Matt, I have been following your work and admiring your honesty ever since the vampire squid article came out. I consider you one of the most intellectually honest and intelligent reporters out there.
The question i have for you - why did you vote for democrats for so long in the first place? How come intelligent people only see the problems when they are impacted personally?
Many "intelligent" people keep voting Democrat even after they are impacted personally by higher taxes, crime, etc. Check out the cases of Josh Kreuger, Ryan Carson, and Pava Lapere. You cannot reason with a demoralized person, my namesake tried to warn us in 1984: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-reason-with-a-demoralized-person-yuri
Democrats are an awful lot and so are republicans. Both parties and their mindless partisan live to desecrate the first mandate of the constitution which is to strive “for a more perfect union.” Selfishly voting out of economic interests while the parties actively collude to divide us is anti-American.
Because we have a first-past-the-post voting system, not a parliamentary system, alternative vote, or any of the other systems that make third parties viable options. Look these things up and learn about their systemic consequences and all will be revealed.
Watch out for the occasional "affiliation" polls. "Affiliation," in this case, is the percentage of American voters who will admit to a pollster that they belong to one party or the other. That number has been falling for more than a decade; it's presently about 30% EACH. In other words, 60%, a solid majority, are "independents" - everybody else. Or, "A Pox on Both Your Houses," which would be a good name for a 3rd party. No wonder turnout is so low.
Personally, I've been a Green, and advocated for that party in comments, for about 3 decades - since Clinton. But at this point, I'm sufficiently disgusted with my own party that I've stopped advocating for it.
Oops, looks like I can't do arithmetic any more. It's FORTY percent, a plurality, not a majority. There is no majority. However, in our system, a plurality is enough - and it's well on its way to a majority.
Because unlike where you (probably) live it’s insanely diverse with massive variance in lifestyles and values. So the ‘big issues’ tend to be more fundamental in nature. Abortion. Guns. Healthcare. Religion.
At least that’s my theory. Hard to be a pro abortion anti-gun evangelical socialist. If there were to be a powerful third party it might be in form of a racial minority coalition (Eg, African-Americans abandon democrats but don’t join republicans.... see evangelical socialists above). We’ll see.
Gotta live here to understand it otherwise too easy to throw stones - especially with your own (likely state owned) media brainwashing you, too.
But abortion wasn’t really an issue until the early 90s. Bush Sr. supported abortion rights. As for guns, we had a federal ban on assault rifles between 1994-04. And healthcare became an explosive topic in the wake of the anti-Obama hysteria of the Tea party. So it seems to me that the American public is constantly being agitated from the top to elicit the division than then allows the elites to plunder and pillage without fear of the mob ever going for the pitchforks.
What is your reference for George H.W. Busch Sr. ‘S support for abortion rights? I know he supported planned parenthood, mainly because it provided medical services like gyn exams and birth control. He did support abortion for the health of the mother and rape or incest but not for routine or general abortions. He also was opposed to any federal money used for abortion procedures. His wife was pro choice but, I don’t think he left any written or oral record that he supported it.
I lived in the USA for 23yrs. No-one cared about Politics. You just bought your toys and had fun! I lived in a 'left leaning' Canyon close to LA. We were called 'pinkos.'
Left is Socialism or Liberal Socialism (in France) which means we have free Healthcare/Education
That’s a lazy characterization of the right. That they will do nothing to help people. If it’s possible to distill it down this way, the right, conservatives, are for less government and more self determination. Independence. Being in favor of and offering largesse to the people hasn’t exactly led to good outcomes. The nuclear family is disappearing, dads not in the home, especially in families of color. What used to be a good thing was when the natural tension of the rights instincts to do less met with the left’s desire to do something, resulted in a compromise that was reasonable. We cannot do that anymore. The left has a voracious appetite for power and is uncompromising, the right has reached a place of zero trust that they can bargain in good faith. So here we are. Taibi’s coverage of the police state shows how the left, for all the claims to the contrary about the right, Trump et al, are the real Nazis.
Your healthcare and education are not free. Do you think the workers in those fields are doing their work without pay? Do you think builders are making hospitals without billing the government? Those textbooks - magically made from nothing for nothing? You are paying far more than you know for your education and healthcare - and not just in money.
Did you know that the "right" in the US generates considerably more of it's time and money to charity than does the "left"?
This is a really good analysis. Most people don’t vote on purely economic issues, they vote on issues that resonate personally with them. If you are a gay or alienated type person who grew up in an evangelical-influenced environment-family or town, you aren’t voting for an R even if you don’t like Bidenomics. If you are a big 2nd Anendment person, there aren’t any Ds left to vote for besides Joe Mancin. For African Americans, there is still a huge stigma in the community for voting GOP, b/c it is seen-correctly-as the pro-cop party. Corporate social posturing-and thus potential career advancement-is completely in the D/woke wheelhouse.
Abortion is becoming a difficult issue for the GOP-it is hurting GOP candidates on state level races. Just like one doesn’t see pro 2A Ds, pro-choice GOPers are increasingly rare-and the issue is now open on the state level. I’m a pro-life libertarian, but I see how the issue is benefiting the Ds.
It isn't hard to be pro killing of fetus's and anti-guns. It depends on whether or not you consider a fetus to be a human being. It if is a cluster of cells then it is easy to kill it. There may be some disagreement about clusters of cells. Some might see that right up to the time the umbilical cord is cut.
Evangelicals can be socialists. But we say that we are not interested in a theocracy.
The third party exists and it is right in front of us. We keep electing our "team" even when they don't work as if they are on our "team". Congress is supposedly not liked, but they are more likely to die in office or retire than get voted out.
I have. Patrick Buchanan (twice), and Ralph Nader (also twice). The other 3rd Party candidates seemed like they were bought off just like the D & R candidates.
There were a great many opportunities to change who won the elections for dog catcher on up to Senator that you did not comment on. Not coming down on you per se, but for the readers, there are many elections, and they all matter. The dog catcher becomes the Senator.
Everyone needs to start voting for themselves, things that actually impact them. Most people vote for a percieved benefit to someone else, like people voting as abortion rights being a primary issue. I don't care if you can or can not get abortions but since less than 1 percent of the nation will need to get an abortion it seems silly to vote on that as a primary issue.
Now I get that you are voting out of some altruism, like voting Democrat is better for minorities, that is a feeling many Democrat voters have that are not minorities, but since the issue doesn't actually impact you, you do not actually have first hand knowledge that Democrat vote is for minorities.
When we vote for "other people" not out of our own benefit you actually get bad results. Because how we vote and how webare controlled to vote impacts our politicians. If everyone voted selfishly politicians might actually have to DO things that benefit us because as a swlfish voter you would KNOW if you were benefitted.
Think about this like an ice cream parlor, imagine the ice cream parlor has 16 flavors and they make new flavors based on popularity of the existing ones and instead of picking ice cream you want to eat you see a sign that says eating the Kale and Kelp Ice Cream is good for pregnant women, so you order the god awful ice cream because if you don't maybe the parlor won't keep making that ice cream pregnant women eat.
Of course its terrible ice cream and of course the parlor keeps making more of it but do you know if pregalnant women are ever actually eating the Kale and Kelp Ice Cream? Or are you just pissing money down the drain and stopping the ice cream parlor from replacing that flavor with something someone might like.
Why does a brilliant black man who was an adult during Jim Crowe, educated at Harvard and Chicago on Merit scholarships, was a young communist until finishing his PHD, but now believes Democrats are destroying black America. Read Thomas Sowell and start thinking.
I agree about the voting for self-interest but I think the 50/50 split among the electorate makes that easier. They can just say we can't negotiate with the other because it will alienate our base. We need a 60/40 split.
I think it's yet to be empirically proven, other than through editorializing, whether higher taxes, crime, etc., aren't also a product of republican voting, though perhaps propagandized by the right using different rhetorical moves. Bottom line is that it's a scam, and part of that scam is emphasizing false claims about how democratic policies across the board result in XYZ while republican policies don't. Many Substack writers that think of themselves as "intelligent" seem to continue to run this scam rhetoric that you're putting across.
It has been empirically proven that increasing crime in big cities, and the brazenness of criminals, and the inertia of law enforcement, have absolutely nothing to do with Republican voting because the government on ALL levels in these cities is from the Democratic party. You would have to use a magnifying glass and still would not find a Republican in the NYC government, for example. In local elections, you would have to register as a Democrat if you wanted your vote to be counted for a more moderate Democrat against progressive left extremists.
Here in Illinois the Dems have a super legislative majority, and all State constitutional offices. Chicago hasn't had a Repub mayor or city council since . . . it's been awhile. State-wide cashless bail went into effect in Sept. Chicago is a sanctuary city and the Mayor needs more money to provide for the new arrivals. Chicago needs more money for failing schools and pension systems. So although one may live closer to Missouri than Chicago, all Illinois residents are going to pay.
I'm in Chicago. The recent resistance on the west-side to the mayor's plan to use an open block to build a "heated tent" space may be indicative of change.
Look up the "Inn of Chicago". An arguably past-its-time hotel just off Michigan Avenue that's now a shelter for "migrants" (i.e., illegal immigrants). I feel for these people as they must be profoundly motivated to take the risk of traveling to enter the US illegally, but they're still breaking the law as their first step into the US. It's sad and it's also clearly unsustainable.
I have known and worked with numerous people from Venezuela: smart, educated and hardworking. What the Chavez/Maduro administrations have done to that country is both tragic and criminal. Venezuela is rich in natural resources; there's no logical or non-criminal reason for the country to be in the state that it is.
And there is no logical or non-criminal reason for THIS country to be where it is now.
The border obliteration perpetrated by Obama 3.0 is part of a plan to transform America. But worse than that, it has been accomplished with a loving embrace of human trafficking to accomplish its goals, implemented by narco-terrorists. Talk about a war of proportionality. How many drug ODs kill Americans? All these children, especially girls --- what is their trip like on their way to "freedom" and "a better life?" What's it like after they get to their final destination? And our government is an accomplice in this, NOT an innocent bystander.
Jingoistic? Whatever other term is used to smear people who believe in the rule of law. This democracy only works if there are rules and everybody buys in at some basic level. Gangbangers being in charge of The Open Door, in partnership with our federal government. I think we are going to find out pretty soon that wasn't really in our best interest.
I watched a special on the homeless problem on PBS. They visited a number of cities and spoke residents and government officials. When the Mayor of San Francisco had her turn, she basically blamed all of her cities problems on Republican's. The interviewer neither laughed or questioned the Mayor. The magnifying glass comment reminded me of this show.
And nothing else anywhere in the global economy, public policy, or anything else impacts people. Only their little tiny spot on the globe and local politics. It has been empirically proven that partisans are dumb. There is progressive left or conservative right. There are only corrupt politicians the people they make tools to keep them in power. Whether they're banning abortion or twerking naked in gay pride parades, identity politics is what passes for governance of, for and by the people. .
Public policy - yea, it does impact people. As it relates to crime, it is the public policy of local government that affects it. If the local government does not want to prosecute people who steal hundreds $$$ worth of goods, then thugs feel brazen and invincible. Then local stores do not file police reports because police would not act on them and because they will be called racists. I do not believe global economy has anything to do with crime in our cities. I have not mentioned abortion rights here, and you don’t know my position on it, though I stated it in other posts. And I am far from being a partisan. As far as you can be lol. I have flipped between parties searching for someone to match my political believes more times than I can count and embarrassed to admit. Of course, extreme positions on both sides are a problem. But crime currently is where democrats govern because of their progressive and SJW view of law and order. And, unfortunately, moderate Democrats so far are loosing in this battle.
democratic policies across the board and republican policies across the board insure that the finance sector profits and middle Americans pay the bills. ......
- I do not believe that anything in politics can be "empirically proven". Whether it is a statement that turns out to be provenly false "no deal with out a public option" or acknowledged policy that clearly is illegal, such as the murder of American citizens without due process. Nothing is empirically proven, it all is subject to revisionism and spin. George Bush threw out the first pitch of a baseball game last night although many would say it has been empirically proven he lied and led us into a war; but apparently that's not the case.
That is why politics is such an art that captures people's passion and imagination but seemingly does little to form a more perfect union as the poster above mentioned.
To blame to not blame, to call it a scam by one side and not the other; we are dealing with a coin that has heads on both sides.
I do not believe that the "intelligent" people here are blaming polices of XYZ on democrats. I think most if not all here know that both parties are (most likely) equally to blame as the powers in those parties feed at the same trough.
Being passionately dissolussioned by the Democratic party, the ACLU, wikipedia, etc is not promoting a scam. It's just expressing remorse at things folks wanted to believe but are not true, and being able to commiserate and bitch a little bit.
An interesting quote that Dick Cheney said onetime about whose politics are the cause for the successes and failures was something like " it's not until an administration or two after the one in which the policies were implemented that we see results"
He was referring to the first Bush "read my lips no new taxes". After Bush realized he needed to work with Congress to raise taxes to stave off economic calamity he lost when a conservative challenged him. We all know this ushered in Clinton who would have had no chance without Perot. We know the Clinton administration led to (in many ways) our current economic system.
As a side not- Does anyone remember the surplus, the "lock box" as Gore called it. Then we had the coup d'etat of 2000 and look who got to come in a spend all that money that republican politics (tax increases, contract with (on)America) had helped achieved....
Who else should we blame for the policies that have been discredited in real time? Should we just ignore our eyes when we walk through cities swarming with homeless fentanyl addicts? Should we just ignore our eyes as we watch thousands walk across the border? Should we just ignore our eyes when we go to the corner store and see that everything is locked behind plexiglass? Your complete inability to connect cause and effect these past few years speaks to a lack of curiosity, intelligence, or both.
Parties are used by politicians to gain power. It is correct to assume that many politicians don't have a ideological base, or if they do, that their base actually aligns with their party. If you want to win in CA, you better call yourself a D. If you want to win in TN, you better call yourself an R.
However at the end of the day, if your one party state has a serious issue that is not being addressed, then it is correct to assume that the party itself is actually responsible. Notice how the D party gamed things to keep Bernie out of the Presidency. Parties do have strong influence due to money.
If you want your project done in CA, you better give to Democrats. If you want it done in TN, you better give to Republicans.
23 Skidoo: “Empirically proven” means a basis of information obtained by experimentation and observation. I’d say people have observed a significant increase in crime in democrat run cities so your statement is incorrect. Regarding taxes, I’d say people have seen that cutting taxes has resulted in increased economic growth and improved real buying power so your statement is factually incorrect and your claim it’s a “scam” is nothing more than blame shifting.
Obama himself even said that it was more important to be perceived as taxing the rich than it was to generate revenues. He knew his tax policy would reduce income from what it would be otherwise, but it was a political exercise. He was more interested in the politics than the results. He is a politician.
Again, you’ve truly wowed us with your insight. I mean who would have thought it possible to distill this problem with a one word non sequitur? But you did it, you really did it! Good job, little man. Now run along to bed.
The average person is inundated with Democratic Party propaganda generated within consultant groups, spread by the media, unions, universities, government agencies, and a plethora of other sources. “The borders are not open.” “The Republicans are in chaos.” “Republicans practice voter suppression.” “Trump is a Russian asset.” When that average person identifies some of that propaganda and reacts negatively to what the Dems have been spewing, they are already programmed to question and see negatively the alternative, which is a major objective of the propaganda: “If you think we’re bad, they’re much worse. Better stick with us, the less-incompetent.” It’s not so much the long-game as it is the game that’s been running for a long time.
I don’t get my news about Republican ambitions for authoritarian government from MSNBC or ABC or CN, etc. I. get it straight from Donald Trump on his truth social posts.
The bed is a stark, raving lunatic, and he’s going to start by throwing homeless people who knows where
I must have missed Trump's lust for authoritarianism when he completely ceded authority over covid mandates to the states, leaving freedom- and democracy-loving governors such as Cuomo, Whitmer, Newsom, Brown et al. to demonstrate their true nature. By your logic, Trump must have been a clueless idiot to squander a once-in-century opportunity to rule the whole country with an iron fist. What a chump!
You cite political rhetoric, I cite historical facts. So, you remain curiously silent on how Trump, while in power, actually governed with restraint, when his political opponents launched fusillades of illegal actions (think the FISA warrants) and are channelling the exuberant spirit of third-world law fare to seek his incarceration for 100s of years. The sheer lack of self-reflection among the MSM is indeed epic.
For most of his political life, DJT was a moderate democrat, who drifted right as America declined. The amazing demonization of the man, from hero of rappers and praised by Jesse Jackson to "traitor to Russia, white supremacist fascist" is indeed extraordinary. I suppose that Biden is so improbable as a political leader that Trump must be correspondingly demeaned and tarnished. But the whole process is absurd.
Dude, everything in that article is sourced with his actual comments. Also project 2025 he will be more able to carry out his dangerous rhetoric next time.
That article is full of FACT.
People go on and on about FISA warrant from FBI officials who had every right to worry about a man who was looking more and more like he was being bought by Russians, and guess what I haven’t even gone down that rabbit hole with you, but the man is a Russian asset. If you can’t see it, you’re blind
And what are you basing this claim on? The intelligence agencies embedded themselves in every social media platform to silence and algorithmically manipulate millions of voters in the run up to the 2020 election. It’s the same thing they do in foreign countries when they wish to foment revolution. Trump was right to challenge that fraudulent election. It certainly doesn’t make him a wannabe king. It seems those intelligence agencies are the actual wannabe kings and you’re a useful idiot in their service.
"...The intelligence agencies embedded themselves in every social media platform to silence and algorithmically manipulate millions of voters in the run up to the 2020 election."
Look, ma, it's that man again in the slow idling Oldsmobile with the bag of candy and offering another "historical fact." Should I except a ride and get in the car?
If you’re a Democratic shill, just say so and we can all move on. On the chance you’re not, the only ones claiming that Trump intended to instill himself into a permanent presidency have been Democrats. Other than disputing the election results of 2020, Trump did nothing to perpetuate himself in office. (As to disputing the results, he definitely did, but does anyone think a narcissist really believed he had lost?) If you’re looking for someone wanting to hold perpetual office, you’d need to consider those that are doing things to allow themselves to cancel elections by changing the rules, or by doing things that allow themselves to declare martial law, like by launching wars (model: Ukraine), or inciting violence or civil war by not enforcing the laws--immigration, theft, etc, splitting the country over claims of racism, dismissing half the country as unqualified to vote (in need of reprogramming), generating false impeachment proceedings (ironically because a president wanted to follow the corruption of a public official that has since been proven to have been corrupt), undermining a president with persistent claims of being a foreign agent, or in a myriad of other constant plots.
You do realize that "this maniac" was already let into the Presidency, and he already left, right? Your statement has already been literally disproven by historical fact. This isn't 2016 where you can just invent hypotheticals of what Trump will do if he gets into office. IT ALREADY HAPPENED.
Authoritarian regimes of the past would be stunned by the propaganda tools availed today, from literally all fronts. Many that have been directed toward us were billed as scientific or medical. Important to also resist those that advance derangement syndromes.
A significant majority ignores MSM. That’s why YouTube, Wikipedia, etc get cleansed and AI-s, which use these as sources got introduced.
One has to be really astute and nuts to waste time verifying crap to figure out the lies.
In a credible source saw 1936 flags. Among them a flag of Palestine, close to the modern day Israel’s. Dug some more, got the history. Verified with other sources.
Went to MSdncFT’s Chat and got as 1936 flag of Palestine the modern day Palestinian flag, which is close replica of 1936 Jordan flag …
Because Republicans are just as bad--they only differ in what they want to control about you. Both parties are right wing authoritarian parties. Democrats have not been left wing in a very long time.
Clearly you don’t intellectually grasp the basic concepts of Right snd Left, typical! Democrats are now the Far Left Wing, they have swallowed the Neo-Marxist ideology and have modified it the be Cultural Marxism rather than economic.
Using race, gender and sexual orientation to divide human beings who would otherwise seek out common ground is their method to dismantle Society and to assume absolute power and control. The Democrat Party has not been a “liberal” Party for a couple of decades now, but Obama is the one that accelerated that decline into the illiberal, anti-human flourishing Party it is now.
As a former Democrat, and classic Liberal, I can no longer stomach the systemic dismantling of our constitutionally mandated Liberal democracy. In hindsight, the blinders I wore to what the Democrat Party is, and not what they portray themselves to be is mindboggling. Never again, my eyes are wide open, the veil has been removed, and the moral and intellectual rot has finally been exposed for what it is - nihilism!
"Democrats are now Far Left Wing, they have swallowed the Neo-Marxist ideology and have modified it to be Cultural Marxism rather than economic."
I don't know where you get your information from, but this is a little crazy to me. Neo-Marxist? 'Cultural Marxism rather than economic'? There is an accurate word to describe the Democrats, and it is 'Neoliberal'. You could also throw in Imperialist and even Fascist if you wanted to describe the Democrats. None of these are 'Far Left Wing'. They are in fact Right wing. You can't have Marxism without the economics. If you don't have the economic aspect of Marxism, it isn't Marxism. Calling 'Wokism' 'Cultural Marxism' is nonsensical. Wokism is the pretty well-meaning face Democrats paste over the face of Neoliberalism to make the Liberals feel better about themselves, while ignoring material conditions.
To summarize:
Left Wing: pro worker, anti-large private interest. Nationalization of critical industries, important necessary services (medicine, utilities, education) are to be provided at-cost by state run industry. Belief in international working class solidarity. No war but class war.
Right wing: zenophobia, militarism, sacredness of individual property rights over the common good, the state exists to protect property rights, 'Free Market' privatization of all services, anti-union, sacredness of Our Nation State vs. all other Nation States. Class doesn't exist, only bootstraps and entrepreneurs.
The Democrats since the New Deal have really dropped the ball on Left wing policies. Today they absolutely resemble a Right wing party. And the Republicans aren't much different in practice.
I don’t see Republicans empowering the teachers union to take over our schools, mandating vaccines, masking children, pushing the sexual mutilation of children, censoring the public, exalting a Marxist terror group masquerading under a civil rights banner (BLM), pushing intellectually bankrupt ideas like critical race theory, or sicking the IRS on its rivals. I’m not happy with the Republicans because many of them have gotten way to comfortable with the status quo, but the ideas and actions that are dismantling our Republic are coming from the left and whatever the Democrats are considered today.
The late 60's radicals, Angela Davis, Herbert Marcuse, Derrick Bell, Paolo Freire, the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers, the Black Liberation Army are the foundation of the Neo-Marxism and the Far Left cultural revolution we see in America today. Chris Rufo among many others have done a lot of research on this, might want to check him out.
The Democrat Party has swallowed the ideology of the critical theories and is now implementing it into every aspect of the government bureaucracy, changing laws and policies as we speak. You have a very one-dimensional idea of what the "Left" is, you should get out more. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is a Marxist ideology, the very concept of "equity" is Marxist.
Neoliberal might describe what some are, like the Clintons, but there is far more to it. Oppressor v. Oppressed and the Victimhood ideology pushed by Democrats is also Marxist. The Chinese Cultural Revolution is Cultural Marxism, so it is hardly "nonsensical."
Also, by your definition of "Right Wing," few if any of those positions match what the Democrat Party is today. The militarism most likely comes from the Neoliberal Republicans who have joined the Party since Trump, but that doesn't make Democrats "Right Wing."
Obama launched more wars than Bush, cemented the national security survellance state, and rather than regulating the banks after the 2008 crash, handed the keys of government over to Wall Street. Biden supported the 1994 Crime Bill, helped get Clarence Thomas on the bench, supported NAFTA, vociferously supported every war we've been involved in, and now he's finishing Trump's border wall while expanding the privatization of medicare. The Democrats are absolutely militarist law and order pro corporate state stooges. By any real world definition they're Right wing.
I'm sorry, but this 'cultural marxist' nonsense is garbage. Biden told railworkers who wanted to strike to talk to the hand, and is funding cops, prisons, and the surveillance state just as much as Bush. And now Biden is literally printing endless money for wars.
But they're actually Marxists? Get out of here. Mainstream democrats today are more chummy with Henry Kissinger and Madaleine Albright than they are students of 60's radicals. Joe Biden undoubtedly was cheering when Fed Hampton, MLK, and Malcolm X were killed.
Neo-Marxism has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with the redistribution of perceived social "power," wresting it from (to use their terminology) the white man's hegemony and distributing it among what neo-Marxism defines as the "historically marginalized." It's the ideology behind Diversity Inclusion and Equity (DIE); it explains why the Pentagon is giving lip service to homosexuals and trans-sexuals; it explains why so many on the left support the bloodthirsty Hamas as liberators of oppressed Palestinians, and on and on.
Neo-Marxism is the origin of what many like to dismiss as trivial--"identity politics" and the "culture war."
The right is still conservative in the traditional sense, and what you call "xenophobia" is simply the recognition that nations need borders and should be selective about who is allowed citizenship. Not very "far right"normally, but the left's extremists apply that epithet to everything to the right of Marcuse.
Let’s make a deal with the left. Us libertarian/righty types will leave Marx out of our criticisms while the leftys will concede that the roots of our current disastrous social policies in US cities are to be found in the writings of Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse.
Couldn't let this one lie... Gramsci and Marcuse??? An Italian communist who's been dead for approaching 100 years? And I've read One Dimensional Man and the best thing I can say about Marcuse is that he is an anti-authoritarian. The current policies and instruments of power in the United States lie elsewhere than these two obscure figures. I would offer the following:
1532, Machiavelli, ‘The Prince’. This is the modern ideology of raw power. How to be a venal asshole out for yourself. We still suffer from this world view among our leaders.
1928, Edward Bernays, ‘Propaganda’. Bernays is an interesting but lesser-known figure. The father of modern advertising and opinion forming/mass manipulation. Worked for large industrial concerns, and also the first US propaganda department during WW1. His concern was how to control ‘the masses’ in a democracy in an anti-democratic fashion. This would be the beginning of government starting to link arms with the media for the purpose of narrative control.
Cold War foundation documents: 1943, Policy Planning Study 23, 1947 The Long Telegram, 1950 NSC-68, George Kennan and Paul Nitze. Along with the Dulles brothers activities, these were the founding documents that established US policy of global hegemony and militarism post-1945. They established a policy of violent interventionism, coups, proxy wars, and military industrial complex funding that remain with us even today in a post-Soviet world.
Economic ideology and policy documents: 1962 Milton Friedman ‘Capitalism and Freedom’, Lewis Powell 1971 Memorandum, 1975 Crozier/Huntington/Watanuki Trilateral Commission. These are the documents that strategized and successfully laid the groundwork for the rollback of New Deal and Great Society gains that were made for regular working Americans during the 30’s through 60’s. They talk about an ‘excess of democracy’ and how to combat it, using money to capture our political system. Freidman’s “Chicago School” established Neoliberalism, which today is the dominant ideology in the Democratic Party.
Neoconservative foundational ideology: Leo Strauss “Natural Right and History” 1953 – influenced many of our Neocon leaders who were in power in the 90’s and 00’s. Giving us such gifts as ‘Project for a New American Century’ – 1997, Kagan and Kristol. Essentially this is doubling down on using US military power to enforce global hegemony, even in a post-soviet world. This is why we have maintained our 800 military bases overseas and still spend cold war levels on our military.
Anyhow, this collection of documents and writings I have presented here I think will describe to you the underlying power structure and intent of action of the United States for more than reading Gramsci and Marcuse.
Gramsci and Marcuse are the intellectual forbearers of the woke/post-modernist/hierarchy of oppressions bs we are seeing in today’s colleges, and corporate DEI initiatives. Robin D’Angelo, Ibrahim Kendi, and the anti-Semitic little monsters we are seeing at elite universities are the intellectual heirs of Gramsci and Marcuse.
Don't forget the migration of so-called neoconservatives like Bill Kristol from R to D. That the Ds are now the pro-war faction is pretty remarkable given the history of the 20th-century.
Let’s see...which party got us into WW1, WW2, and Vietnam. A faction within the Republican Party has returned to its isolationist roots. The war mongering party has historically been the democrats.
Don’t forget the four years of Afghanistan we got under Trump, or his assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the drone strikes in Iran and other places we do know about, and the ones we are no longer allowed to know about
LOL--OMG. I'm fully aware of what constitutes the left and right, thanks. Suggest you take a look at politicalcompass.org to see what the criteria actually are. The site was started by two political science profs to use with college students.
Relying on a website for "truth" seems like "Leftie logic," kind of like banking on the "honesty" of a source like Politifact or the Washington Post "Fact" Checker thinking it's unbiased?! Also, the LOL & OMG seem histrionic, how old are you?
Matt, I have been following your work and admiring your honesty ever since the vampire squid article came out. I consider you one of the most intellectually honest and intelligent reporters out there.
The question i have for you - why did you vote for democrats for so long in the first place? How come intelligent people only see the problems when they are impacted personally?
Many "intelligent" people keep voting Democrat even after they are impacted personally by higher taxes, crime, etc. Check out the cases of Josh Kreuger, Ryan Carson, and Pava Lapere. You cannot reason with a demoralized person, my namesake tried to warn us in 1984: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-reason-with-a-demoralized-person-yuri
Democrats are an awful lot and so are republicans. Both parties and their mindless partisan live to desecrate the first mandate of the constitution which is to strive “for a more perfect union.” Selfishly voting out of economic interests while the parties actively collude to divide us is anti-American.
SO why do Amerikans why do they not vote for people (3rd party)?
Because we have a first-past-the-post voting system, not a parliamentary system, alternative vote, or any of the other systems that make third parties viable options. Look these things up and learn about their systemic consequences and all will be revealed.
Watch out for the occasional "affiliation" polls. "Affiliation," in this case, is the percentage of American voters who will admit to a pollster that they belong to one party or the other. That number has been falling for more than a decade; it's presently about 30% EACH. In other words, 60%, a solid majority, are "independents" - everybody else. Or, "A Pox on Both Your Houses," which would be a good name for a 3rd party. No wonder turnout is so low.
Personally, I've been a Green, and advocated for that party in comments, for about 3 decades - since Clinton. But at this point, I'm sufficiently disgusted with my own party that I've stopped advocating for it.
Maybe just vote NO, instead.
We need another Montgomery Brewster candidate to campaign for "None Of The Above."
Or we all just write in "Giant Meteor."
Oops, looks like I can't do arithmetic any more. It's FORTY percent, a plurality, not a majority. There is no majority. However, in our system, a plurality is enough - and it's well on its way to a majority.
Because unlike where you (probably) live it’s insanely diverse with massive variance in lifestyles and values. So the ‘big issues’ tend to be more fundamental in nature. Abortion. Guns. Healthcare. Religion.
At least that’s my theory. Hard to be a pro abortion anti-gun evangelical socialist. If there were to be a powerful third party it might be in form of a racial minority coalition (Eg, African-Americans abandon democrats but don’t join republicans.... see evangelical socialists above). We’ll see.
Gotta live here to understand it otherwise too easy to throw stones - especially with your own (likely state owned) media brainwashing you, too.
But abortion wasn’t really an issue until the early 90s. Bush Sr. supported abortion rights. As for guns, we had a federal ban on assault rifles between 1994-04. And healthcare became an explosive topic in the wake of the anti-Obama hysteria of the Tea party. So it seems to me that the American public is constantly being agitated from the top to elicit the division than then allows the elites to plunder and pillage without fear of the mob ever going for the pitchforks.
What is your reference for George H.W. Busch Sr. ‘S support for abortion rights? I know he supported planned parenthood, mainly because it provided medical services like gyn exams and birth control. He did support abortion for the health of the mother and rape or incest but not for routine or general abortions. He also was opposed to any federal money used for abortion procedures. His wife was pro choice but, I don’t think he left any written or oral record that he supported it.
https://www.reaganfoundation.org/ronald-reagan/reagan-quotes-speeches/?topic=Abortion
I lived in the USA for 23yrs. No-one cared about Politics. You just bought your toys and had fun! I lived in a 'left leaning' Canyon close to LA. We were called 'pinkos.'
Left is Socialism or Liberal Socialism (in France) which means we have free Healthcare/Education
Right means you will have nothing to help people!
That’s a lazy characterization of the right. That they will do nothing to help people. If it’s possible to distill it down this way, the right, conservatives, are for less government and more self determination. Independence. Being in favor of and offering largesse to the people hasn’t exactly led to good outcomes. The nuclear family is disappearing, dads not in the home, especially in families of color. What used to be a good thing was when the natural tension of the rights instincts to do less met with the left’s desire to do something, resulted in a compromise that was reasonable. We cannot do that anymore. The left has a voracious appetite for power and is uncompromising, the right has reached a place of zero trust that they can bargain in good faith. So here we are. Taibi’s coverage of the police state shows how the left, for all the claims to the contrary about the right, Trump et al, are the real Nazis.
You had me at left-leaning canyon near L.A.
Perfect vantage point to observe the diversity of American life.
Your healthcare and education are not free. Do you think the workers in those fields are doing their work without pay? Do you think builders are making hospitals without billing the government? Those textbooks - magically made from nothing for nothing? You are paying far more than you know for your education and healthcare - and not just in money.
Did you know that the "right" in the US generates considerably more of it's time and money to charity than does the "left"?
This is a really good analysis. Most people don’t vote on purely economic issues, they vote on issues that resonate personally with them. If you are a gay or alienated type person who grew up in an evangelical-influenced environment-family or town, you aren’t voting for an R even if you don’t like Bidenomics. If you are a big 2nd Anendment person, there aren’t any Ds left to vote for besides Joe Mancin. For African Americans, there is still a huge stigma in the community for voting GOP, b/c it is seen-correctly-as the pro-cop party. Corporate social posturing-and thus potential career advancement-is completely in the D/woke wheelhouse.
Abortion is becoming a difficult issue for the GOP-it is hurting GOP candidates on state level races. Just like one doesn’t see pro 2A Ds, pro-choice GOPers are increasingly rare-and the issue is now open on the state level. I’m a pro-life libertarian, but I see how the issue is benefiting the Ds.
It isn't hard to be pro killing of fetus's and anti-guns. It depends on whether or not you consider a fetus to be a human being. It if is a cluster of cells then it is easy to kill it. There may be some disagreement about clusters of cells. Some might see that right up to the time the umbilical cord is cut.
Evangelicals can be socialists. But we say that we are not interested in a theocracy.
The third party exists and it is right in front of us. We keep electing our "team" even when they don't work as if they are on our "team". Congress is supposedly not liked, but they are more likely to die in office or retire than get voted out.
I think you missed my intended point entirely but that’s ok, I didn’t exactly edit the original response for clarity, either. No worries.
I have. Patrick Buchanan (twice), and Ralph Nader (also twice). The other 3rd Party candidates seemed like they were bought off just like the D & R candidates.
I really think that the DNC should be done away with!
There were a great many opportunities to change who won the elections for dog catcher on up to Senator that you did not comment on. Not coming down on you per se, but for the readers, there are many elections, and they all matter. The dog catcher becomes the Senator.
Everyone needs to start voting for themselves, things that actually impact them. Most people vote for a percieved benefit to someone else, like people voting as abortion rights being a primary issue. I don't care if you can or can not get abortions but since less than 1 percent of the nation will need to get an abortion it seems silly to vote on that as a primary issue.
Now I get that you are voting out of some altruism, like voting Democrat is better for minorities, that is a feeling many Democrat voters have that are not minorities, but since the issue doesn't actually impact you, you do not actually have first hand knowledge that Democrat vote is for minorities.
When we vote for "other people" not out of our own benefit you actually get bad results. Because how we vote and how webare controlled to vote impacts our politicians. If everyone voted selfishly politicians might actually have to DO things that benefit us because as a swlfish voter you would KNOW if you were benefitted.
Think about this like an ice cream parlor, imagine the ice cream parlor has 16 flavors and they make new flavors based on popularity of the existing ones and instead of picking ice cream you want to eat you see a sign that says eating the Kale and Kelp Ice Cream is good for pregnant women, so you order the god awful ice cream because if you don't maybe the parlor won't keep making that ice cream pregnant women eat.
Of course its terrible ice cream and of course the parlor keeps making more of it but do you know if pregalnant women are ever actually eating the Kale and Kelp Ice Cream? Or are you just pissing money down the drain and stopping the ice cream parlor from replacing that flavor with something someone might like.
Why does a brilliant black man who was an adult during Jim Crowe, educated at Harvard and Chicago on Merit scholarships, was a young communist until finishing his PHD, but now believes Democrats are destroying black America. Read Thomas Sowell and start thinking.
I agree about the voting for self-interest but I think the 50/50 split among the electorate makes that easier. They can just say we can't negotiate with the other because it will alienate our base. We need a 60/40 split.
I think it's yet to be empirically proven, other than through editorializing, whether higher taxes, crime, etc., aren't also a product of republican voting, though perhaps propagandized by the right using different rhetorical moves. Bottom line is that it's a scam, and part of that scam is emphasizing false claims about how democratic policies across the board result in XYZ while republican policies don't. Many Substack writers that think of themselves as "intelligent" seem to continue to run this scam rhetoric that you're putting across.
It has been empirically proven that increasing crime in big cities, and the brazenness of criminals, and the inertia of law enforcement, have absolutely nothing to do with Republican voting because the government on ALL levels in these cities is from the Democratic party. You would have to use a magnifying glass and still would not find a Republican in the NYC government, for example. In local elections, you would have to register as a Democrat if you wanted your vote to be counted for a more moderate Democrat against progressive left extremists.
Here in Illinois the Dems have a super legislative majority, and all State constitutional offices. Chicago hasn't had a Repub mayor or city council since . . . it's been awhile. State-wide cashless bail went into effect in Sept. Chicago is a sanctuary city and the Mayor needs more money to provide for the new arrivals. Chicago needs more money for failing schools and pension systems. So although one may live closer to Missouri than Chicago, all Illinois residents are going to pay.
I'm in Chicago. The recent resistance on the west-side to the mayor's plan to use an open block to build a "heated tent" space may be indicative of change.
Look up the "Inn of Chicago". An arguably past-its-time hotel just off Michigan Avenue that's now a shelter for "migrants" (i.e., illegal immigrants). I feel for these people as they must be profoundly motivated to take the risk of traveling to enter the US illegally, but they're still breaking the law as their first step into the US. It's sad and it's also clearly unsustainable.
I have known and worked with numerous people from Venezuela: smart, educated and hardworking. What the Chavez/Maduro administrations have done to that country is both tragic and criminal. Venezuela is rich in natural resources; there's no logical or non-criminal reason for the country to be in the state that it is.
And there is no logical or non-criminal reason for THIS country to be where it is now.
The border obliteration perpetrated by Obama 3.0 is part of a plan to transform America. But worse than that, it has been accomplished with a loving embrace of human trafficking to accomplish its goals, implemented by narco-terrorists. Talk about a war of proportionality. How many drug ODs kill Americans? All these children, especially girls --- what is their trip like on their way to "freedom" and "a better life?" What's it like after they get to their final destination? And our government is an accomplice in this, NOT an innocent bystander.
Jingoistic? Whatever other term is used to smear people who believe in the rule of law. This democracy only works if there are rules and everybody buys in at some basic level. Gangbangers being in charge of The Open Door, in partnership with our federal government. I think we are going to find out pretty soon that wasn't really in our best interest.
I watched a special on the homeless problem on PBS. They visited a number of cities and spoke residents and government officials. When the Mayor of San Francisco had her turn, she basically blamed all of her cities problems on Republican's. The interviewer neither laughed or questioned the Mayor. The magnifying glass comment reminded me of this show.
And nothing else anywhere in the global economy, public policy, or anything else impacts people. Only their little tiny spot on the globe and local politics. It has been empirically proven that partisans are dumb. There is progressive left or conservative right. There are only corrupt politicians the people they make tools to keep them in power. Whether they're banning abortion or twerking naked in gay pride parades, identity politics is what passes for governance of, for and by the people. .
Public policy - yea, it does impact people. As it relates to crime, it is the public policy of local government that affects it. If the local government does not want to prosecute people who steal hundreds $$$ worth of goods, then thugs feel brazen and invincible. Then local stores do not file police reports because police would not act on them and because they will be called racists. I do not believe global economy has anything to do with crime in our cities. I have not mentioned abortion rights here, and you don’t know my position on it, though I stated it in other posts. And I am far from being a partisan. As far as you can be lol. I have flipped between parties searching for someone to match my political believes more times than I can count and embarrassed to admit. Of course, extreme positions on both sides are a problem. But crime currently is where democrats govern because of their progressive and SJW view of law and order. And, unfortunately, moderate Democrats so far are loosing in this battle.
democratic policies across the board and republican policies across the board insure that the finance sector profits and middle Americans pay the bills. ......
This is because you have a 2 party system BOTH controlled by big money!
finance, pharma, defense, teacher's union, and congressional families...
- I do not believe that anything in politics can be "empirically proven". Whether it is a statement that turns out to be provenly false "no deal with out a public option" or acknowledged policy that clearly is illegal, such as the murder of American citizens without due process. Nothing is empirically proven, it all is subject to revisionism and spin. George Bush threw out the first pitch of a baseball game last night although many would say it has been empirically proven he lied and led us into a war; but apparently that's not the case.
That is why politics is such an art that captures people's passion and imagination but seemingly does little to form a more perfect union as the poster above mentioned.
To blame to not blame, to call it a scam by one side and not the other; we are dealing with a coin that has heads on both sides.
I do not believe that the "intelligent" people here are blaming polices of XYZ on democrats. I think most if not all here know that both parties are (most likely) equally to blame as the powers in those parties feed at the same trough.
Being passionately dissolussioned by the Democratic party, the ACLU, wikipedia, etc is not promoting a scam. It's just expressing remorse at things folks wanted to believe but are not true, and being able to commiserate and bitch a little bit.
An interesting quote that Dick Cheney said onetime about whose politics are the cause for the successes and failures was something like " it's not until an administration or two after the one in which the policies were implemented that we see results"
He was referring to the first Bush "read my lips no new taxes". After Bush realized he needed to work with Congress to raise taxes to stave off economic calamity he lost when a conservative challenged him. We all know this ushered in Clinton who would have had no chance without Perot. We know the Clinton administration led to (in many ways) our current economic system.
As a side not- Does anyone remember the surplus, the "lock box" as Gore called it. Then we had the coup d'etat of 2000 and look who got to come in a spend all that money that republican politics (tax increases, contract with (on)America) had helped achieved....
"...I do not believe that the "intelligent" people here are blaming polices of XYZ on democrats."
Wholeheartedly agree.
Who else should we blame for the policies that have been discredited in real time? Should we just ignore our eyes when we walk through cities swarming with homeless fentanyl addicts? Should we just ignore our eyes as we watch thousands walk across the border? Should we just ignore our eyes when we go to the corner store and see that everything is locked behind plexiglass? Your complete inability to connect cause and effect these past few years speaks to a lack of curiosity, intelligence, or both.
Parties are used by politicians to gain power. It is correct to assume that many politicians don't have a ideological base, or if they do, that their base actually aligns with their party. If you want to win in CA, you better call yourself a D. If you want to win in TN, you better call yourself an R.
However at the end of the day, if your one party state has a serious issue that is not being addressed, then it is correct to assume that the party itself is actually responsible. Notice how the D party gamed things to keep Bernie out of the Presidency. Parties do have strong influence due to money.
If you want your project done in CA, you better give to Democrats. If you want it done in TN, you better give to Republicans.
23 Skidoo: “Empirically proven” means a basis of information obtained by experimentation and observation. I’d say people have observed a significant increase in crime in democrat run cities so your statement is incorrect. Regarding taxes, I’d say people have seen that cutting taxes has resulted in increased economic growth and improved real buying power so your statement is factually incorrect and your claim it’s a “scam” is nothing more than blame shifting.
Obama himself even said that it was more important to be perceived as taxing the rich than it was to generate revenues. He knew his tax policy would reduce income from what it would be otherwise, but it was a political exercise. He was more interested in the politics than the results. He is a politician.
Your comment makes zero sense. You can literally track the history of which party has power and how they vote lol
You are suffering from rectal-cranial inversion. Seek help immediately!
Why don’t you go visit any big city in the country, Skidoo. Guess who runs them?
Mormons?
Again, you’ve truly wowed us with your insight. I mean who would have thought it possible to distill this problem with a one word non sequitur? But you did it, you really did it! Good job, little man. Now run along to bed.
Here's your answer. https://rumble.com/v2s0gp8-plandemic-3-the-great-awakening-full-unedited-movie.html
Someone just claimed that Youngkin won in Virginia, because Asians, who value education, voted for him.
It took me the whole 25 seconds to prove him wrong: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/asian-americans-favored-democrats-wide-margin-high-profile-races-exit-rcna5024
Well, in America, Asians are just like blacks and Jews. All groups are screwed mightily and still vote for their soul owners. 😢
The average person is inundated with Democratic Party propaganda generated within consultant groups, spread by the media, unions, universities, government agencies, and a plethora of other sources. “The borders are not open.” “The Republicans are in chaos.” “Republicans practice voter suppression.” “Trump is a Russian asset.” When that average person identifies some of that propaganda and reacts negatively to what the Dems have been spewing, they are already programmed to question and see negatively the alternative, which is a major objective of the propaganda: “If you think we’re bad, they’re much worse. Better stick with us, the less-incompetent.” It’s not so much the long-game as it is the game that’s been running for a long time.
I don’t get my news about Republican ambitions for authoritarian government from MSNBC or ABC or CN, etc. I. get it straight from Donald Trump on his truth social posts.
The bed is a stark, raving lunatic, and he’s going to start by throwing homeless people who knows where
I must have missed Trump's lust for authoritarianism when he completely ceded authority over covid mandates to the states, leaving freedom- and democracy-loving governors such as Cuomo, Whitmer, Newsom, Brown et al. to demonstrate their true nature. By your logic, Trump must have been a clueless idiot to squander a once-in-century opportunity to rule the whole country with an iron fist. What a chump!
Trump still is a clueless idiot, as well as a mendacious one.
https://www.meidastouch.com/news/27-insane-things-trump-said-he-will-do-in-a-2nd-term
You cite political rhetoric, I cite historical facts. So, you remain curiously silent on how Trump, while in power, actually governed with restraint, when his political opponents launched fusillades of illegal actions (think the FISA warrants) and are channelling the exuberant spirit of third-world law fare to seek his incarceration for 100s of years. The sheer lack of self-reflection among the MSM is indeed epic.
For most of his political life, DJT was a moderate democrat, who drifted right as America declined. The amazing demonization of the man, from hero of rappers and praised by Jesse Jackson to "traitor to Russia, white supremacist fascist" is indeed extraordinary. I suppose that Biden is so improbable as a political leader that Trump must be correspondingly demeaned and tarnished. But the whole process is absurd.
"Historical facts." My mommy advised me to run screaming from anyone using those words.
Dude, everything in that article is sourced with his actual comments. Also project 2025 he will be more able to carry out his dangerous rhetoric next time.
That article is full of FACT.
People go on and on about FISA warrant from FBI officials who had every right to worry about a man who was looking more and more like he was being bought by Russians, and guess what I haven’t even gone down that rabbit hole with you, but the man is a Russian asset. If you can’t see it, you’re blind
You’re citing medias touch? Lmao.
You think Trump is authoritarian? Lol. You’ve been brainwashed.
He wants to be King. Once you let this maniac into the Presidency he will never leave. Watch out.
And what are you basing this claim on? The intelligence agencies embedded themselves in every social media platform to silence and algorithmically manipulate millions of voters in the run up to the 2020 election. It’s the same thing they do in foreign countries when they wish to foment revolution. Trump was right to challenge that fraudulent election. It certainly doesn’t make him a wannabe king. It seems those intelligence agencies are the actual wannabe kings and you’re a useful idiot in their service.
"...The intelligence agencies embedded themselves in every social media platform to silence and algorithmically manipulate millions of voters in the run up to the 2020 election."
Look, ma, it's that man again in the slow idling Oldsmobile with the bag of candy and offering another "historical fact." Should I except a ride and get in the car?
You funny. Please keep me laughing.
Please>Trump is a nutcase. IF he becomes President YOU (yourself) will never vote again.
DO you think a MALE who has been charged with rape is a potential President?
NOT to mention that no other Country will ever deal with him.
We are watching Americans self-destruct.
If you’re a Democratic shill, just say so and we can all move on. On the chance you’re not, the only ones claiming that Trump intended to instill himself into a permanent presidency have been Democrats. Other than disputing the election results of 2020, Trump did nothing to perpetuate himself in office. (As to disputing the results, he definitely did, but does anyone think a narcissist really believed he had lost?) If you’re looking for someone wanting to hold perpetual office, you’d need to consider those that are doing things to allow themselves to cancel elections by changing the rules, or by doing things that allow themselves to declare martial law, like by launching wars (model: Ukraine), or inciting violence or civil war by not enforcing the laws--immigration, theft, etc, splitting the country over claims of racism, dismissing half the country as unqualified to vote (in need of reprogramming), generating false impeachment proceedings (ironically because a president wanted to follow the corruption of a public official that has since been proven to have been corrupt), undermining a president with persistent claims of being a foreign agent, or in a myriad of other constant plots.
Ya, I think Trump did a few of those. Dolt.
NO.
Idiots I do not reply to.
Vote Trump and you will see and be happy!
You do realize that "this maniac" was already let into the Presidency, and he already left, right? Your statement has already been literally disproven by historical fact. This isn't 2016 where you can just invent hypotheticals of what Trump will do if he gets into office. IT ALREADY HAPPENED.
You mean the GOP would make things worse for the homeless than conditions in LA, San Francisco, or Philadelphia.
Unquestionably. And not just the homeless.
Authoritarian regimes of the past would be stunned by the propaganda tools availed today, from literally all fronts. Many that have been directed toward us were billed as scientific or medical. Important to also resist those that advance derangement syndromes.
https://www.meidastouch.com/news/27-insane-things-trump-said-he-will-do-in-a-2nd-term
If you think Trumpnis calling for tyranny then you either have a processing error, a per eption error,or a data error. Possibly combinations if all 3.
A significant majority ignores MSM. That’s why YouTube, Wikipedia, etc get cleansed and AI-s, which use these as sources got introduced.
One has to be really astute and nuts to waste time verifying crap to figure out the lies.
In a credible source saw 1936 flags. Among them a flag of Palestine, close to the modern day Israel’s. Dug some more, got the history. Verified with other sources.
Went to MSdncFT’s Chat and got as 1936 flag of Palestine the modern day Palestinian flag, which is close replica of 1936 Jordan flag …
It’s like Back In The USSR, China, etc.
Yes, Texan, 'nuff said.
Because Republicans are just as bad--they only differ in what they want to control about you. Both parties are right wing authoritarian parties. Democrats have not been left wing in a very long time.
Clearly you don’t intellectually grasp the basic concepts of Right snd Left, typical! Democrats are now the Far Left Wing, they have swallowed the Neo-Marxist ideology and have modified it the be Cultural Marxism rather than economic.
Using race, gender and sexual orientation to divide human beings who would otherwise seek out common ground is their method to dismantle Society and to assume absolute power and control. The Democrat Party has not been a “liberal” Party for a couple of decades now, but Obama is the one that accelerated that decline into the illiberal, anti-human flourishing Party it is now.
As a former Democrat, and classic Liberal, I can no longer stomach the systemic dismantling of our constitutionally mandated Liberal democracy. In hindsight, the blinders I wore to what the Democrat Party is, and not what they portray themselves to be is mindboggling. Never again, my eyes are wide open, the veil has been removed, and the moral and intellectual rot has finally been exposed for what it is - nihilism!
"Democrats are now Far Left Wing, they have swallowed the Neo-Marxist ideology and have modified it to be Cultural Marxism rather than economic."
I don't know where you get your information from, but this is a little crazy to me. Neo-Marxist? 'Cultural Marxism rather than economic'? There is an accurate word to describe the Democrats, and it is 'Neoliberal'. You could also throw in Imperialist and even Fascist if you wanted to describe the Democrats. None of these are 'Far Left Wing'. They are in fact Right wing. You can't have Marxism without the economics. If you don't have the economic aspect of Marxism, it isn't Marxism. Calling 'Wokism' 'Cultural Marxism' is nonsensical. Wokism is the pretty well-meaning face Democrats paste over the face of Neoliberalism to make the Liberals feel better about themselves, while ignoring material conditions.
To summarize:
Left Wing: pro worker, anti-large private interest. Nationalization of critical industries, important necessary services (medicine, utilities, education) are to be provided at-cost by state run industry. Belief in international working class solidarity. No war but class war.
Right wing: zenophobia, militarism, sacredness of individual property rights over the common good, the state exists to protect property rights, 'Free Market' privatization of all services, anti-union, sacredness of Our Nation State vs. all other Nation States. Class doesn't exist, only bootstraps and entrepreneurs.
The Democrats since the New Deal have really dropped the ball on Left wing policies. Today they absolutely resemble a Right wing party. And the Republicans aren't much different in practice.
I don’t see Republicans empowering the teachers union to take over our schools, mandating vaccines, masking children, pushing the sexual mutilation of children, censoring the public, exalting a Marxist terror group masquerading under a civil rights banner (BLM), pushing intellectually bankrupt ideas like critical race theory, or sicking the IRS on its rivals. I’m not happy with the Republicans because many of them have gotten way to comfortable with the status quo, but the ideas and actions that are dismantling our Republic are coming from the left and whatever the Democrats are considered today.
In the US you use this word 'left' so often. I don't think you know what it means.
You could say Alexander Cortez is a LIBERAL left for instance.
The late 60's radicals, Angela Davis, Herbert Marcuse, Derrick Bell, Paolo Freire, the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers, the Black Liberation Army are the foundation of the Neo-Marxism and the Far Left cultural revolution we see in America today. Chris Rufo among many others have done a lot of research on this, might want to check him out.
The Democrat Party has swallowed the ideology of the critical theories and is now implementing it into every aspect of the government bureaucracy, changing laws and policies as we speak. You have a very one-dimensional idea of what the "Left" is, you should get out more. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is a Marxist ideology, the very concept of "equity" is Marxist.
Neoliberal might describe what some are, like the Clintons, but there is far more to it. Oppressor v. Oppressed and the Victimhood ideology pushed by Democrats is also Marxist. The Chinese Cultural Revolution is Cultural Marxism, so it is hardly "nonsensical."
Also, by your definition of "Right Wing," few if any of those positions match what the Democrat Party is today. The militarism most likely comes from the Neoliberal Republicans who have joined the Party since Trump, but that doesn't make Democrats "Right Wing."
Obama launched more wars than Bush, cemented the national security survellance state, and rather than regulating the banks after the 2008 crash, handed the keys of government over to Wall Street. Biden supported the 1994 Crime Bill, helped get Clarence Thomas on the bench, supported NAFTA, vociferously supported every war we've been involved in, and now he's finishing Trump's border wall while expanding the privatization of medicare. The Democrats are absolutely militarist law and order pro corporate state stooges. By any real world definition they're Right wing.
I'm sorry, but this 'cultural marxist' nonsense is garbage. Biden told railworkers who wanted to strike to talk to the hand, and is funding cops, prisons, and the surveillance state just as much as Bush. And now Biden is literally printing endless money for wars.
But they're actually Marxists? Get out of here. Mainstream democrats today are more chummy with Henry Kissinger and Madaleine Albright than they are students of 60's radicals. Joe Biden undoubtedly was cheering when Fed Hampton, MLK, and Malcolm X were killed.
"I'm sorry, but this 'cultural marxist' nonsense is garbage. "
Apologizing doesn't make you correct here. Read James Lindsay's work at his New Discourses website.
"They" are not Marxists, but neo-Marxists.
Tell me more about what Chris Rufo has to say about Marcuse.
Centrist Party owned by big money = Democrats.
Glauber's Salt?
You are behind the times.
Neo-Marxism has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with the redistribution of perceived social "power," wresting it from (to use their terminology) the white man's hegemony and distributing it among what neo-Marxism defines as the "historically marginalized." It's the ideology behind Diversity Inclusion and Equity (DIE); it explains why the Pentagon is giving lip service to homosexuals and trans-sexuals; it explains why so many on the left support the bloodthirsty Hamas as liberators of oppressed Palestinians, and on and on.
Neo-Marxism is the origin of what many like to dismiss as trivial--"identity politics" and the "culture war."
The right is still conservative in the traditional sense, and what you call "xenophobia" is simply the recognition that nations need borders and should be selective about who is allowed citizenship. Not very "far right"normally, but the left's extremists apply that epithet to everything to the right of Marcuse.
Let’s make a deal with the left. Us libertarian/righty types will leave Marx out of our criticisms while the leftys will concede that the roots of our current disastrous social policies in US cities are to be found in the writings of Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse.
Couldn't let this one lie... Gramsci and Marcuse??? An Italian communist who's been dead for approaching 100 years? And I've read One Dimensional Man and the best thing I can say about Marcuse is that he is an anti-authoritarian. The current policies and instruments of power in the United States lie elsewhere than these two obscure figures. I would offer the following:
1532, Machiavelli, ‘The Prince’. This is the modern ideology of raw power. How to be a venal asshole out for yourself. We still suffer from this world view among our leaders.
1928, Edward Bernays, ‘Propaganda’. Bernays is an interesting but lesser-known figure. The father of modern advertising and opinion forming/mass manipulation. Worked for large industrial concerns, and also the first US propaganda department during WW1. His concern was how to control ‘the masses’ in a democracy in an anti-democratic fashion. This would be the beginning of government starting to link arms with the media for the purpose of narrative control.
Cold War foundation documents: 1943, Policy Planning Study 23, 1947 The Long Telegram, 1950 NSC-68, George Kennan and Paul Nitze. Along with the Dulles brothers activities, these were the founding documents that established US policy of global hegemony and militarism post-1945. They established a policy of violent interventionism, coups, proxy wars, and military industrial complex funding that remain with us even today in a post-Soviet world.
Economic ideology and policy documents: 1962 Milton Friedman ‘Capitalism and Freedom’, Lewis Powell 1971 Memorandum, 1975 Crozier/Huntington/Watanuki Trilateral Commission. These are the documents that strategized and successfully laid the groundwork for the rollback of New Deal and Great Society gains that were made for regular working Americans during the 30’s through 60’s. They talk about an ‘excess of democracy’ and how to combat it, using money to capture our political system. Freidman’s “Chicago School” established Neoliberalism, which today is the dominant ideology in the Democratic Party.
Neoconservative foundational ideology: Leo Strauss “Natural Right and History” 1953 – influenced many of our Neocon leaders who were in power in the 90’s and 00’s. Giving us such gifts as ‘Project for a New American Century’ – 1997, Kagan and Kristol. Essentially this is doubling down on using US military power to enforce global hegemony, even in a post-soviet world. This is why we have maintained our 800 military bases overseas and still spend cold war levels on our military.
Anyhow, this collection of documents and writings I have presented here I think will describe to you the underlying power structure and intent of action of the United States for more than reading Gramsci and Marcuse.
You have even more faith in these people than I do
Gramsci and Marcuse are the intellectual forbearers of the woke/post-modernist/hierarchy of oppressions bs we are seeing in today’s colleges, and corporate DEI initiatives. Robin D’Angelo, Ibrahim Kendi, and the anti-Semitic little monsters we are seeing at elite universities are the intellectual heirs of Gramsci and Marcuse.
Agree.
Don't forget the migration of so-called neoconservatives like Bill Kristol from R to D. That the Ds are now the pro-war faction is pretty remarkable given the history of the 20th-century.
Let’s see...which party got us into WW1, WW2, and Vietnam. A faction within the Republican Party has returned to its isolationist roots. The war mongering party has historically been the democrats.
Wilson: WWI
FDR: WWII
Truman/U.N. Korea
Eisenhower/U.N.: Korea nation building
Kennedy: Cuba, Vietnam
Johnson: Dominican Republic, Vietnam
Nixon: Vietnam, Cambodia, Loas
Reagan: Grenada, Nicaragua
Bush41: Panama and Desert Storm
Clinton: Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Serbia,
Bush43: Afghanistan, Iraq
Obama: Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Syria
Trump: eliminated ISIS
Biden: Ukraine
Don’t forget the four years of Afghanistan we got under Trump, or his assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the drone strikes in Iran and other places we do know about, and the ones we are no longer allowed to know about
LOL--OMG. I'm fully aware of what constitutes the left and right, thanks. Suggest you take a look at politicalcompass.org to see what the criteria actually are. The site was started by two political science profs to use with college students.
Relying on a website for "truth" seems like "Leftie logic," kind of like banking on the "honesty" of a source like Politifact or the Washington Post "Fact" Checker thinking it's unbiased?! Also, the LOL & OMG seem histrionic, how old are you?