Western countries did they start winning wars.

Expand full comment

I always thought they should have hired themselves a good New York law firm.

Expand full comment

Thanks for a chuckle -- reminded me of some of the, um... pragmatists in Chayefsky's "Network"!

Expand full comment

And who did 'The Natives' take the land from? Other natives...

American Pioneers in the 19th century who actually lived life without servants respected American Indians and their ways, our 'beloved' government decided to remove them much like their efforts on the middle class these days.

Expand full comment

"And who did 'The Natives' take the land from? Other natives"

That's not what happened.

The continent was literally unoccupied when the ancestors of Native Americans came to the continent from Asia over the Bering Land Bridge during the last Ice Age, around 12,000 to 30,000 years ago. Did they then compete for territory, here and there, sure. But nothing like happened when the colonisers came.

Expand full comment

You're agreeing that they arrived across an 18,000 year time span. So either they were the slowest walkers in history, or there were multiple waves of people coming across.

Expand full comment

We are not sure of the exact date hence the wide range.

It's all a matter of history. Feel free to read up. No need to speculate. Thanks.

Expand full comment

Oh I have read up on it. Have you?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18770963

Expand full comment

That's a bad rewrite of history.

Expand full comment

Well, not familiar with who was here first. I guess you didn't watch those cowboy and Indian movies I watched on TV where the message was this is our land not your's even though you were here first. You cannot excuse what we did to the indigenous people of the America's. Sorry, nor the permission given by the church, which was not restricted to the Americas. Trail of tears, lets see you justify that.

Expand full comment
Apr 28, 2023·edited Apr 28, 2023

Conquest has been a human condition since the first caveman stepped outside his cave, looked across a valley seen another clan and said I want their stuff. Asian descendants that built grass rafts set out from their mainland and went island hopping would occasionally bump into others that did the same and wanted each others stuff. Humans did it as a matter of survival and advancement for living conditions. Not excusing what we did to each other as humans but as another commenter pointed out(Danimal28) the Indians weren't exactly living together in peace and harmony either. Some tribes had their own versions of conquest, genocide, slavery, robbing each others food stores, warring over hunting grounds, kidnapping females to breed. I'm not impugning Native Americans just pointing out an uncomfortable truth of human nature that even Indians were prone too.

You seem to be very focused on the church/ christianity. If that what floats your boat, fine, but don't let it skew the truth of history.

Trail of Tears? Justify what? Allowing the Indians that were paid to relocate force their 800 black slaves (some of the Cherokee/Creek elites among them owned) to have to go with them or the misfortune that befell the actual members of the tribe on the way?

Expand full comment

I don't want to continue this conversation about how bad the Indians were, and let me just say that your understanding of the Trial of Tears is really off. I am not focused on the church, and it's a thing of the past. Why don't you focus on our Muslim wars, and the millions we displaced and killed then you can focus on using Ukrainian lives so we can keep the number one slot in the world. More timely.

Expand full comment

What 'we' did to the native peoples was one of the greatest crimes against humanity in history.

There are no excuses.

Expand full comment

Good thing you're good lookin.'

Expand full comment

I hate acolytes of violence who claim 'violence, conquest, genocide' are part of 'the human condition'. Yes, humanity has a violent history, but if you actually look closely you can also see that different tribes and ethnicities have co-existed peacefully adjacent to each other in many cases for very, very long periods of time, and there were many more peaceful cultures that would never have had it in their conception to launch genocidal wars of settler colonial conquest. By saying conquest is part of the 'human condition', you are both lying and making yourself an apologist for the grossest acts of inhumanity that have been committed by our species, usually acts spurred on and driven by a small minority of sociopathic leaders. Inhabitants of the United States, which has committed some of the grossest violence imaginable during its history, might be especially vulnerable or even dependent on this idea that conquest is 'natural' or inevitable, because it ameliorates and lifts any potential stain or responsibility or duty to correct or change our path. Just keep turning the crank on the violence.

Expand full comment

Acolyte of violence? F U. Can you guys actually f'ing read? I know I suck at English Comp but FFS. Good job Captain Obvious at pointing out SOME tribes of people were capable of living next to each other in peace......of course this usually always came after violent conflict. All part of being a lefty idiot right? Can't tell the fucking difference between accepting the fact that every civilization/society on the planet at one time or another has done atrocious shit. I'm not apologizing for any violence you dumb fck, I believe it should be avoided at all costs until you are forced into it as a matter of self-preservation. Of course you lefty idiots always come back around to America bad as if it's the only place inhabited by the only people that have of course owned slaves or done f'd up shit to people.

The only acts of violence right now being committed in this country, spurned on and driven by a small minority of sociopathic leaders is within the left and the Transhumanist movement. The only crank being turned on violence is within the blue city cesspools that turn felons loose on the law abiding innocent public and politicians on the left that cheer on antifa, Janes Revenge and BLM. I guarantee the violence lays firmly in your camp, not mine.

Expand full comment

I watched them; I will never excuse what we did to indigenous people, but that is the way of the world - and governments(not the People) are responsible for all of it. Just like when they locked you down through the use of force a mere three years ago.

Expand full comment
Apr 27, 2023·edited Apr 27, 2023

Didn't mean to say they were, it's not just us, look at how Europe used Africa as it's backyard. We used South America as ours. However people, do look the other way or too easily go along with their government's policies. Look at how Americans went along with our Middle Eastern wars, and I bet if those were Christian or Jewish countries I don't think they could have pushed those wars.

Expand full comment

Governments ARE the people, pal. Uncomfortable to contemplate, but there you have it...

Expand full comment

I think I have a far better handle on this. Government is force, nothing more. It is supposed to protect our rights and negotiate in good faith and that hasn't happened since prior to 1860 for the most part. Government signed treaties with the Native's, reneged, and then used force to conquer them. Not that the Native's were always honest and forthright.... There have been many periods of peace, of course. Today is not a period of peace as the government is using force again to silence and censor Americans.

Expand full comment

Well here is yet another example of what the government has done to natives

https://elizabethnickson.substack.com/p/the-left-immiserates-the-north-american

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Not true Jerry, absolutely not true.

Expand full comment

It depended on the tribe. The Comanche were horrifying. They ran a robbery, kidnapping, murder protection racket on horseback, and they maintained their power with a fearsome level of intimidation, including torture. https://scgwynne.com/product/empire-of-the-summer-moon

The Iroquois vs. the Huron, terrifying. Ghastly. https://historyweblog.com/2017/06/tortures-of-the-algonquin-prisoners/

When Hernando de Soto arrived in the Southeast US, he found captive slavery and torture were as widespread among the tribes of southeastern North America, including the dominant civilization- the Coosa- as it was among the Spaniard conquistadors. The author does not whitewash the atrocities of the conquistadors, either. They were unimaginably cruel in those days. https://www.amazon.com/Hernando-Soto-Savage-Quest-Americas/dp/0806129778

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captives_in_American_Indian_Wars

Nobody's clean. It's a sobering thing to realize.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

So John Wayne was right to shoot them down like pop bottles?

Good to know.

Expand full comment

Not to excuse the taking of most Native American lands by Euro settlers, but yes indeed the same thing was happening broadly between Native American communities. The West, at the time of European agression, was largely inhabited by Native nations that brutally pried lands from Native predecessors. And slavery was commonplace and widespread. The Southwest was largely inhabited by Athabascan and southcentral (Comance) peoples that slaughtered their way to their final homelands at the time of Euro conquest. Plains tribes had been eradicated by midwestt newcomers like the Lakota, who suppressed and eliminated their predecessors in Canada, the Dakotas, the middle west. It simply is history, and the final victors were simply the last in line of imperialist aggressors.

Expand full comment
Apr 27, 2023·edited Apr 27, 2023

As long as our leader doesn’t wear goofy hats or Captain Crunch uniforms at official events it can’t happen here!

Expand full comment

never confuse the country and the government. 2 very different things.

Expand full comment

Well we’re a democracy. Just kidding.

Expand full comment

The United States is neither a democracy nor is it a democratic republic, but an oligarchy featuring unlimited political bribery for those who can afford pricey lawyers.

Expand full comment

Notice that the establishment's phrase is "our democracy," not "a" or "the." Tells you all you need to know.

Expand full comment

duh- mocker- see!

Expand full comment

I’m agreeing more and more with Andrew Willow’s take on democracy.

Expand full comment

Educate me, please. The Google wasn't helpful.

Expand full comment

Whenever you read "our democracy," understand that it refers to democracy for them and not you.

Expand full comment

I've switched to Yandex for any "controversial" or "dissenting" searches.

https://twitter.com/orangeferreter

Expand full comment

P.S. I think he might have misspelled the name. It's possible he was talking about a right-wing talk radio personality named John WilKow. Seems to be a common mistake after doing some light research on the matter.

Expand full comment

For fun sometime do a "controversial" search in Google and then run the same on Duck Duck or Brave just to name a couple.

Things that I used to find easily on Google are now hard to impossible.

Sergey Brin has a long public history of collaborating with intelligence agencies going back to at least 2001 when he volunteered to help find the perps.

ChatGPT is totally rigged too. It's so obvious.

Expand full comment

For example, try this one on for size. See Comments Section.

https://open.substack.com/pub/read/p/the-active-voice-robert-reich?r=p3vha&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Expand full comment

I had a lot of respect for Reich from his doc on income inequality until someone pointed out that he was the Sec Labor under Clinton during the NAFTA negotiations. That man is a quisling in that he bears a signifcant responsibility for the hollowing out of the USA's industrial base.

The situation described in Hillbilly Elegy rests (in a large part) on his shoulders. Both Reich and Arnand Ammawhazizname are such posers. Empty suits crying out empty platitudes, thinking their 'La Resistance'. Ugh

And the plethora of removed comments? WTF?

NOW I understand why SS contribs are moving to Locals.

Expand full comment

If I could electronically zap everybody who quotes Robert Reich, I could say that I lived a life of true happiness.

Expand full comment

I like Robert Reich's ideas, some of the time. He's really wrong on Internet free speech, though.

Expand full comment

He was a small socialist bent thinker posing as an intellectual

Expand full comment

Standing up to bullies is the hallmark of a civilized society. - Robert Reich

Censors are bullies. heh

Expand full comment

I thought J. D. Vance's point in Hillbilly Elegy is that the crucial responsibility for the situation he described was on the people who lived there and just refused to change the self-destructive component of their life ways. Including his homefolks.

And Robert Reich did not negotiate NAFTA as Secretary of Labor under Clinton. The agreement was negotiated in the Bush I administration, and signed by President George H. W. Bush as an international agreement. The only thing that Bush ally (on the down-low, of course, although it's become much more obvious over the years) Bill Clinton did was to forcefully endorse its ratification by the Congress, the final authority on certifying treaties, and sign it into law after Congress had passed it.

Expand full comment

Clinton was able to successfully articulate to his fellow democratic faithful, in coded speech and phony backwoods bluster refined by Yale Law, what the republicans had discovered a few decades previous. Money got you elected, and even more money kept you in office.

Expand full comment

Anyone with a real interest in what's really going on in politics in the year 2023 needs to read the 1996 book Partners In Power, by Roger Morris. Especially the chapters entitled "Washington I/II/III"- and the one entitled "Mena" too, of course. And after that, the chapters in between. And to really go for the extreme sport trophy, read the entire book. https://www.abebooks.com/9780805028041/Partners-Power-Clintons-America-Morris-0805028048/plp

But the three chapters entitled "Washington" alone will tell any perceptive reader more about the way National Politics is currently practiced inside the Beltway than ten years of reading Twitter.

Read free on Archive.org https://archive.org/details/partnersinpowerc0000morr_c3r1

Expand full comment

Reich is a partisan propagandist who supports everything they do. He is even trying to sell 'biden' as a functioning entity who is doing things. Unbelievable. I will be banned here for truth speaking. It's inevitable.

Expand full comment

Reich is loyal to Team Blue, despite having most of his personal suggestions ignored and disrespected in the Clinton years. He was only appointed Labor Secretary as window dressing. No one who counted paid attention to his recommendations.

That's what the fake narrative framing of Team Blue and Team Red encourages. Ironclad team loyalty and partisanship. There's no third position, in the absence of ranked choice voting. Team Blue is terrified that they would be doomed if ranked choice voting got out of hand. And orthodox CNN/MSNBC American liberals are okay with that, because they buy into the neoliberal narrative that continues to insinuate that a 3rd Position could only be Fascist. The GOP establishment doesn't want ranked choice voting, either, because their leaders suspect that Team Red would be doomed.

Hence, America's got BOTH kindsa politics...

Expand full comment

In other words, both parties are well aware that their grasp of the electorate is tenuous at best, and evanescent in reality.

Expand full comment

If the voting system weren't rigged to limit "viable candidates" to the two established parties, at this point they're both about ready to fold up like cardboard suitcases in a typhoon.

Ranked choice voting would be a bit of a battle royal, at first. And I'd anticipate that one of the major party candidates would still win- at first. But the victorious candidate, his handlers, and his campaign would have to have actually listened to the points of the outlier candidates and parties. Politics, being the art of the possible, is about triangulation. Ranked choice voting provides another, crucial dimension to it.

Right now, the only triangulation either established party candidate requires is to beheld as slightly less bad, by slightly more voters. And after that, they can do whatever- grandstanding, punting, kicking cans down the road, private agendas getting into petty power plays with the private agenda of the other side....

"Getting the money out of politics" alone is not going to make any difference to improving politics under the current voting system. Because it isn't ever going to happen, unless we get a ranked choice voting system where outlier candidates can make their case for it, as political rivals. And ultimately, a ranked-choice result is always a majoritarian system. There would never be a party administration that didn't have at least some conditional assent by the majority of voters. Compare that to what we have now- cornered into the sham appearance of unconditional assent for one of two choices...and look at how that's worked out for us.

I think that even a two option ranking system would be an infinite improvement over what we have now.

Expand full comment

Much censorship is coming to substack where Reich, (spits) is held out as a big catch and some kind of soothsayer.

Next up? "Obama is coming! Wow! So happy!"

Expand full comment
Apr 28, 2023·edited Apr 28, 2023

If Substack wanted to shoot its value proposition in the ass, introducing mass censorship so as not to offend the delicate sensitivities of The People Who Matter is the way to do it, right there.

Expand full comment

“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”

― Noam Chomsky

Expand full comment

I agree. Liberals though, are not like us.

Expand full comment

Consider Robert Reich's presence a test. Principally a test for him, not for those of us who have adopted it as a base for preserving freedom of speech and reasoned dissent.

Expand full comment

If I want to read another of Bobby reich’s articles on how it’s horrible that we don’t do exactly what he says, I have about five dozen outlets that will deliver the exact same low rent lefty punditry. Maybe if he ever had an original thought he wouldn’t be so offensive. It it’s the same formula all the time “how dare we let billionaires live when people are dying every day!?”

Expand full comment

Has he ever criticised the ultragarchs? Where?

He might have, I cannot even read him anymore. Like you said, his message never changes anyway. He's like one of those billboards in They Live. "Obey" "Consume"

Expand full comment

LOL wow. Every other comment removed and/or user banned. Wonder what they said. Guess we'll never know because we're not allowed to read, much less engage with "wrongthink." 1984 all the way.

Expand full comment
Apr 27, 2023·edited Apr 27, 2023

Somebody probably pointed out what a useless douchebag Robert Reich is - and a bunch of people took exception to that statement of fact.

Expand full comment

Yeah. Thing about Reich is he talks a good game (or used to), but where the rubber meets the road he's a major fucking hypocrite.

Expand full comment

When Reich went all in on the trans-rights stuff I realized that he was full of shit from the very beginning, total establishment tool, much like what Bernie turned out to be.

Expand full comment

The whole trans thing is yet another entirely manufactured controversy to get people arguing about something that is not genuinely important.

The last time I said this someone called me an "out of touch old man". Just as she had been programmed to.

It is important to those afflicted, to the the future of humanity and the world? Not at all. That would be war, over-population, the wealth transfer, the collapsing environment...

Expand full comment

Reich and Obama both excel at presenting a pretty, civilised face, even as the bombs fall and the babies explode and burn.

But hey, "be civil!" "Stifle"

Substack as 'safe space'. No that doesn't work for me.

Expand full comment

Reich is a charlatan of the first order. A government shill distorting young minds with lies.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

He's an insult to little people everywhere.

Expand full comment

I had to look it up.

Reich is diagnosed with multiple epiphyseal dysplasia, also known as Fairbanks disease, and stands at 4 feet 10.5 inches (1.486 m)

I had no idea as we are not supposed to discuss these matters.

Expand full comment

O to have copped a look at the comments section before Substack stepped in!

Must have been an epic response to a puff piece so gushing that it made a high school mash note look like a model of restraint and measured praise.

Expand full comment

Hamish says he wants "civility".

And on that cold black rock in the roiling sea, freedom of speech founders and dies.

Expand full comment

I saw some of the early comments. They were unanimously anti-Reich. Hilariously so.

Expand full comment

And that should be absolutely fine. But it's not.

When does the great purge of malcontents here begin I wonder?

Expand full comment

Looks like the founders here would be thrilled out of their minds to have supper with Clinton and Obama.

When Glenn moved to Locals, I thought that was a mistake.

I was wrong.

Expand full comment

Would love to have supper with Obamas and Clintons, if I could get a word in edgewise....... on second thought.......

Expand full comment

They seemed no more harsh than some seen here, but .......

Expand full comment

The comments (including mine) were mostly innocuous. Example: he claimed there was book banning, my comment was "can you named the banned books"? It was deleted. In fact "Heather" turned off commenting on the whole post, the only time I've ever seen it on Substack.

Expand full comment

And even if they are harsh?

I see people here loving on the proxy war on Russia. I find that outrageous, dangerous and vile. Why can I not say so?

To protect Lord Reich's "beautiful mind"? Because "civility"? Maybe they promised him a safe space? Poor thing.

"Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths... I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" - Barbara Bush

Expand full comment

a lawyer who tells you he's an economist. What could he possibly get wrong? Other than everything

Expand full comment

Yep. The two phoniest careers around are lawyer and economist. Most people still don't know that the Nobel Prize in Economics needs scare quotes around "Nobel" to be accurate.

Expand full comment

Wow! I've never seen so many comments removed in a comment section!

Expand full comment

Go visit CBC in Canada sometime!

Expand full comment

I read that. I threw up. Robert Reich should be in prison for treason.

Expand full comment

So it begins.

And so it ends.

I had some hope. What a fool I am.

Expand full comment

Makes me wonder.

Has there ever been an eloquent defense of censorship? I’m talking a truly beautiful piece of writing or speaking.

Expand full comment

Eloquence in the defense of censorship could only be beautiful as satire.

Expand full comment

Beautifully said.

Expand full comment

A certain pithy partisan could write it. Now *that* would be beautiful.

Expand full comment
Apr 28, 2023·edited Apr 28, 2023

All of the defenses of censorship I've seen are eloquent. Censors-in-waiting regard themselves as noble, and their messaging is rife with fawning self-elevation to heroism.

Expand full comment

Censorship only “works”when there is only one game in town. In the US media ecosystem this is long gone, no matter how hard the Ds, neo-cons, Deep Staters, and corporate wokesters may try.

Expand full comment

Remember kids, pithy comments with no actual point or content always rise to the top.

Expand full comment
Apr 27, 2023·edited Apr 27, 2023

Except places like here, where (1) people think, and reward it in others; or (2) as in your case, they use structural and rhetorical tactics to game the system, while thinking they are convincing anyone.

Expand full comment

Huh?

Where's the "thinking" in regurgitating a widely-circulated, century-old platitude? And given how much time Democrats spent calling Trump a fascist during his term, I would love to know which Americans OP thinks aren't aware that "it can happen here".

It's just feel-good pablum.

Expand full comment

I'm pretty sure it's a large amount of Americans on both the left and the right who think authoritarianism could never happen here. To a large degree, it's believing their side won't be the one that does it.

Which is naive.

Expand full comment

It's also the a-political and apathetic, grown fat, happy, and oblivious with Western Capitalist wealth, even the poor slobs.

Expand full comment

I'm confused, are you saying they think it *can't* happen here, or they just think it won't be *their* side wot does it?

Expand full comment

lol

Expand full comment

You are right about the always regurgitating (I like that!) M. Finster, who I suspect really *is* a Russian Western-media-plant.

But M. Anti-Hip is right about the substacks.

Expand full comment

Clearly you don't spend as much time here as I do. 90%+ of the comments are so bonkers they could support an insanity plea in court. Most of the top comments are 1. inane platitudes, 2. manic rants, or 3. brown-nosing the author.

Right-wing partisan sentiments and anti-establishment paranoia (and I mean paranoia, not just anti-establishment points of view) are consistently upvoted and defended. Anyone who criticizes right-wing partisan sentiments, or expresses other views, is mocked and derided, under the implicit premise that dissenting views don't belong here.

It's a cesspool, is what I'm saying.

Expand full comment

This from a man who told me to "go eat a dick." If only the other commenters were as brilliant....

Expand full comment

LOL, you are such a piece of shit. Why are you, and not back on White People Twitter on Reddit or some Maoist city sub like r/Austin.

Hey, I also heard there is an Eastern European Border War that some elites are trying to sell. Good place to go get blown up for a terrifyingly stupid military alliance that only benefits wealthy Europeans and the military industrial complex, all the while America rots. I know you "progressives" are all in on war now.

Expand full comment

I respectfully disagree - but feel free to hold forth. I will defend and respect your right to do so. The pithy banter is fun, and a more subtle way to make a point, and god forbid self-reflect.

Expand full comment

So ignore those 3 categories, M. Dwhy, and stop calling for self-censorship.

One of the great things about substack is posters are free of your type of censorship, and so come here to fulfill the need to 1) emote, 2) practice writing, 3) support the writers they like (and you don't get to choose for others, I'm sure you agree), 4) express anti-State sentiment that would get them censored elsewhere.

Why don't you go there?

Why do you hang out in a "cesspool," idiot.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

You wouldn't know pithy if it kicked you in the ass.

Expand full comment

How pithy.

Expand full comment

Fully agree with your take. I get VERY tired of shopworn tropes like that above which seem to be designed to simply get likes. And why "kids"?! It is so gauche! No real contribution to the discourse, just social media-esque attempts for "likes" (love?). And unfortunately it works. I have noticed that a lot of Matt Taibbi's Substack commenters post things like "You go, Matt!" "We got your back!" "Give 'em hell, Matt!", etc. I for one would prefer more substantive comments. After all, aren't those rah-rah sentiments most efficiently captured by clicking the thumbs up icon? No need to type out a cliche!! Now watch how my post will be vilified by the same people who purport to hate similar vilification of dissenting voices in the mainstream media!!

Expand full comment

What is the problem with complimenting a writer on their work - or in the case of Matt Taibbi - for their bravery in reporting on the shit-show that is our current government ? Let me be the first to apologize to you on behalf of everyone on this Substack who has wasted your precious time saying what they wanted to say - and not giving a shit if their comments offend the sensibilities of those who thought they were here to weigh in on a Ph.D. dissertation defense.

Expand full comment

I normally sort by "New First", just thought I'd try something new today. Variety is the spice of life!

Expand full comment

"Remember kids, pithy comments with no actual point or content always rise to the top."

Upvotes have never been a priority for me. In fact, I find downvotes more illuminating.

Expand full comment

Diawhy! Keep posting like it's your job!

You rock dude!

Expand full comment

Pot, Kettle, Black.

Expand full comment

?

Expand full comment

It's a shortened version of "the pot calling the kettle black", in other words, he is engaging in the same thing he is accusing others of.

Expand full comment

Right, but how does it apply?

Satire sometimes necessarily takes the form of the thing it mocks. My goal is to shame the airheads who mindlessly smash the heart button whenever they see a shallow platitude that plucks at their willy.

Expand full comment

You didn't satirize, you simply attempted mockery. To satirize you would have need to do a lot more work bringing in the people who click the like button and playing off of why it is so silly to support such an idea. But, in your quickness to riff of of an idea, that of simple platitudes that bring likes or "plucks at their willy", you do the exact same thing.

Expand full comment

Someone on notes was just telling me that there is no "real" censorship on Subtack, because he grew up in communist Poland. Not sure what fallacy that is exactly but it it is fallacious.

Expand full comment
Apr 27, 2023·edited Apr 27, 2023

Opinions are like assholes.

The mrówki tell me that the censorship is more pervasive than in Communist Poland, as more famously did Andrzej Łobczewski.

Expand full comment

Thanks! I had to look up Łobczewski.

Sounds very interesting.

“if an individual in a position of political power is a psychopath, he or she can create an epidemic of psychopathology in people who are not, essentially, psychopathic.”

― Andrzej Łobczewski, Political Ponerology

That happened!

Expand full comment

I'm writing about this as well, with the added bonus of how the paid-off press like the LA Times will literally submit their questions beforehand -- and the president has a little notecard telling him who to call on.

It really tells you everything you need to know about the state of the media these days. Play along and you get rewarded. Dare speak out, and you're unemployed. (Tucker will be fine, but how many reporters will duck their heads back down because they wouldn't be fine?)

Edit: Article is out https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/tucker-unleashed

Expand full comment

Really not a question of Tucker being fine, or not fine, but what it says is, we're not.

Greenwald on Rumble this past week really explained what was going on very well.

Expand full comment

Right. My point was that they aren't really after Tucker, but every Tucker-lite out there who will be cowed into submission.

Expand full comment
Apr 27, 2023·edited Apr 27, 2023

I didn't vote for trump in 2016, always a registered democrat, although not loyal. Bad enough I saw the democrat's growing authoritarian stance during the Trump years, but the media and so called left fell into line, like little soldiers. Asses.

Expand full comment

I'd say they were/are after both. Tucker was more than pulling his weight. I was certainly expecting his firing.

Expand full comment

So was he, Maté and Dore posted a recent video of him predicting his own demise.

Expand full comment

And David Dayen was Tucker-lite. He wrote about the Great Financial Crime Spree and he now caved to the establishment. During the GFCS years, he uncovered many crimes the government/financial coup were doing. Now, he replaces an article favored to Tucker with one opposing Tucker? That shit is horrible! What a coward!

Expand full comment

Greenwald's report on Monday was first rate. The best explanation of what could be happening.

Expand full comment

GG is always on point, and has been on fire about this from the start.

It's too bad he's on locals now :(

Expand full comment

I think it's worth it to see what he has to say.

Expand full comment

Yeah it's just such an inefficient format. His articles were concise, but in his videos he repeats the same thing two or three times and the transcripts approach unreadability.

Expand full comment

GG is not a good speaker. He needs to stick to writing.

Expand full comment

System Update is free on Rumble.

Expand full comment

I happily pay for GG's stuff, even though the "free transfer" won't let me comment on articles or read them from the webpage. At least I still get the emails.

Expand full comment

Locals is fine, it's the information that's important, not the platform.

Expand full comment

M. Fran, you water down M. sim's excellent point by picking out the *unimportant* part of a *parenthetical*.

Your comprehension is as bad as your choice of political party.

Expand full comment

...."unimportant" part of a "parenthetical." Oh you sound so smart, now who is M. sim's and what is his excellent point? Four degrees with bad comprehension and 2 in science. What an accomplishment for someone with no comprehension. Now if you could take a minute out of your day and rephrase your nasty ass comment maybe I'll condescend to answer.

Expand full comment

Nicely credentialed you are.

"...maybe I'll condescend to answer."

You just did, and thanks!

Expand full comment
Apr 27, 2023·edited Apr 27, 2023

Adios Mr. Stables, and I hope that's forever. You're attitude deserves nothing more.

Expand full comment

Don't let the barn door.....[SLAM]

Dang. Well, at least I got the last word in.

I sincerely apologize for offending you, M. Fran, and I confess to a certain amount of over-protection for one of my favorite 'stackers, not that he needs it.

Expand full comment

The Times denied giving Biden the questions. Does that mean the White House gave the questions to the Times? He clearly had the questions so it has to be one or the other...oh wait, one of the three letter agencies tapping in perhaps?

Expand full comment

There's a very easy explanation for all this.

The Times lied. As they do about pretty much everything.

Expand full comment

I saw that! The questions are obviously present, and if the Times didn't give them to the White House in advance, the only other possibility is that the White House gave THE TIMES the question in advance..........which is even worse.

Expand full comment

For plausible deniability, it may have gone like this: White House tells certain reporters what specific aspects of certain specific topics the president would be addressing in questions today. Those reporters then submit the questions.

Just like the tabletop exercise on the "Russian Disinfo" that was rehearsed the month before the Post released the story on Hunter's laptop, these agencies (WH, intelligence) will always attempt to keep some veneer of deniability, which then their lapdogs in the MSM will highlight to say that assertions of their collusion/collaboration are not proven (and thus are lies).

Expand full comment

Exactly how it is done.

Expand full comment

Biden got tripped up by a couple of children today because that's the first time he's faced questions that weren't pre-planted in ages. Literal toddlers tripped him up more than the WH press corp has. If that doesn't tell you all you need to know about our current media, I don't know what will.

Expand full comment

The question was pretty hard (what was the last place you visited or something like that). He was in Ireland a week ago, but he was stumped. Another child stepped in to help him out. This is where we are today.

Expand full comment

We used to speak of “regulatory capture”. Our whole country is captured. These are the times that try mens souls.

Expand full comment

yep. its one giant global cartel. there isnt anything that hasn't been monopolized. we live in a world of illusion that appears to have choice, but not too many of any real consequence.

Expand full comment

Tucker is rare in that he has his own genuine talent and following meaning he doesn’t need a Fox or CNN brand to survive. Like a Megyn Kelly, he will be able to find a very prosperous new path. But that’s him, not most media people. And so his firing had a real sweeping effect to send a message to the rest.

Expand full comment

Actually, this manipulation of the press in briefings started with Regan. If a reporter asked him an uncomfortable question, he didn't get a seat at the next press conference. And now no one asks the President or whatshername anything they don't want to answer or they're brushed off or attacked for even approaching a subject.

Expand full comment

I don't remember where I saw it (it might have been right here, honestly) but somebody mentioned how the press complains that without being inside the velvet rope, they can't do their jobs -- but they don't realize they were never supposed to be inside the rope in the first place.

Expand full comment

I'm just disgusted that the media/journalists don't do their jobs any more. Perhaps they never did, but there were just enough rogue journalists to actually dig in and find the truth so we were lulled into thinking we had a watchdog press of sorts. Now the ones in the mainstream are just lackeys for their controllers, and nothing original comes out of any of them. Do they know they have controllers? Do they bristle at being told what they can and cannot write about? It doesn't seem like it.

Expand full comment

So you're just here to shill your own substack? Cool.

This place needs a better system for surfacing top comments.

Expand full comment

LOL everybody can see you trolling, dude.

And I've been commenting on Taibbi articles long before I had a Substack.......

Expand full comment

Ignore Dwhy, CDR. He's still sour about the time he got absolutely bodied in my comments section.

Expand full comment

LOL

You mean the time I pointed out that you published a wildly inaccurate statistic in huge banner font in one of your articles, and in response you closed your comments to non-paid readers?

Talk about living in a dream world.

Expand full comment

That's called the price of admission for trolls. Give me $5, you little spaz. Do you really want me to dig up the exchange and post it here so I can embarrass you again?

Expand full comment

See what I mean? "Trolling", to dimwits like you, means "pointing out massive factual errors that undermine the whole point you're trying to make".

Do your worst.

Expand full comment

It's amazing to me how "trolling" and "saying things I don't like" seem to be interchangeable concepts to dimwits like you.

Tucker didn't get fired for speaking out, he got fired for 1. telling lies that cost his company $$$, and 2. allowing his staffing to be run in a discriminatory, abusive way. Rupert Murdoch is not exactly a bastion of woke leftism... when that dude wants his top earner gone, you know the guy REALLY fucked up.

Expand full comment