1008 Comments
founding

Another great piece from you Matt. And the problem is, as you well know, today Dr. Seuss gets placed next to Mein Kampf while legitimate critics are silenced, but where does all of this end? I’m sure you recall exactly how odd it was for people like you & me to converse with highly intelligent, very cool Soviet citizens. I was constantly aware that you could cut their self-censorship with a knife, which I found chilling & profoundly sad. I reiterate, Americans have no concept of what an awful place we are stumbling towards.

Expand full comment
author

That's a great point. I remember thinking how the whole Soviet society would be cured in one second if people stopped lying to themselves for like ten minutes. People told me that when it all collapsed it was like waking up from a weird dream.

Expand full comment

I work in manufacturing - over the years have set up factories in Mexico (mostly), but also in the Ukraine. The difference in the attitude of the workers between the two countries was staggering. In Mexico, especially over the last twenty years or so, the people wanted not just the "how", but also the "why"...to the point that many improvements to processes were made as people brought their own thinking into the process.

In the Ukraine, especially once we moved outside of Kiev into more rural areas, the "why" was never questioned.

But they dang sure got the "how" mastered, with no discussion as to efficiency loading, etc

Expand full comment

Rural Ukraine and Russia is like the burned out wasteland after the zombie apocalypse. The Holodomor, WWII, and Soviet industrialization completely destroyed an entire culture and way of life. When my Ukrainian grandfather and family came to the USA after WWII, his first job was as a cowboy in South Dakota. Now, Ukraine has to recruit cowboys from Texas to run cattle and international conglomerates from Belgium to grow crops.

Expand full comment

This is reductionist, but:

Cowboys = Cossacks, Cossacks = Cowboys

<<Rural Ukraine and Russia is like the burned out wasteland after the zombie apocalypse. The Holodomor, WWII, and Soviet industrialization completely destroyed an entire culture and way of life>>

I'd make an analogy to the USA here, and I might be an incorrigible optimist, but I think in the US the countryside is latently strong and the cities are incipiently fragile. We're almost to the point of a reversal of the shift from 100 years ago when agricultural workers moved to the cities for industrial jobs.

Expand full comment

I definitely agree about the incipient fragility of cities, I just fear the inner burbs will become like their French equivalents.

The countryside in America will always be there for those who wish to take advantage of it.

Expand full comment

If Covid didn't prove that cities are incipiently fragile, nothing will.

Expand full comment

I hope that when the USA collapses the EUM can step in and preserve at least some of it.

workin' on mi espanol

Expand full comment

Note that many of them come from areas where corruption, graft, etc. is a way of life and in their bones and blood. That's not we need. We need people with integrity, honesty, wisdom and I could go on.....

Expand full comment

Having the poor come poring in from the south across our border and not having our border secure as was voted on and agreed to back 40 YEARS AGO and having our welfare state to take care of those who come (to various degrees), is one reason why our country is about to fall!

Expand full comment

Immersion

Expand full comment

Ayn Rand’s first book, “We the People” is a great tale of the horror of a country succumbing to communism. Critics didn’t like it so you know it is a good book.

Expand full comment

I'm curious how you think it correlates with how things are now.

Expand full comment

The correlations that strike me are the college and state recommendations to spy and report on fellow citizen’s alleged actions, be they bias reporting groups on college campuses or public health edicts to report non mask wearers, etc. All these types of things were common in communist takeovers and once it starts it metastasizes to where no one trusts anyone, not even family members.

I don’t recall the book going deeply into politics. It was more about the results of communist politics and how they affected the people in the story.

Expand full comment

Scary. We are already there. Months ago, I resolved, in private and professionally, to speak my mind on all of these things. If someone says something patently racist about white people as if everyone agrees, I'll stop the conversation and challenge the statement. My advantage is that no one is going to fire me, I don't need the money, I'm working at something I love. Family-wise, say cousins- speaking up, or talking back, brings on a distinct chill-- so be it.

Expand full comment

+1 on Dr. Seuss. Maybe 1000 years from now people will be looking at the "Seuss Testament" of the Bible because it's so much easier to understand and so altruistic. But what bothers me is, what is wrong with a depiction of a man eating out of a bowl with chopsticks? Should he be using a fork?

Expand full comment

I don't get this one either. If you depicted a North American teen twiddling a cell phone with his/her thumbs, would that be a harmful stereotype too?

Expand full comment

Umm, I don't think you should be using the word "North American" :)

Expand full comment

Especially North. Kim and Ye (divorced) own the trademark. Cultural Appropriation.

Expand full comment

Did you just assume their gender!?!?

Expand full comment

Apparently I did. I should have said "Should they be using a fork?"

Expand full comment

Wouldn’t that be cultural appropriation if the Chinese man used a fork?

Expand full comment

*cutlery appropriation

Expand full comment

We must resist. Bravery. Stand up to the totalitarian mob.

Expand full comment

You can still buy Mein Kampf on Amazon and EBay buy you can’t the six Dr. Seuss books that were banned for the crime of showing Chinese eyes correctly and they fact they eat with chop sticks.

Expand full comment

I don't think Dr. Seuss has been "placed next to Mein Kampf". After all, you can still buy Mein Kampf on Amazon or eBay, which is more than you can say for "If I Ran the Zoo."

Expand full comment

Okay, but the Dr. Seuss story was blown way out of proportion. It wasn't as if the government, or even the publisher decided not to print those books. It was the family and estate of Dr Seuss himself. Also, the animations were truly racist depictions of black and Asian people. I agree that cancel culture has gone too far many times, but this was not one of those times in my opinion. Maybe it's because I'm a millennial, but I don't see the slippery slope here, which is a fallacy anyway. It's not self=censorship if the decision was made based on their own morals, and not pressure from above, or below.

Expand full comment

Susan Russell57 min ago

The decision was based on meeting with self-annointed CRT "experts" who see racism in everything. The other MO is the ubiquitous "staff" letter or uprising. That racket, the Southern Poverty Law Center, objected to Seuss precisely because he inculcated togetherness and tolerance when the young should instead fight against oppression. (SPLC called animal protection groups "terrorists" because they opposed vivisection on chimpanzees).

Children's books are now flagrantly racist, depicting white privilege, stereotypes and oppression to first graders, causing far more negativity and discord than the gentle Seuss ever imagined. The latter, actual racist nonsense is lauded. Seuss isn't in a vacuum: the entire Western classic canon, Cicero, Seneca, Plato, Plutarch, Shakespeare, the whole lot,, are on the chopping block. We need organization; if we tsk tsk each new outrage without responding with equal pressure, we're simply bearing witness to the arrival a new Dark Age. One can't even watch TCM without indoctrination. If I want Ben Mankiewicz political opinion on Woman of the Year, I' I'll let him know. Years ago I worked with an ad hoc coalition of historians and environmentalists working to prevent Disney from turning Manassas Battlefield into a theme park/edge city. We won. Don Henley contributed $200,00. I started Boycott Disney. In a matter of months, a volunteer battalion of vastly different people who care about history and this country mobilized to save a chunk of both. Completely spontaneous. We had a fundraiser at Ford's Theatre. Matt and others are using the power of the pen. But we need that spontaneous organization now, we need historians, musicians, classicists, and actors to speak up. What's that sound you hear? Nothing.

Expand full comment

Great post, Susan. Kudos to you for defeating Disney at Third Manassas.

Expand full comment

I worked a Disney many moons ago. At one point we were out looking for places to build second theme park in Asia (after Tokyo). One of the places we visited as in China was Guilin, famous for its limestone mountains. The city of Guilin, who were our hosts, offered to build an airport that could take jumbo jets, and offered us a huge piece of property that had featured the pristine view as a backdrop. We walked away from it, for a number of reasons.

Expand full comment

Interesting. Eisner got out when we had Boycott Disney in Newsweek, and when Henley got in. He made a splash.

Expand full comment

I am leaving out the late, shot- gungun-toting Annie Snyder, Piedmont enviros. Historians like McPherson, McCullough. And so on.

Expand full comment

Yes. I participated in this for many reasons including owning land in the Bull Run Mountains that would have become a raft of t-shirt shops. Don’t remember who started it but there were a lot of locals including well-known horse farm owners and the Piedmont Environmental Council. I think what killed it though was a proposal to have “slave markets “ - historically correct of course.

Expand full comment

I've only seen the chopsticks image, but can you describe why you believe it's a "truly racist depiction". I'm asking completely genuinely, because I think this is a very hyperbolic statement. I'm very happy to be corrected, but by the same token I also expect you to be willing to walk that statement back if you can't reasonably justify it.

Expand full comment

“ Maybe it's because I'm a millennial, but I don't see the slippery slope here, which is a fallacy anyway.”

The “slippery slope” is an informal fallacy. It has to be shown that an argument is a slippery slope - just because someone presents a sequence does not indicate a slippery slope.

Your statement is basically saying, “... but I don't see the fallacy

here, which is a fallacy anyway.”

I agree with you that the estate of Dr. Seuss stopping the publication of the books is different than if an external source dictated that publication should stop.

I’m on the fence about eBay banning the books’ sales - mostly because eBay is so big that it ties in with big tech making more and more decisions about what is allowable or not allowable in society.

Expand full comment

Libraries are removing the books.

Expand full comment

I don’t necessarily have a problem with this. Libraries have to cull their collections all the time. I’ve never heard of these Seuss books before - does a library need to have a complete collection of Seuss books? I’ve often wished libraries did not cater so much to the big commercial giant publishers. (If we are talking about a university library this would be a different issue. I have read before, but never seen confirmation, that Disney, years ago, “made contributions” to university libraries to remove early Disney work that was either racist or propaganda.)

Expand full comment

I don't think Mein Kampf is censored (nor do I think it should)

Expand full comment

your "Sovietization" piece dovetails with the feeling i had when I saw a recent New York Times Special Edition cover of Biden and Harris in a Mt. Rushmore pose with the caption "the history they've made, the future they will inherit." https://www.amazon.com/York-Times-Biden-Kamala-Harris/dp/1547854448 ....my immediate thought was: "propaganda Soviet style"..."the history they've made"? they just got elected! aside from Harris being the first "woman of color to be elected vice-president" they haven't made any history at all yet. "The future they'll inherit"? high-sounding, portentous words that, try as I might, I cannot make any sensible meaning out of. How do you "inherit" the future? This on the heels of Time magazine's similarly monumental "Persons of the Year" cover...with a similar historic "changing America's story" blurb really disheartening that it has come to this (and i voted for Biden/Harris)

Expand full comment
author

I didn’t see that. Wow.

Expand full comment
author

Do you mind if I write something in about that?

Expand full comment

not at all....please do

Expand full comment

I've been thinking I'd like to start an online Museum of Covid Propaganda, as so much government communication around the topic looks so similar to Soviet propaganda. The posters in the NYC subway are a particularly obvious example.

Expand full comment

The posters showing right and wrong ways to wear a mask are absolutely wild. They're more infantilizing than the pain charts you'd see in a pediatrician's office.

Expand full comment

Pain charts...I always thought 10 should just be someone screaming in agony.

Expand full comment

That's 9. 10 is unconscious. Pain makes you pass out.

Expand full comment

The scary part is that even with these dopey reminders, 90% of people still can't figure it out.

Expand full comment

Your presumption they are trying to do it correctly may be mistaken.

Expand full comment

Just put Fauci on the cover.

Expand full comment

Among other iconography, that reminds me of the portraits of the Kims that are hung everywhere throughout North Korea.

Expand full comment

The cult of personality surrounding the presidency only changes in terms of those devoted to the current version and those longing for a past one. None of them will dare to give up believing in a glorious leader. That would be a true American heresy.

Expand full comment

Here's a quote from about two months ago, uttered by a friend of mine who apparently has no sense of irony: "Trump supporters are a cult. I'm so glad we elected Joe!"

Expand full comment

But I'm SURE they're on a first name basis.

Expand full comment

If only they knew how good heresy can feel.

Expand full comment

To paraphrase the Judd Nelson character in THE BREAKFAST CLUB (1985), "heresy really pumps my 'nads."

https://youtu.be/s1EeSRKdgVc

Expand full comment

Fun thing to do: Breakfast Club/Maximum Overdrive double feature.

Think of them as a sequel. We find out what happens to Estevez's character.

Expand full comment

Repo Man/Breakfast Club/Maximum Overdrive triple feature.

Estevez could have been the John Wayne of his time -- he always just plays Emilio Estevez --and he somehow blew it. Maybe he just made enough money and was like "I'm out."

I love the satirical corporate cinema of the 1980s and am sad that it went away. I blame mysterious market forces, but an informed Hollywood insider could probably enlighten me.

Expand full comment

ahhh. Any Breakfast Club reference pumps my nads.

Expand full comment

Is there any other film that really encapsulates Generation X so well?

Expand full comment

lmao

Expand full comment

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”

Expand full comment

Those who control the past control the future/Those who control the present control the past.

Expand full comment

"{Besides Kamala] they haven't made any history at all yet. " Yes, they have. Biden oldest president ever.

Expand full comment

Don't forget who else Time made "person" of the year way back before WW2....

Expand full comment

I have a copy of that issue of Time with the first "Uncle Joe" on it. But I think it was during the war. Hmmm... wonder where it is....

Expand full comment

Well, it wasn't published until 9 days after the inauguration so there's that...

Expand full comment

"Sovietization" is the perfect description. While watching the gushing TV coverage of the first day of COVID vaccinations, I felt like I was watching a parody of the Soviet News Agency TASS from 1981. The frightening part is that while most Russians knew it was all bullshit, most Americans I speak to actually believe this crap. It genuinely seems like the Twilight Zone.

Expand full comment

Sounds like you are talking to the wrong people. People out where I am know it's all bullshit.

Expand full comment

The good news is that not everyone in my orbit eats this up either, though many do. All my husband's co-workers, spread throughout the country, are appalled by this crap. Many of my co-workers lap this up. The difference is not so much our geographic spread, but our profession and "economic power." The working and middle class aren't buying it. The professional elite are. Isn't that ironic?

Expand full comment

«The working and middle class aren't buying it. The professional elite are. Isn't that ironic?»

The working and middle income classes are getting shafted and this makes them skeptical of the propaganda. The upper-middle classes are living the dream and are not inclined to question it, plus they know that they are the "trusties" of their masters, and if they step out line their affluence can disappear.

Expand full comment

This is true. The irony is that the professional elite consider themselves objectively smarter and better educated, and yet they support a mass propaganda system. They are self-deluded. They don't admit even to themselves that they must support the thoroughly corrupted media because it benefits their own status. They lie to themselves that the media is in fact not corrupted and delivering the "news" straight up. I find that ironic. Not the part about taking a position to benefit your own status, but the self-delusion. Because these are also people who consider themselves to be *the* humanity and world-huggers.

Expand full comment

Thank you, yes. You and Blissex are right. A lot of why the professional elite believes this msm propaganda is because they desperately need to. Inside they feel worthless. I live in one of the world's nicest cities that I grew up in. Back when I grew up the people who could retire here had actually run businesses that made things. They believed in their businesses. They pursued their hopes and American dreams and were grateful it paid off. They wanted to give back. Even the trophy wives who managed to hook these wealthy retirees wanted to give to the community. The people who now move here are almost all investment people, or celebrity victims, which means they all feel empty inside. They never really cared about anything because they're - like narcissists are - afraid to look in the mirror and see who they really are. So they love msm because it tells them what moral, wonderful people they are for regurgitating NYT or WaPo or NPR talking points.

Expand full comment

"So they love msm because it tells them what moral, wonderful people they are for regurgitating NYT or WaPo or NPR talking points."

This is so true.

Expand full comment

Great points-which Rodney Dangerfield emphasized in Caddyshack and Back to School......

Expand full comment

Thanks for this, Polly. Yes, you can spot the NPR listeners in a matter of a few sentences. Today's elite needs constant reassurance that they are "good people," and the MSM gives it to them.

Expand full comment

Well said. The elites are also prone to taking a shallow dive with their media consumption for time management reasons. I too have extremely successful friends who either don't know what's going on or refuse to look.

Expand full comment

The "hall of mirrors" is far kinder to the narcissist than reality. This is definitely a kind of psychosis. Same as it ever was, apparently.

Expand full comment

The self-delusion reduces the cognitive dissonance. It's mandatory in modern society.

Expand full comment

«They don't admit even to themselves that they must support the thoroughly corrupted media because it benefits their own status.»

Ohhh some do, for example I have just remembered this very, very interesting quote for this blog:

www.eschatonblog.com/2015/04/why-didnt-i-get-rich.html

“journalists/columnists of a certain age (meaning ones not much older than me and younger) are coming around to the realization that the economy is screwing them, too. There was a moment when a lot of them (we’re talking ones at elite outlets, not your random small town paper) thought they’d done everything right, would become celebrities, and get Tom Friedman’s speaking fees. The economy sure was working for them, and screw everybody else.”

Expand full comment
founding

Members of the Outer Party love Big Brother. The Proles' opinions don't matter.

Expand full comment

Working and middle class either had to keep working so the "upper class" could stay home and order from Amazon and/or legislate from the safety of their little bubble while playing mask theatre.

Expand full comment

Not ironic to me. The elites were the war Hawks in Vietnam also. He's a lefty but I refer you to Loewen's "Lies my teacher told me", his thesis is well supported there. His later works are more questionable. I believe colleges create good bureaucrats who toe the government line. The less well indoctrinated people are, the less they believe the government and mass media bills it.

Expand full comment

Yup-I live in Hillbilly Elegy territory and your point about colleges creating bureaucratic/obedient mindsets is well taken, considering the views of the local populace.

Expand full comment
founding

Where is Hillbilly Elegy territory?

Expand full comment

Greenwich Village. More precisely, Greenwich village about Appalachia.

Expand full comment

SW Ohio/I-75 Corridor between Cincinnati and Dayton. Probably 50% of the population in this area was either born in Kentucky or has family roots there, hence the name of the book. Back 40 or 50 years ago a candidate for sheriff in some county in Kentucky lost the local vote by a large margin, but won b/c he did such a good job of garnering ex-pat absentee votes in Dayton!

Expand full comment

I'm in NYC. The BS runs thick here.

Expand full comment

Used to work there, but mostly in finance. You get more of a variety of opinion there.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

ha! Are you a fan of Joe R. Lansdale by any chance? I'm not an East Texan but his stuff is what I think of when I think of East Texas.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Sci-fi isn't everyone's bag. That said, my favorite JRL story is "Trains Not Taken," set in an alternate future in which the US is a colony of the Japanese Empire and Bill Cody and Bill Hickok are sitting around in a train station with bullshit jobs and they are both like, "Did you ever have the feeling that your life was supposed to be different from this?"

https://b-ok.cc/book/1086859/8a9c19

Expand full comment
founding

I adore science fiction. One of my favorite stories is The Chief Designer. After watching astronauts with The Right Stuff on the news, Russian cosmonauts comment that Americans will be the first to put a dentist on the moon.

Expand full comment

«"Sovietization" is the perfect description»

In the good old times before the editorship of Micklethwait "The London Economist" wrote that the definition of "soviet" is "run for the benefit of management". In 2008-2009 we saw that the USA is run for the benefit of Wall Street management.

Expand full comment

«before the editorship of Micklethwait»

That guy is interesting and a sign of the times. He wrote a very good book "The right nation" about the shift rightwards in the USA since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and reaganism in 1980, and he is currently Editor-in-Chief of Bloomberg.

Expand full comment

COVID vaccinations do seem like a big deal. Some events (e.g. early space flight) actually deserve attention and are not just propaganda.

Expand full comment

The vaccinations were a worthy news story. But the elaborate performances, staged for television with enthusiastic testimonials were synthetic events created for political persuasion.

Expand full comment

And then the follow-up of "Vice President Harris and I took the vaccine on camera so you know its safe..." in the "greatest speech in the history of speechification" the other night.

This whole overmessaging of crisis and underpromising of relief is only being done to be able to create a narrative of how much better than expected the "new" administration did.

What people should note is that Govs. DeSantis and Newsom took completely opposite tactics in managing the situation.... with nearly identical results.

Virus gonna' virus.

Expand full comment
founding

Nearly identical results medically, not so economically

Expand full comment

With the House and Senate bailing out blue state fiscs... it's a wash

Expand full comment

Yeah, I didn't watch any of that stuff. Still, as a scientist I can't vouch for safety, but I'm impressed by the development of the vaccine. That's some serious biotech.

Expand full comment

That's true, it was a near-miracle to have effective vaccines available so quickly.

Expand full comment

Th human immune system is a big deal which th media seems to think does not exist. Science! Th covid vaccination process we are now witnessing just a giant cash grab. And maybe a culling

Expand full comment

True, from Day 1 it was always about fear-mongering, and invasive methods, like quarantine, allopathy, and vaccine. No diet, no exercise, no supplements or herbs, no WALKING, no AIR, no SUN...

Expand full comment

All the while pumping people full of hatred while selling them junk-shit foods, pharmacopeia to remedy the illness caused by said shit foods and then insurance.

It's a scam being run to cow the unruly masses back from the unrest resulting from a relatively free exchange of ideas: the antithesis to proper authoritarian rule.

Expand full comment

We no want you picking our foods

Expand full comment

Back in 2007, I was working for a political campaign, and some Russian American citizens came to the office. We chatted, and they told me that one of the most draw-dropping aspects (for them) of American culture was how few Americans realized that the news was almost entirely fake.

Expand full comment

Your descriptive moniker says more than a mouthfull. What's the best use of the helicopter money from mana?...since the only real vote that doesn't involve putting one's self in the crosshairs of the National Guard / power enforcement paradigm is where you spend that 💰.

Expand full comment

I honestly hadn't thought of that, but what you say is true.

Expand full comment

One of the uses of our I'll gotten gain is to buy our friends and family subscriptions to Matt's and others' independent journalism...shine the light!

Expand full comment

Every so slightly off topic, but not, I've been pondering with interest the approaches of both Matt and Glenn Greenwald and thinking about the history of progressivism in this country. Of course, in the 60's, liberals were civil rights activists and fighting for the first amendment and the free expression of ideas most notably in Berkley. All long overdue and necessary. And I've concluded that people like Matt and Glenn were so used to feeling like fighting for those issues aligned more with the Democrat party than the Republican. Which made sense at the time. I occasionally get attacked on here for being in an echo chamber and for this binary thinking, which is really not true. Though it may sound like that at times. AS a libertarian I used to think liberals (not far leftists) contributed things to the balance of our existence. I was reluctantly for abortion (I'd be happier if it was before a heartbeat unless the life of the mother was at risk and appalled at the brutality, nauseated at these people CELEBRATING such a thing up until the moment of birth?), for gay marriage (before we started having biological men beat little girls in high school), and I was certainly for free speech and civil rights. I was a fiscal conservative so thought of myself as a libertarian. ISH. (Since I was fine with national parks and a few things.)

But I feel sorry for people like Matt because I think they were so used to thinking of the Democrat party as the one for free speech, they really didn't see that leftists were headed here all along. As both a student and adjunct professor, it was clear pretty early (or admittedly, as a conservative, I was paranoid about it) that they were headed right where they are now. I think they (Matt and Glenn) see the threat is presently from the left, but they don't see that the ideology of big government almost necessitated loss of freedom and it was so clear they had become the thought police as early as the 80's--and that they were pushing and shaming squishy Republicans down that road, and by the time I was teaching at university, they were literally brainwashing our youth and shutting down the free expression of ideas.

This is probably why I now sound more binary than I once did. Ronald Reagan said if totalitarianism took hold here, it would come from the left. And that seems so obvious to me just because they always believe they have the moral high ground, they believe in big government and controlling people -- something they love. And now they believe anyone who doesn't think like them are haters, supremacists, or Nazis. Seeing this happen, moved many of us farther right -- or that is not accurate -- farther ANTI-left, which is not the same thing. If I saw the right behaving like this as they once had, I'd be just as opposed to them.

I have an annoying friend who always believes the religious right is the same threat to America as the far left has become. As someone who is anti-organized religion (though spiritual), that always seemed ridiculous. Our constitution and the very nature of our country prohibits state sponsored religion--socialist fascism? Not so much. The danger was clearly from the left as Reagan had said.

And another side note -- leftists claim that churches are discriminating against gays. That is really a ludicrous position. They are discriminating against that behavior, just like some churches ban dancing or drinking -- both legal as are gay relationships. You don't see people suing them for not allowing people to dance! For years, people just found churches that represented their beliefs. Gay people can attend any church; their behavior will not be supported in some of them. But people should have freedom to believe as they choose as long as they don't force someone else to. BTW, if I ever do go to a church, it's the Unitarian church that Jefferson, Thoreau, Emerson, and whole host of people believed would one day be the religion of the land -- and who of course, welcome gay people.

So the threat is not from the right, even though I've never agreed with most of organized religion; it's from the left. At least right now. And they are contributing less and less in terms of what we need to be a successful civilization. And the biggest reason is they are shutting down debate and ideas. Glenn Greenwald admits that right now they are the threat. Matt avoids doing that and sticks to journalism as if it isn't the left doing this. Or the progressivism itself that is the very cause of it. The platforms of each and all parties can be debated, but not if they won't allow it! So until that is dealt with, the rest is irrelevant.

But I am still grateful that Matt is writing this and I particularly think Glenn is doing great work.

Expand full comment

In large part I agree with you. I'm sure that this is causing great cognitive dissonance for the relatively small percentage of liberals who are actually liberal. After decades of assuming their fellow travelers shared similar beliefs, they are forced to the shocking realization that they are in fact more illiberal than even the horrible Republicans.

I would imagine that's difficult to accept. And I think both Glenn and Matt still have a bit too much of both sideism in their writing in light of current circumstance. But, like you, I appreciate the work.

Expand full comment

I'm a life long liberal - I ran on the Liberal party line in NY back in the 1970s. But I'm a classical liberal, not a progressive.

My cognitive dissonance occurred about 10 years ago when I realized that the Democrat party had was no longer liberal, but was morphing into what we now call progressive with its increasingly anti-liberal and totalitarianism tendencies. I found myself a man without a political party. After much thought, I realized that the Republican party represented the only current realistic alternative to the fundamentally illiberal program of the Democrats. Therefore, I did the unthinkable and registered as a Republican.

Expand full comment

«But I'm a classical liberal, not a progressive. My cognitive dissonance occurred about 10 years ago when I realized that the Democrat party had was no longer liberal»

A "Doonesbury" cartoon from 25 years ago had gotten there already: https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/1996/11/23

Expand full comment
founding

Take heart, everyone. I followed my curiosity on the Spanish Civil War when Matt mentioned it above and it led me to read a bit about Orwell just now. Orwell published Animal Farm as an anti-Soviet piece with a foreword (often omitted today) that specifically called out British self-censorship, especially on the topic of anti-Soviet sentiment. It was simply being blocked, and it took him a long time to get Animal Farm published, but of course it was and its popularity is so far unabated. There is hope for powerful voices to break through and find wide support no matter where we head from here.

Expand full comment
founding

https://www.marxists.org/archive/orwell/1945/preface.htm

Read it in full and it's very on point to this thread - it discusses how Liberal thought in Britain at the time required fealty to shutting out certain ideas fully as not aligned with the common cause.

Expand full comment

Yes. I obviously think Matt is a great writer which is why I forward his work everywhere. And am sure Matt knows that. I don't agree with everything he says, but I certainly do not insult him or anyone else on here personally. Some people don't understand the difference between arguing over issues --and Matt is sticking up for my right to do just that --and personal name calling and insults..

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Poor dear. Maybe you could make a comprehensible argument versus hurling insults like a petulant child.

Expand full comment

Nothing petulant about e.Pierce’s piercing insights and whimsical expressions

Expand full comment

Also, off topic some, and the biggest problem with the gay community. WHY is their sexual preference WHO THEY ARE. I guess it makes sense that society's attitudes forced them to go there to a degree--they should be allowed all the legal rights of someone else. But nobody's sexual preference should define them. Which is why they would get farther to just find a church that accepts that behavior like people do with dancing and drinking, etc. They are not "gays." They are people who practice that sexuality. All fine. But churches who say that's a sin, just like other behaviors, are not discriminating against them as people, but against that behavior. While they think having parades and all is helping their cause, it really isn't. It isn't enough for them to have the legal right to practice homosexuality, dance or drink, they have to insist we all say it's normal--that no place like a church should exist where they believe it is not normal -- it was part of the beginning of the thought police. They don't have that right. Or to force people to use pronouns-- though if they asked people to, they'd likely oblige. So those are my thoughts this Friday as I wait for my refrigerator to be delivered. Happy Friday.

Expand full comment

That's pretty rich to say with the Church's history of getting all up in people's bedrooms.

Frankly, the Church can fuck off. I'll take all the gay pride parades in all the world over your child raping asses.

Expand full comment

For real.

Especially, as I have to keep pointing this out even though it pains me to do so, since those holier than thou types that won’t pork the altar boy would suck their own dick every morning before breakfast if they could, and upon discovering they can’t overwhemingly flog their righteous log to faux lezzie porn.

Such is the moral landscape upon which the stone throwers gather.

Expand full comment

As if the parades are for straight people’s benefit.

Everything revolves around you first amendment geniuses wit a stiffy for Jehovah

Expand full comment

I just like a good parade! :D

Expand full comment

I am sure if you showed up without your “God hates fags” sign and weren’t handing out repent tracts you were welcomed.

Well. Unless you are Bari Weiss and you brought your Gay Jewish flag. Actually I am thinking of parades decades ago. I keep forgetting wiut uptight, judgemental assholes homos in general have become.

Linda Sarsour finds jewish homos triggering and they are verboten.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Surely you have some spicier insults than that.

Or do you think CAPS lock is all you need?

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

At least I don't repeat myself.

By the way, I did the math. The cost to live in your headspace is about two posts, give or take.

Expand full comment

Gay people need to be identified as gay mostly so you don't try to fix them up with female friends. Makes for an uncomfortable evening otherwise.

Expand full comment

Many of my best friends are lesbians. They know I'm not trying to fuck them, so we can just hang out and chill. It's nice.

Expand full comment

C'mon, yes you are.

Expand full comment

Oh yeah. Homos persecute the Christians hahahaha

We wuz so scawy you all had to work with serial rapist perv Prez to defend the sanctity of marriage.

Any day now we will all hear the crashing sound of the destroyed sacred marriages like the Clintons cuz of da homos.

Expand full comment

Please don’t blame homos for bio males with no self respect invading female turf.

Expand full comment

My friend Cliffy (he was the best man at my wedding, gay) was against gay marriage. He had a justification, I don't remember what it was now, this is 10 years ago. Just railing against some kind of gay unified group opinion. Real people, real minds, real opinions.

Expand full comment
founding

A certain outspoken conservative gay provocateur once made an interesting point: Being gay used to be *exciting* because it was considered transgressive. Legalizing gay marriage and normalizing the gay lifestyle has made it rather boring.

Expand full comment

I know many gays who just want a normal life, with a single partner. That gay provocateur didn't pretend to speak for all gays, so I saw nothing wrong with him expressing his personal distaste for gay marriage. But my gay (and now married) friends detest the whole free-for-all, anti-monogamy section of the gay community.

Interestingly, this provocateur is also staunchly pro-life.

Expand full comment

Hah! I just looked up Milo to see what he's been up to, and he's still at the provocation. He's now denouncing his gayness and making a go at conversion therapy. His husband (yes, the anti-gay-marriage guy is married) is demoted to a "housemate." Seems a bit desperate. I know he claims to be very Catholic, but this reeks of a hoax or attention ploy.

Expand full comment

Milo is channeling The Cat in the Hat. He cracks me up, I like him.

I reread Peter Pan a few years ago. I said to an old lefty, a red diaper baby, Peter Pan is a psychopath. He said, Tinkerbell is worse. Which is true.

Expand full comment

I thought definitely a prank

Expand full comment

Kevin Williamson said kind of the same thing last year in NR.

Expand full comment

Sounds like Milo.

Expand full comment

Perhaps marriage itself is not the best of ideas.

Expand full comment

A lot of people have forgotten that some of the earliest support for a legal status for homosexual couples came from conservatives in the 1980s with the objective of encouraging monogamy among gays during the early AIDS crisis, and that it was roundly condemned until liberals figured out that proposing to include non-straights in existing marriage law got under conservative's skin. Then it became a liberal sacrament to make that happen.

Expand full comment

I never heard them. I do remember the Defense of Marriage Act and all the predictions of Mary wanting to marry her lamb as a direct result of slipping down that slope

Expand full comment

Like anyone needs the state to justify the relationships people choose with each other. Sure, the perks are nice and I'll take them, but I'll decide all the same without 'em too.

Expand full comment

So... sibling marriage? 34 year olds and 13 year olds? Sometimes the "state" or the "people" may have a compelling reason to say "whoa, there, big fella."

Expand full comment

The only thing I have a compelling reason to see the state do is eat shit.

Considering your specific situation, the community around those people better sort that shit out, otherwise it's on us to take care of it.

Or does that scare you? Rather have some jackboot do your violence?

Expand full comment

<<The only thing I have a compelling reason to see the state do is eat shit.>>

<3 +1000

It's funny that there's a lot of discussion right now on the ability of the state to regulate violence and comparatively little on the ability of the state to regulate human sexuality.

It's entirely possible I'm looking in the wrong places.

Expand full comment

Sibling (or incestuous in general) marriage is an interesting case, because I'm yet to hear a solid argument that supports gay marriage without also supporting incestuous marriage (usually children related arguments are raised, but of course people can have children without being married, and people can get married without having children).

It meets all of the requirements of consenting adults, and so in the end people generally fall back to some kind of "ewww" argument from disgust. And it's true, most of us tend to feel some sense of disgust at the idea. But is that really good enough? You can find plenty of people who feel disgust at the idea of gay marriage (or gay relationships in general), but we don't consider that a valid reason to make it illegal.

Expand full comment

«because I'm yet to hear a solid argument that supports gay marriage without also supporting incestuous marriage [...] It meets all of the requirements of consenting adults»

Same for group marriage and multiple marriages. Also civil unions were available, and frankly they were good enough.

But the main difference was a bigger political demand for same-sex marriage, but not much of one for other types of marriage, and I think that is largely because many homosexual couples (of either sex) want to cosplay "hubby" and "wifey" as if they were not homosexual, that is they are fundamentally socially conservative, big wedding included (and many heterosexuals also marry to cosplay "hubby" and "wifey" and want a big wedding too).

Expand full comment

«It meets all of the requirements of consenting adult»

As to that, there is an addition consideration: there are two views of things like "marriage", that they are market transactions, or social institutions.

In the view that they are market transactions (e.g. like abortion and gender reassignment) what matter are absolute property rights and freedom of contract, typical concepts of the "whig"/radical right, and since they are private market transactions the state simply has no business interfering other than enforcing them. The impact of private market transactions on "society" does not matter, "fiat libertas, ruat caelum".

In the social institution view marriage is not a market transactions, but a relationship not just between the spouses but with society, therefore the state can and does regulate it, so that some marriages are recognized by the state and others are not. It is transparent that in past erase in villages fertility was an extremely important value for society, especially older women, and the state would only institutionalize and support relationships that at least in principle would be fruitful.

Now the campaign for homosexual marriage is particularly politically strong because it is based amazingly on both views: that homosexual relationships are market transactions under absolute property rights and freedom of contract, but also must be institutionalized, that is supported by society and state, instead of being purely private.

This means that homosexual marriage has both the utility to "whig"/radical right wingers of normalizing the ideology of absolute property rights and freedom of contract (the ultimate prize of this campaign is the restoration of debt indenture), and can be sold to "tory"/tradcon right wingers as a conservative absorption of homosexual relationships as traditional binary marriages. Bigger complications do not quite have the same popularity or double appeal.

Expand full comment

Here's a solid argument:

Nothing good comes from fucking your sister.

You're welcome.

Expand full comment

I recall reading genderqueer takes that were against “marriage equality.” I think Matthilda B Sycamore was against same-sex marriage, for example.

Expand full comment

You mean you’re both homos and held differing opinions.

Mind blown man. That’s totally pertinent to 2nd rate male athletes dominating women’s sports.

Expand full comment

No, straight on my part. He had been best friends with my wife all the way through school. Surprisingly rocking gay community in icy parts of MN.

Sorry if that didn't meet your standards of applicability, but I'm sure somewhere there is a gay dude who thinks trans males in sports are just ducky.

Expand full comment

Owen wuts his face. Any that are slurping at the political trough and paid to spout the party line.

Expand full comment

As a libertarian with a glaring reservation about not policing the inside of other people’s bodies.

Expand full comment

I don’t know who claims Churches discriminate against homos, most of the Neanderthal fundamentalist Churches are too stupid for many to take seriously, but I do agree that the cake baker has been harassed by homos.

I don’t see them going through Muslim Michigan demanding cakes

Expand full comment

They also aren't doing that in Little Italy or Williamsburg or Borough Park, ha.

Expand full comment

I agree with this post on all levels. When it comes to worrying about gay rights-a good thing, or fretting about fundamentalist Christian cultural influence, the woke left is too stupid to realize that they won, and leave people in peace now.

Expand full comment

Don’t argue wit me you first amendment warrior geniuses wit a stiffy for Jehovah, you know attendance is down

Expand full comment

I would like to see them going through Muslim Michigan demanding cakes. It’s just, they are actual cowards

Expand full comment

I'm imagining a cake of a big penis with "Allahu Akbar" written on the shaft.

Expand full comment

Hahaha

Expand full comment

And Muslims have a heaping ongoing helping of lynching homos. In some cases relentlessly stalking their homo relatives through asylum countries in order to restore the family honor by lynching their homo.

In other words, they don’t play. Sooooo the cowards playing activists pretend they’re fighting Nazis. Cus Muslims would make them crap themselves.

:::::shrugs::::::

And extorting cis het Christian corps is too profitable

Expand full comment

Which is also why the ACLU under its little tranny leadership - is pretending trannies in America have got it bad if any naturally born male can’t proclaim himself a women and gain instant advantage in sports, prisons and shelters but are mysteriously silent about Muslims and homos.

Expand full comment

Don’t get me wrong, I am all in on tranny rights until the insane demand we pretend being female is all in a man’s mind.

Expand full comment

I wouldn’t get too excited about the Unitarians (my adopted faith.) They are all in on battling white supremacy. It is the only issue the leadership has dealt with for several years.

Expand full comment

Huh. I haven't been in a long time. That's disappointing.

Expand full comment

Spot on comment.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Oh look..petulant, childish insults.

Expand full comment

Limp dick... limp dick.... wut ya gonna do when they laugh at you

Expand full comment

And...? What’s it to ya?

Expand full comment

Yup, as Greenwald and others have remarked: “kids in cages” has practically overnight become “migrant minors in overflow immigration facilities”, “censorship” has become (necessary/laudable) “content moderation”, etc etc. Complete insanity. How is ANYBODY swallowing this?

Expand full comment

The ends justify the means...as it always was.

Expand full comment

How?

We never cared about kids in cages in the first place.

Expand full comment

“I’m worried about a world in which we spend borrowed money with abandon,” he says, but “income inequality, widespread child poverty, and economic precarity are the problems of our time.”

----------

It never occurs to these people that the more money we give to government, who passes it out to their buddies, the higher income inequality goes. The fake economy of being close to those who run the literal money-making machine is taking over the real economy of beneficial transactions.

I'm sure David Brooks will be BAFFLED at why this extra $1,900,000,000,000 showered mostly on the well-off didn't fix income inequality. I'm sure he'll think the NEXT $2,000,000,000 will do it!

Expand full comment

<<the more money we give to government, who passes it out to their buddies, the higher income inequality goes>>

Kill shot. The best thing in life under this system is to be a "buddy."

There's actual capitalism, which is practiced effectively mostly at the local level, and then there's bigshot crony "capitalism," which isn't really. Just my opinion.

Expand full comment

Capitalism has always been cronyism. Name a time when it wasn't.

Expand full comment

And ... by what method does China decide who gets the penthouse suite?

To me that’s like white privilege. White privilege is simply the privilege that any majority population confers upon itself and cronyism is the perks of having the power to reward and award. Who doesn’t network their supporters and throw gigs to their friends?

Expand full comment

Time for a new system. The only reason we keep the current crooked one is due to those in power of that economic system owning the political system that was designed to have the power to limit or change the economy.

They've indoctrinated almost everyone into thinking it's impossible to EVER come up with a better system.

People still to this day would rather be exploited and ripped off regularly than change from the system that has absolutely no ties to morality or constructive behavior.

Expand full comment

People are blinded by the intoxicating, manipulated passions of the culture wars to vote for and keep the duopoly in power.

Expand full comment

No. It’s the dialectic. It’s not working right now but it does require two opposing or contrasting opinions trying to find a truth that incorporates the truth of both. We have grifters seeking power and the ability to impose everything from school lunch menus to the size of a fountain drink one may purchase to permitted discourse and political views.

Expand full comment

Very true. Divide and conquer via fear mongering and intimidation has served the con artist class for centuries now.

They're certainly beginning to step and fetch as of late though.

At least we get to watch them squirm every now and again, despite having to pay for it eventually.

Expand full comment

There are plenty of undeveloped places to experiment with new systems.

Usually when working with an existing system the changes propose are tested in a test environment before loading to the operating system. One avoids crashing the system with unknown and unexpected consequences.

Show us your ideas successfully in operation in America on a small scale.

Why start with the most successful at lifting the most out of poverty?

Expand full comment

Having interacted with dem socialists of the rank and file, I can’t take lefty proposals seriously regardless of the fact I would like to do so.

This is mostly because questions are met with circular logic that denies the sincerity of the questioner or a condescending dude I am not going to do your homework for you or outright lies.

Expand full comment

"There are plenty of undeveloped places to experiment with new systems."

Wrong, they are all currently being exploited by capitalists.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

HOW DARE YOU

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

The republican party also has a long history of corruption going back to it's very beginning. That's why we are only allowed two parties.

The elite have always been corrupt going back to the very start of there being an elite.

Expand full comment

There are a couple of other advantages the biggest to me being the introduction of other viable parties reduces the percentage required to ascend to power.... hallo Hitler. You could do runoffs but it is a danger.

The current spectacle of a mentally addled old geezer allowing those we didn’t elect to run our govt in his cognitive absence is a powerful argument to dismiss the two party system as protecting against that though

Expand full comment

There's nothing current about that spectacle. The billionaire funded think tanks took over shortly after the Powell memo.

Neither party had the moral fiber needed to stop the coup because the rewards and consequences we too much to ignore.

Biden is merely our elites showing their counterparts that the US citizenry will not be able to change the policy goals set down by the oligarchs who own the entire system.

If this weren't true, Trump would have been able to stop the wars in the middle east.

There's no better sign to the other elites that the US is under total control than to put Biden in front of a camera and a mic.

Expand full comment

*were

Expand full comment

Creating $1.9 trillion out of thin air without producing more goods and services just inflates the currency, making everyone poorer in real terms. It has a short term impact on the direct recipients, but that's it.

Expand full comment

It's just competition with other currencies. That's why they want a global currency so other countries can't manipulate the reserve currency. It's the vicious circle of the elites fighting for control over who will have the power going forward.

Expand full comment

“I’m worried about a world in which we spend borrowed money with abandon,” he says, but “income inequality, widespread child poverty, and economic precarity are the problems of our time.”

I think David Brooks is arguing the Jamie Dimond's shouldn't be excluded from this largess because they put on their 2 million dollars pants one leg at a time just like you and I do.

Dry your crying eyes Elon Musk, help is on the way!

https://reason.com/podcast/2021/03/10/peter-suderman-the-1-9-trillion-american-rescue-plan-has-almost-nothing-to-do-with-covid/

Expand full comment

Oh make no mistake. It occurs to them. They ARE the “buddies”.

Expand full comment

You seem to be confusing the current $1.9 trillion care package with the previous one. This one actually does funnel the bulk of the funding down—at least until the 1% can figure out how to lay hands on it. I know my city plans on spending $25 million providing past-due rent assistance to prevent any more evictions. They're already taking applications.

So, it appears the tunnel vision for which the Professional Class is being slaughtered here is just as prevalent among those who are still so deeply imbued with the pep-squad mindset they automatically reject anything and everything solely based on what it doesn't have instead of what it does. Park your privilege, people. As someone who once worked for $89/week, I assure you my kids and I would have kissed the ground for that monthly credit.

Expand full comment

"Until the 1% can figure out how to lay hands on it."

Who do you think is doling out the money, Liz?

If they wanted to they could just divide the $1.9T and send out $5,700 for everybody in the country. But there's no grift in that, so they send it to the politically connected and order THEM to divvy it up.

Expand full comment

This is like when a place like Seattle spends $30M to "fight homelessness." Only a fraction of the money actually goes to the people they are trying to help, and most of it just evaporates in "administration."

And wouldn't you know it? The problem didn't improve so they need more money next year too.

Expand full comment

SFO spends like $50k/year per homeless person on homeless services. For kind of money every single homeless person should have a personal social worker handing them needles on a silver tray.

Expand full comment

Indeed, for that kind of money, that pays for rent and food for the year even in SF. Let's face it, the "help the xxxxxx" campaigns are really gambits to create more sinecures for the govt class of parasite.

Expand full comment

Also in general the bigger the charity the more of a scam it is. I look at nonprofits very differently than I did when I was younger.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

And even if it did get down to the masses... why do you think Blue states now have legal weed, prostitution "reform", and sports gambling by smartphone? To filter the money back up where it "belongs."

Expand full comment

And yet the red state reps still have no answer........ Funny how that works now ain't it ??

Expand full comment