I can't read The Atlantic anymore. I can't watch MSNBC. I am embarrassed by Stanford, of which I was a formerly proud alum. I look to Substack, The Free Press and their many writers who don't push an ideology on the rest of us. I am not a Nazi, or Antifa, or BLM. I am simply a rational American looking for the voices that will save our republic.
Welcome to the political nether regions. There are so many embarrassments coming from the Puritanical Left these days, I can hardly believe I was a lefty myself. To be fair though, the Left changed, I didn't.
Very well said. I feel exactly the same. I'm a Taibbi lefty, if that's a thing. Government's purpose is to serve the many. It's morphed into Sheldon Wolin's Inverted Totalitarianism, (thanks Chris Hedges). Though I may not be applying Wolin's theory properly, the left in the US has become fundamentalists to rival Isis. They're just more shrill. And today on issues of censorship & military adventurism, I have much more in common with sane republicans today than I do with Democrats(TM).
I was interested in Jill Stein and him till I looked at their policy issues and saw bullet points about the need for “racial healing”. They’ve learned nothing.
I mean that the supposed racism crisis in the USA is just the latest manufactured distraction from the neoliberal establishment and their PMC servants. Wealth inequality is the greatest it has ever been in the USA and people want to worry about this? Seriously? So yes, that RFK Jr. and Jill Stein feel compelled to mention "racial healing" is a sign to me that they need to step away from the liberal cocktail parties they go to and focus on priorities. Though one could argue that their mentioning it is only tactical, the goal being to peel away voters from the Democrats. If so, I apologize. Also, I'm not expecting ideological purity from anyone, especially as I change my mind all the time.
There are more slaves in the U.S. today than in 1860. Immigrants owe illegal entry fees to cartels and can almost never work them off. Where is leftist outrage over that? Hypocrites!
RFK Jr. is pro-genocide of native Palestinians, so my response is relevant. Your comment is nonsensical; much like your support of Kennedy. At least you are consistent.
Same for me, over in the UK. I still strongly believe in that set of values that once were the core of post-2nd-WW progressive socialism - and which brought many good things to Western society. Imperfect but at its heart were transparency in government, freedom of speech, education for all, trade union rights, social services providing health and welfare for those in need etc. At a certain point in history this value set was pitched against a perceived heartlessness in conservatism. I still belong there politically but on neither side of the pond is there a party which enshrine those old-school leftist views any longer.
I think what you and Matt can't seem to understand is your idealized version of "post 2nd WW progressive socialism" inevitably leads to where we are now. Matt's ending comment was quite telling.
"Where do these people come from, and how did they come to be so entitled?"
Left wing educational institutions and progressive politics carry most of the blame.
Bit of a head-scratcher, that! For one thing, I have not idealised post-war societal progress, such as it has been, in the least - As I said, it was/ is imperfect. ANY social or political model is flawed and imperfect. That's humanity for you. What can be said is that (very broad generalisation....) much of the progress made post-war emanated from governments to an almost passable degree answering to, and represented by, a broad electorate. In the UK, we had a swathe of politicians over several governments, both in power and opposition, whose ethics were characteristically "leftist" in seeking and often, incrementally, achieving a better and more egalitarian society. The decline in the UK, demonstrably, began when ultra-right-wing Margaret Thatcher declared war on the working classes and our welfare state. Many caveats to the above, but this isn't an essay.
Lastly, taking a pop at "left wing educational institutions and and progressive politics" is an off-target generalisation. The present corrupt and sanctimonious nature of our governments has little to do with left- or right-wing politics. It has do do with all governments being hijacked by military and corporate interests, and that includes the despicable right-wing government over here. Not that the Labour Party when they (most likely) come to power will be any better. And this leaves a huge number of the old-school progressive lefties, of which I'm one, devastated and politically homeless (as the cliché goes). All educational institutions are now grooming grounds for the new "culture" of corruption and censorship, and the decline in no way, historically or logically, derives from the efforts of good people to improve the lot of their fellow humans. Sorry, but that's just nonsense!
Many would say the decline in the UK started with the drive towards a "more egalitarian" society and that Thatcher's election was the antidote to decades of decline. Old school progressive lefties who truly believe in transparency and equality probably do feel politically homeless. Once again, however, the current state of affairs is the logical end game from a progressive desire for government to do more and take a larger role in the day to day affairs of its citizens. I think the misguided "efforts of good people to improve the lot of their fellow humans" is exactly how we get the ridiculous Irish politicians who want to censor more in the name of protecting the public. Absurd.
Of course there are many who supported Thatcher, indeed still support what she did. But that she heralded the end of decades of decline is stretching things a bit! Sure, we had trade unions who had become too cocksure and dominant, not recognising the simple fact that screwing companies for every penny in wage increases, striking without consultation and all the other malpractices of the time would lead to the bankruptcy of their employers. The problem there was our industrial revolution heritage: the "us and them" of management and workers. And the solution, which worked well in other European countries, was much earlier on to break down the class-based divisions, introduce better training, education and managerial inclusiveness of the work-force; and a number of - let's avoid the words "liberal" or "socialist" which clearly vex you 😩 - socially conscious measures. So OK, the old girl inherited a tricky problem. But she was someone who hadn't a clue about industry or manufacturing, and instead of working to bring the unions on-side and revolutionise our industrial base, she set out to destroy it. Her vision of a UK work-force selling insurance policies and beef burgers worked, and now, traceable to her, we have a deeply impoverished manufacturing base. [Made worse more recently by Brexit, it's true, which was an impressive display of self-destructiveness by the UK populace. Imperfect though the EC is, we had considerable influence within the 27, far more than with the much-vaunted "sovereignty", which is now accelerating the erosion of our economy. 60% approx. of our trade both ways was with the EC, our neighbours, and we've put a bureaucratic minefield in the way of that which is having devastating consequences.]
But I digress. There were many, many left-wing politicians from earlier times who would abhor what is happening now in the perverted name of "liberalism" - anathema to the principles of decency they (very broadly speaking) held. That's where so many of us feel WE haven't changed, but the "liberal" tide has swirled beyond us.
You speak of the "desire for government to do more and take a larger role in the day to day affairs of its citizens". When we look at the drive to control what we think, then yes, this is perfectly abhorrent and indeed absurd. But this is completely different from state funding, which has has been receding since Thatcher, of our health services, the railways, our education system, or our environmental and river authorities, and so-on. Again, an imperfect system, but there is no evidence at all that the galloping de-funding and/or privatisation of those sectors has brought improvement - far from it. Management for profit and austerity are each arguably a significant part of much social and structural erosion over here since Maggie - an essay in itself. The efforts of those who saw societal benefit in enhancing all those sectors, and improving the health and lives of all, were hardly what led to where we are now.
To follow your logic, if, in the sense I'm speaking of, the "efforts of good people to improve the lot of their fellow humans" can only lead to the insanity of recent Irish, European, British (etc., etc) legislation, then we may as well all give up on aiming for increased fairness and equality in society. But what then is the alternative to that struggle?
The old-time definition of socialism was "the means of production owned and controlled by the workers, or the community in general." In other words, any workers' cooperative. I don't see anything inevitable about the evolution of such projects into fascism or whatever you're getting at above. What you may be getting at is the development of liberalism into the politics of war'n'welfare characteristic of Otto von Bismarck and Lyndon Johnson. Liberalism is not socialism; it's a form of capitalism.
To add to DH's response below, I'd like to also share this prescient "prediction", thought to come from Franklyn:
"When the people discover they can vote themselves money [welfare], that will herald the end of the republic."
And here is a more thorough rebuke of the concept:
'Bread and Circuses' is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader – the barbarians enter Rome." - Robert A. Heinlein
The problem is even worse, however, and much to the point of progressive socialist types too; industry has learned, and to much greater effect, how to pilfer from the public's money. Yet, they cannot see that the mere ability of the state to do so, is the problem.
Personally, it's the exact same problem with the idea of censoring speech. When we ask, who then will decide what speech is acceptable and what is not, "old school lefties" are able to see the dilemma, but I pose the same the question to "old school lefties"; when it comes to doling out the public's money, who then decides to whom and for how much, should the public share their money? Once that power was granted, what we see now was inevitable.
Yes. Only the stockholding class should be allowed to use the government to enrich themselves! Crooked trade deals. Stimulating the economy to inflate asset values more than workers' income. Lockdowns that shut down millions of small businesses and transferred trillions of dollars to the stockholding class.
At one time I lived in a rather old-school conservative (Roman Catholic) community. They were all right with some forms of Welfare, but the people were acutely conscious that the money or stuff would have to be collected from _somebody_, and that that somebody would probably be the lower and middle classes -- themselves. Hence projects, whether welfaristic or intended to benefit the better-off, were looked upon with great suspicion until it became clear how and for whom they were to be funded. Through my experience I came to doubt that the people would simply vote themselves funny money. But in a severely class-based social order like that of the present United States, those further down on the economic food chain come to feel that it is best to get while the gettin's good.
"I don't see anything inevitable about the evolution of such projects into fascism or whatever you're getting at above."
You can't deduce the evolution of socialism into tyranny from the statement about collective ownership alone. You have to dig deeper and ask:
1. What are the ethical/political premises behind the statement, and what do they imply for the broader concept of individual rights?
2. What does history tell us about the relative freedom and prosperity of socialist versus capitalist countries? The extreme examples are particularly illuminating (close to 100% vs. close to 0% state ownership/control of means of production).
Progressive politics that fermented over decades of hiding in academia and government bowels. Spawned from elitist parents who's offspring now feel superior to the masses they have never known or understood while detesting their own privilege. It is very sad if it wasn't so dangerous.
Yay. Another Brit. As Matt Goodwin (another great substacker) says, when people ask him as a former leftie "What happened to you?", his reply is "No, what happened to you?" ... it's not him that's moved to the right - it's the left that's moved much farther left, with Matt (and many others) staying put and realising the tide has gone out around them.
Things are changing to the extent I no longer know what's right-wing or left any more. I only recognise what I think is decency and fair play, and that seems to be smeared across all political persuasions these days. A pity that a basic philosophy embracing openness and kindness in society is too often used as a political target, often by those purportedly on the same side of a given issue. So, for example, I might be against lower taxation and also against constraints on free speech. Another person might disagree with me on the former, but agree on the right to air our opinions. Well, instead of accusing me of being a Marxist leftie dogmatist, why not join forces and agree on free speech, and debate any remaining subjects in an open and amiable way? Too much vitriol around and not enough coming together. I'm with Naomi on that, bless her.
You put it very well. Though have the left moved to the left or to the right? Arguably either: both extremes embody dictatorship, censorship, propaganda and corruption. Which is why I feel along with many others that the left/ right distinction is maybe unhelpful, constantly requiring caveats and qualification. I'm regularly having to clarify my position in this way (e.g. L/ wing doesn't necessarily mean Marxist). Left vs. right: best abandoned if we are to find better unity, looking at a vast array of issues in themselves, rather than apply un-nuanced labels?
Hi Quentin - actually I agree with you. One of the problems people like (I think) us have is finding words to describe what's happening. Woke ? Far-Left ? Intersectional politics ? Neo-Liberalism ? Identity politics ? Neo-Fascism ? Censorship-Industrial Complex ? Cancel Culture ? Things are just "wrong" and most of us could summarise the things which make us uncomfortable, but it's hard to come up with a single label.
Which is a shame because putting a name to something is one of the best ways to make it real and enable people to talk about it and unify around fighting it.
A Taibbi Leftist or a Jimmy Dore Leftist. Its a thing. Would probably be a lot more of us if not for subversion from the Neolib/Neocon Establishment and the use of Champagne Liberalism as the new religion to control the masses.
The use of the word "Left" certainly changed. Historically it meant the side that was in opposition to rank and authority; now, to many people, it seems to mean the opposite -- it's the established order of liars, thieves, and murderers. I suppose the many don't read history, but maybe, along with Henry Ford, they think that history is "mostly bunk" and not worth reading. In any case we seem to lack a vocabulary that would enable us to deal with political facts. As I recall that was the purpose of Newspeak, from _1984_ (a book), so, success! For some people.
Always seemed to me the biggest distinction between Left and Right is the Left believes in social engineering and planning to make society better, while the Right doesn't believe it's possible. As Thomas Sowell calls it, 'the Tragic Vision."
It seems to me you're pointing out a contrast between classical conservatism, for whom social structures are organic and therefore should be modified only very carefully, if at all, and a progressive version of liberalism, for whom social structures are machines which can be modified at will, thus "engineered". The classical Left, as I might call it, did not seem to believe much in social engineering, as this would involve forcing people to submit to an elite. Of course that has changed now, which is one of the reasons the continued existence of the Left seems doubtful.
An additional note: in regard to this subject, a publication called "In These Times" has another side of the question. They seem to be conservatively liberal. There are some errors in article, but it's a widespread point of view and we should let a bit of misinformation stop us. URL is https://inthesetimes.com/article/former-left-right-fascism-capitalism-horseshoe-theory and is worth perusing if only for humor. I think we could call them "Atlanticists".
They aren't left; they are far right-wing unpaid propagandists for the war machine. They pretend to take the "good" side in the political theater of good cop vs. bad cop which is simply a distraction by the duopoly. They are too weak-minded to realize they've been had. Or, as the theory of cognitive dissonance holds, it is too painful to admit they fell for the con. But they certainly are not 'left' of anything.
Rob .... I see many "Substackers" like you and myself commenting here, and like all of you I look at this attempted purge with incredulity. I, too, am a long time subscriber of The Atlantic, but it seems they have lost their journalistic compass.
One of the reasons I joined Substack was the freedom to write what I want, when I want, without the intrusion of censorious inquisitors. Moreover, I've enjoyed the bonds forged with other writers and podcasters who, like you, are exercising their right to express themselves, exchange ideas, and share the interests we have in common. Keep your voice strong, Rob ... and the same for all the rest of you.
The Atlantic was the last one I cancelled. That was about 3-4 years ago, but before that, I don't remember not getting it. I remember stacks of mags in my office, I didn't want to toss them. Amazing! Now I send insulting letters to journalists.
One of the things I most like is just the tactile sensation of holding a newspaper. Matt had mentioned in an earlier article of his experiences when living in Boston. My first experience of living in America, I’m English, was four years in Boston in the early 1980s. On Sunday mornings I would go to my local store and get the Sunday edition of the NYT and the Boston Globe. On Sunday evening I would take the red line to Harvard square and visit Out of Town news, a kiosk which carried newspapers and magazines from all over the world. There I could get that days copies of the British newspapers so I would usually get the Sunday Telegraph and the Sunday Mirror. Then around the corner to the Inman square Mens bar to read the football reports in the Mirror and the rugby reports in the Telegraph over a couple of beers. Now I had my reading for the rest of the week sorted out.
I picked up a newspaper every morning on my way to work. Coffee and a newspaper to start my day. I opened my County Highway and had a deja vu moment when the odor of news print hit me. It was like comfort food.
I never subscribed to The Atlantic, but my ex NYC girl, semi socialist mother was subscribed to The Atlantic the whole time I was growing up ca. 60s - 70s. They were not so awful back THEN. I looked again more recently- And holly $hit.
Back in the day, The Atlantic was a class act. Sometime recently though, it sold its soul and became just another branch in the Propaganda Arm of the Corporate State. The quality writing and critical thinking disappeared, and had re-emerged in Substack, Locals, X and other alternative news sources.
I have a media budget. I dropped The Atlantic, WaPo, NYT, and The Nation for 5 Substack accounts. If--hasn't happened often--there is something at the ones I've dropped I use my tax-supported library card to read the article.
Not just the Atlantic. I took the New Yorker for ages mainly because it was famous for its fact-checking. I.e., it was trustworthy. Then along came "Russiagate" and "Bashar al-Assad used chemicals on Syrians". The moment I heard those, I knew they were created propaganda by the U.S. , never believed them. The New Yorker fell for both, and to this day has not corrected those lies. Not only that. They hired Masha Gesson who hates Putin to the point she's influenced other staff writers. Had to drop a magazine I used to love. Now I read alternative news sources. The MSM has gone to hell. Warning: don't fall for the latest "vaccine" or the digital ID/CBDC that's about to take us to the ultimate Orwellian nightmare.
Used to love both the New Yorker and the Atlantic. Both are dead to me now. Way to go, eastern urban intellectuals! Soon you’ll be writing to an audience no bigger than your last dinner party.
I read The Atlantic regularly. Sometimes they actually have good articles. I even read the "woke" stuff to keep up on "how the other side thinks". Plus, it feels so good when I stop.
I actually laughed out loud at "Plus, it feels so good when I stop."
And, I understand that there are sometimes good articles in the Atlantic and other establishment publications. And how good it feels sometimes to silence the 24/7 barrage of war propaganda.
New Yorker is the same way. My wife and I got so sick of the Wokism, and were about to cancel, when they would come out with a good article. Eventually we did cancel...
I couldn’t recover from the highly edited , condescending and aggressive “ interview’ David Remnick did with RFK Jr several months ago. He barely let him finish a sentence . The New Yorker makes me sick
I also read The New Yorker. Like The Atlantic it frequently has good articles, both fiction and non-fiction. For the woke-ish pieces I hold my nose and dig in with gusto. It feels good when I stop, but within a week my warped cravings return, just in time for the next issue. I haven't summoned up the moral fiber to cancel.
I still read the Atlantic headlines, but usually to have a reason to send a letter to the editors. My last one was to put Nostradamus Goldberg in the same league as Punxsutawney Phil.
Substitute Harvard for Stanford and I might have written your comment. Thanking the Universe that I can read such words and recognize there are enough of us that we might still save our republic.
You sound like me Rob. I have an MS Computer Science from Stanford 1985 but am embarrassed as hell by them now. Why do these fucking punks like Katz want to tell me what I can and cannot read? It is all about power. The only think keeping the left alive is the total sham of the Republican party. If the Republicans gave up on the right to life bullshit and just said abortion is fine up to 16-20 weeks or something, then maybe they might win elections occasionally. But no, they have to keep their stupid ideology which allows democrats to gain and maintain power. I blame the right for us having to get force fed the bullshit from the left. the two go hand in hand. The Whacko left and the Stupid right. Whacko beats Stupid everytime.
We should hang out some time. There are a few republicans who are aligned with the 15 week limit. That doesn't get enough press. For example, Nikki Haley is not in favor of abortion, but is willing to yield to the will of the people on that. Frankly, when the Supreme Court sent this issue back to the states, I thought it would produce a spectrum of laws that local citizenry could live with and it has. In NJ a mother can birth a child and still abort before the umbilical cord is cut. In TX, quite the opposite. I am sure that not everyone in either state agrees with the laws there.
Where are you located? I am still in the Bay Area (San Jose). The Democrats didn't like the issue going back to the states, as they wanted the issue to remain alive for fundraising and scare tactics. the Republicans keep falling into Democrat traps. I just read a post from some Republican a few days ago that said he would rather lose elections than give up on his no abortion ideology. I wrote back and said, "well you are getting wish, but in the meantime you are saddling me with whacko democrat ideas about everything, so I guess I consider you the enemy more than democrats." And I meant that. Anyone that picks an ideology that is a clear loser, is just that...a clear loser. I can't take the progressives anymore. I want them gone. If that means I have to battle Republicans too, then so be it.
"Our republic" has been held hostage by creeps like Katz, who dominate all establishment media, for decades. Creeping totalitarianism has no room for democracy or a republic.
I still find reading the Atlantic to be useful. I consider myself somewhere in the pragmatic middle of America with strong libertarian leanings. I hope that reading multiple viewpoints provides greater perspective on truth. Now MSNBC is something that I can only tolerate in small doses as I weary of 100% Trump content.
I find the lack of subtlety in the Atlantic a bar to reading it even to keep up with ruling class opinion. Even the headlines are smug and condescending.
There is no such thing as a rational America. You don't know history, you don't know science, you don't study philosophy you feed your children shit and bullshit and expect to turn shit into wisdom. The gods have not blessed America .nothing but lies from the moment you take your first breath.
John Ralston Saul was twice elected head of PEN International.
His 1994 dictionary.
The Doubter Companion: A dictionary of Aggressive Common Sense is well worth reading Viking Press.
UNITED STATES definition 2. The first great empire since Rome not to see itself as the official reincarnation of Rome, which may mean that unlike the others, it is Rome.
Get a subscription to The Walrus. Today's Issue arrived in the mail.
The front cover says Why women hate the pill.
Inside is some great writing.
Let's talk "ships and sails and sealing wax of carpenters and kings." Lewis Caroll aka Charles Dodgson. My wife went to Chicago when it had an education faculty now it is The Chicago School for imbeciles.
What can I say? I always dreamed of being able to write. It took 70 years the greatest teachers in the world, the internet and a keyboard designed for autistic four you olds to do what I always dreamed of doing. It came at a time where I* have too much of everything and I don't know how much time I have left but my wife and I deserve some rewards. SHE IS ONE HELL OF A TEACHER AND PHILOSOPHER and deserves whatever time is left to just sit and study philosophy she doesn't belong in the kitchen except to make my only cup of coffee every day. She listens to Mozart, Bach and Vivaldi and reads the books no longer read in America and the w=orks of America's greatest living philosopher Kinky Friedman. How Kinky can anyone get? Being Canadian I am partial to John Ralston Saul.
The decline of the universities has been one of the worst outcomes of the leftist lunacy. I was once a proud alum of Princeton, but I resigned in 2020 when the university announced it had become racist. I don't miss them at all. They and almost every other "elite" educational institution have become embarrassments. The Ivy League Clown show in Congress this week only solidified that conclusion. How did such mediocrities come to positions of power there? The rot begins at the top and won't stop until competent decent human beings are put back in charge.
I think these presidents are competent. They are, however, woefully indoctrinated in hating America, the greatest force for good in the history of mankind, flaws and all. Their ideology is not a secret yet they continue in their careers (it's god to be tenured). But I agree that the university rot runs deep and cannot be allowed to fester further.
I don't think an indoctrinated university president can be competent. An open mind is a prerequisite to self-doubt required for mastery of anything. Perhaps at best they are competent mediocrities emblematic of their institutions.
As an aside to this, earlier today sent me a link to a survey after I expressed that I had enjoyed one of their offerings. The very first questions was what gender I identified as. I stopped at that point.
I was drinking coffee-fortunately none came out my nose. But I had the same reaction. Last paragraph summed it up brilliantly! Where do these people come from and why are they so much smarter then the rest of us? The hubris exposed over the past few years is shocking.
If Jonathan Katz is really a stunning and brave reincarnation of Simon Wiesenthal he has plenty of flesh-and-blood Jew haters he can go confront right now—they are out in force in the Harvard library, at his local Antifa/DSA meetings, at all the various protests popping up in NYC and LA, and even nearby to where he shops at Zabars, standing out front or a few stops uptown at Columbia.
Since of course he will never do this, I have no choice but to think he's not only a scold and censor, he's a coward too.
To be an official member of our "elite thinking" class means that under no circumstances must you actually do any thinking....you just become a loyal attack dog for the official Narrative, which in this case still means "Nazis on the internet are destroying Our Democracy™", even when the action is now out on the streets. The last thing our thinking classes want to do is leave their virtual world of virtual battles for the real world, they prefer to hide behind their screens and let other people do the fighting.
This is on target. I saw an interview of an undergrad 'reporter' from the Harvard Crimson being asked about coverage of Gay, et al. It was astonishing to hear (and see!) the way the situation was talked about, along with the 'newspeak' aspect of the language being used. It's pure and utter indoctrination of these kids....and not in the name of doing anything 'good' for anyone, but in a wholly self serving aspect. Truly a cult.
Exactly! You either _are_ that loyal dog, or you _act_ so much like one that no one can tell the difference. For the pretenders who are really "into it", I'm curious how the stats break down on primary motivations:
Is it mostly fear of losing livelihood, friends, status?
Is it mostly opportunism, seeking enhanced livelihood, friendships and status?
Is it mostly hostility, venting anger on people online?
Is it mostly tribalism, feeling stronger by identifying with a dominant group?
Or is it mostly sadism, actually getting pleasure from causing losses of livelihood, friends and status to others?
From my perch in the Blue Bubble, I'd say it's all of these things in certain proportions depending upon the person, but all of it is intensely enforced by smartphones and Twitter, which work like a lynch mob in your pocket, letting you know constantly what the proper tribal dogma and vocab is and what the penalties are for disobedience.
Trying to be brief, I'd say that liberals have painted themselves into various corners—moral, epistemic, geographic, cultural—and this has created and enforces an intense cult-like form of groupthink and tribalism, where they've all convinced each other that anyone not on their team is a dangerous benighted bigot who needs to be ostracized and condemned, and if you refuse to treat them as such you're just as bad as them and deserve a similar fate.
It feels very fear-based to me, esp among the journalist and thinking classes, who police each other and are terrified of saying anything contrary to their side's Narrative, as this could be a hanging offense. (Also, these people punish each other not just professionally but personally too: get the stink of heretic on you and not only do you lose your job and employment opportunities, but friends and associates too, which can also hurt your spouse and kids too—if you are morally polluted and they live with you, they become morally polluted too).
Im not familiar with these phases (they both sound accurate to my middle brow thinking) but I would say in regard to the Harvard situation if the board stands firm behind Gay and Ackman (an activist shareholder advocate who is a tenacious fighter) keeps fighting, it will get very interesting. I am not sure if I have a dog in the fight* but I definitely have my popcorn ready.
* If this is just about anti-Semitism and making sure the protected classes cover that, this is a waste of time. it seems Ackman is recognizing the full on rot he and his friends have been supporting for years and wants things to change. If that is the case i am in full support.
With censorship, it’s always about who gets the power to evaluate, not what’s being censored. The choice isn’t between getting rid of a few obvious Nazis, or not. It’s between giving someone like Jonathan Katz, or a bunch of Jonathan Katzes, sweeping power over content or not. Americans have always understood the second danger to be scarier, for good reason.
A lot of truth to that. The Katzes of this world don't so much want to be censors so as much as they want to be gatekeepers. Substack gives them the vapors because they don't get to decide any more.
I actually went to Andons Reich Press after hearing of this Katz fellas call to censor nazis on substack. The article I perused, maybe a few weeks old had 6 likes and 1 comment. It seems the only nazi problem on substack is that nobody is all the interested in reading what they have to say. I’d venture to guess that Katz has the same issue here as well.
Which is harder to find: A real, rightwing NAZI or a KKK rally? The SPLC HAD to branch out to keep the donations coming in when they ran out of KKK members to denounce. Getting hooked up with Lefty Corporations as their go-to designators of hateful organizations and speech was a stroke of evil genius!
Be off with you Jonathan.....what you’re peddling can be found anywhere now. It’s sad, like an aging beauty queen, longing for her halcyon days and not realizing that the lipstick she keeps selecting calls out her advancing years and sell by date.
These people don't or won't realize how "irrelevant" they are. (I wish Taibbi cud debate Katz! I'd love to witness a FaceOff between the 2 of them. I bet Katz wud become hysterical and super self righteous (and ir condescending) while Matt wud just plod onward while grinning from ear to ear.)
That wasn't a debate. It was a debacle. Ron was landing punches while Gavin could not decide whether he was Gore, Kerry or Trudeau. The sandbox was still intact when they were finished.
Very well-said. Newsom’s inability to engage on a substantive level was astonishing really. It doesn’t speak well of the American voter. In a country of 340m talented people, we vote for these superficial grifters.
The last time I read an article in The Atlantic I was convinced that the author and editors had eaten a fresh batch of magic mushrooms and downed half a bottle of cheap amphetamines.
I've noticed--after the fresh air of the journalism on Substack--that I have a literal physical reaction when I encounter the depth of a thimble blathering of the MSM. They seem totally pathological. Or, as if I'm peering into a room at the inhabitant of an insane asylum.
I think we all may be reaching a point where our personal trust in the integrity of those subscription journalists we choose to support might allow us to emotionally "let go" of so called legacy media altogether. Journalists here leave me informed about things others have no idea of and I'm always for the most part two weeks to a month ahead of news and events in general.
And, of course as an added bonus I get to rant and opine at will.
I feel hopeful that "we the people" are at long last beginning to enjoy the objective truth/fact based journalism and the healthy national conversation the American Republic deserves.
This is what the bad cat calls the reputation economy.
Three years ago, we had no idea we needed to completely rebuild the industry from the ground up -- but now we do.....and it's going pretty well so far.
I broke the MSM habit about four years ago. It took a little effort but got easier by the day. Now that I realize that they derive 70-80% of their advertising revenue from the pharmaceutical industry I know I made the correct choice.
Years ago I took a medical terminology course in college. The phrase you’re thinking of is called “emesis”. The physical and uncontrollable act of vomiting.
I subscribed to the Atlantic for a number of years, but 2 years ago I came to the conclusion that I could more wisely spend my money and time elsewhere. I then opted to subscribe to The Epoch Times and seek out Substack and Locals. I realized that I could then read articles by progressives who were HONEST and not be beholden to the corrupt leftist ideology which allows chumps like Katz to claim more authoritarianism is what this country needs. May you drown in your own vommit Mr Katz.
Something I don't understand about Epoch: Apparently they were set up by the CIA, or with CIA help. Also, aren't they the house organ of Falun Gong? Both of those make me wonder about them having become the default voice of Medical Freedom and sanity. Is this house built on sand?
I read the epoch. They do have some questionable views and sensationalism about medical issues. They also have articles that are very well written and objective. Something you don't see at all in the NYT and sadly, less and less in the news part of the WSJ.
Hey, print newspapers are great to have on hand. Good for the bottom of chick brooders, makes a decent weed barrier in the garden or around trees with bark mulch over it...
The Wall Street Journal shed their journalistic integrity at the time of Covid, Jan 6, and the cultural mainstreaming of all that is moronic downstream of morally bankrupt postmodernism (critical theory, DEI, intersectionality, BLM, trans/nonbinary gender religion, ...)
The WSJ enthusiastically signed up to have their news and editorial content controlled by the vile "Trusted News Initiative". At that moment, the WSJ decided that the facts, and the story that emerged from them, were no longer sacred. In that decision, the WSJ committed their journalistic souls to a new (trigger warning) master: a groupthink narrative that is, ironically, defined and driven by their economic and political enemies.
Really WSJ, you thought it best to collude with, rather than compete with, your anti-Western peers at the BBC? "Yes," said the WSJ, abandoning its readers and jumping in the pool with such sneering and stupid woke thought-control publications as the NYT and WaPo. The WSJ decided that its readers were too stupid to be allowed to consider the possibility that not every damn syllable that escaped the maws of Fauci, Pfizer, and the CCP were necessarily true. Today, TNI control extends beyond Covid into foreign policy, domestic politics, and even WSJ's slant on financial news.
The WSJ also censors discussion on its website comment board, controlling the conversations readers have amongst themselves. For example, the previous paragraph would be blocked by WSJ moderators because it hints that not everything the TNI forced down our throats has turned out to be anywhere close to the truth.
Racket News and/or Public will no doubt soon prove what has been apparent since 2020, which is that the humorously-named TNI is just as integral in the interlocking, authoritarian web woven by the Censorship Industrial Complex as, for example, The Virality Project.
That's why I read it. The WSJ has been my MSM paper of choice, but I have found its news section disappointing for two years or so. I get it for $1 a week now, and will never again pay the $30 plus per month they charge
The WSJ has long been three newspapers in one. It’s a reliable source for stock, bond, and interest rate data as long as you use it as a data source rather than rely on their articles about companies and the economy that their advertisers drive. The second part is their “news” reporting, especially their political reporting from Washington, DC. This is as liberal and biased as any you will find in the NY Times or the Washington Post. The third part is their editorial section, an amalgam of Bush Republicanism with a sprinkling of Libertarianism. It’s a much cheaper version of a Bloomberg machine for people interested in market data.
Re: the CIA startup Epoch Times confusingly taking center stage in what you perceive as (more or less) "anti USA establishment" venues?
There is nothing new about the CIA trying to "front run" trends and get in on the ground floor of any developing movement, all the better to monitor, neuter or subvert to their own ends as they might need down the line.
Opposition groups will inevitably develop, it is more efficient if the most visible OpFors are actually YOUR OWN cultivated creatures, not some feral (and possibly impenetrable!) entity. See the CIA providing protection, weaponry and the startup funding for ISIS and our military inexplicably freeing their founders from Abu Graib prison in Iraq?
See the YEARS of Israeli funding and intelligence support for Hamas vs. the PLO, with Mossad essentially starting up Hamas to counter the secular, socialist (and intractable) PLO? Those "assets" they developed are now cashing in at a good return.
And way, way back when the CIA was young and officially forbidden to operate INSIDE USA, the CIA either founded (or hijacked at near their time of origin?) the good old National Students Association! Apparently they needed a tame student opposition/Vietnam war protesting movement of their own to compete with the more organically grown (and socialist derived) Students for a Democratic Society. The SDS later splintered and spun off a small group calling themselves "The Weathermen", you may recall them from a number of bombings in the 60s & 70s?
And there was the singing group that went around the western world - started in the Eisenhower admin and when I joined was doing shows at USOs. "Up With People". It certainly was not anti-Vietnam war.
It started with the legitimization of the ridiculous term, "hate speech." There is no such thing as hate speech. Just speech. You may hate what someone says, but so what? Argue or ignore. No one has to support your delusions, agree with you, or even like you. All the laws and policies regarding this bullshit term are unconstitutional. Same goes for "hate crime." The laws need to apply to everyone EQUALLY. That's why the sybols for justice include scales and blindfolds. No extra points for "special" folks.
I’m with you on hate speech, but I think hate crime is a thing, where, in addition to the direct victims, identified groups are singled out and threatened (should be a high bar to assert).
That's just CRIME, whether you threaten an individual or a group. But the threat has to be credible. Hurt feelings don't count. Stating you don't agree with or even protest what a person, group, or country does also is not a crime. BUT if you declare you're going to commit a violent act against them, or instruct others to do so, THAT'S A BIG MF CRIME. Always was, always will be.
I’m here to learn, but for the sake of argument, what if someone credibly claims (I.e., they’ve assaulted before) that they will attack the next 5 xxxxxxs they see, should that be legal?
It is and needs to remain legal to hate someone based on their characteristics. Not because this is a desirable thing, but because for the state to get involved in judging sentiment is for the state to start deciding who can and can’t be disliked. That’s an invitation to exploitation.
The feds’ definition of hate crime seems reasonable as far as it goes but there’s nothing there which isn’t already covered by the concept of civil or human rights. The issue is, there’s more in civil and human rights than is included in “hate crime”. Hate crime is defined by group membership and the examples given are all of member(s) of subaltern groups being violently attacked by member(s) of groups that, it’s implied, are subaltern groups. Everyone, however, has civil rights and human rights. Hate crime weakens the concept and case law of civil rights by adding a layer of rules that can be applied to a crime first, so that civil rights don’t need to be applied as a test. Meanwhile hate crimes aren’t understood to be committed against dominant groups by minorities. They can be, of course, but good luck finding that understanding uniformly in general society. Trial by jury of peers should be able to defend the interests of the victim as well as apply the law evenly to the accused. The concept of hate crime makes this less likely just due to its inherent bias.
And then there’s this: “Bias or Hate Incident: Acts of prejudice that are not crimes and do not involve violence, threats, or property damage.” It’s simply unacceptable to legally discriminate against sentiment in this way. As everyone has surely noticed, acts of prejudice against the (scant) majority in America are incredibly common these days. Acts of prejudice against white women, at once a majority and a minority, are accepted by most to be amusing and entertaining, socially beneficial even. It’s clear that the law doesn’t consider this to be a hate or bias incident. Yet the same behavior against a minority could and would be swiftly punished. “Hate crime or act” doesn’t apply equally. But if the only legal option available were “civil rights violation”, when the law were applied unequally, everyone would be able to immediately recognize it. “Hate crime or act” undermines the constitution.
Please read the link that I added downthread. We are not just talking about crimes we are also talking about "bias and hate incidents" which the Justice dept specifically says are not crimes, but still feels justified in adjudicating, based on this idea that feelings can be prosecuted.
When you say that you don't understand the complaint because law enforcement and prosecutors can be biased, you're saying that in order to solve problem A, we need to add a solution to a different problem, which comes with its own set of problems and which also weakens the very structures which could be used to solve problem A (the problem of bias). You don't solve individual lapses into bias by introducing another form of bias.
Yes, this way one person can take a server full of classified information, for example, and walk, while another person will be prosecuted because we can judge their intent. Those with pure hearts, like the witch that doesn't float, are pardoned..
Of course that is all patent nonsense, but it allows us to make some excuse according to our politics where in pre-Clown world fewer people would fall for that.
Ah, Jonathan Katz, one of the Good White Men (tm Freddie DeBoer). Who shall now come to our rescue by deliberately searching for a handful of Substacks with almost no readership and declare we have a problem that only he can solve.
(I don't like the term "white savior" but in Katz's case, it fits.)
Is anyone else noticing a trend, when your opinion is not mainstream, you're deemed a "Nazi." I was just informed today, that I'm in a "cult," for supporting women's sex based rights, on the site for high minded intellectuals known as Instagram. This is while the president of Harvard supports a (literally) Nazi inspired, barbaric sex cult known as Hamas, backed by our CAUCASIAN enemies: the Iranian government as the left's youth are changing in the streets for the genocide of Jews. As a person who had a Jewish Grandfather who lived through WW2 Europe, and who's Mother and I (had I been alive at the time) would have been labeled "Mischling" by the Nazi's and burned along with them, I find this offensive and absurd. I wish these authoritarians wold get a real job, and let free speech be.
There is also the slight problem that most of the views these dipshits associate with Nazis these days are things most of the men who fought the Nazis believed in. Read the Bible? Check! Believe in nation states? Check? Think there are only two sexes? Check! Think the Bill of Rights means something? Checkmate! My grandpa almost got his balls blown off by German flack, so I am more than a little pissed when they start pulling "Nazi" out of their ass.
Bullies are always the minority. The silent majority goes along with the bullies out of fear of being silenced , job loss, disbarment. If we can reclaim that silent majority somehow to push back on the woke religious cult sanity could once again prevail. There has to be away.
This is why I subscribe to what you write, Matt. You're standing up for the rest of us against these authoritarian asswipes determined to tell the rest of us how to think, or else. Keep it up, friend. We're with you.
Seems to me that this (ahem) staggering intellect and their pro-censorship collaborators may wish to confine their hunt for Nazis to the one they see every morning while brushing their teeth.
I can't read The Atlantic anymore. I can't watch MSNBC. I am embarrassed by Stanford, of which I was a formerly proud alum. I look to Substack, The Free Press and their many writers who don't push an ideology on the rest of us. I am not a Nazi, or Antifa, or BLM. I am simply a rational American looking for the voices that will save our republic.
Welcome to the political nether regions. There are so many embarrassments coming from the Puritanical Left these days, I can hardly believe I was a lefty myself. To be fair though, the Left changed, I didn't.
Very well said. I feel exactly the same. I'm a Taibbi lefty, if that's a thing. Government's purpose is to serve the many. It's morphed into Sheldon Wolin's Inverted Totalitarianism, (thanks Chris Hedges). Though I may not be applying Wolin's theory properly, the left in the US has become fundamentalists to rival Isis. They're just more shrill. And today on issues of censorship & military adventurism, I have much more in common with sane republicans today than I do with Democrats(TM).
#Kennedy24
I was interested in Jill Stein and him till I looked at their policy issues and saw bullet points about the need for “racial healing”. They’ve learned nothing.
Hi Last One. Could you clarify for me what you mean here? Is "racial healing" no longer needed?
I mean that the supposed racism crisis in the USA is just the latest manufactured distraction from the neoliberal establishment and their PMC servants. Wealth inequality is the greatest it has ever been in the USA and people want to worry about this? Seriously? So yes, that RFK Jr. and Jill Stein feel compelled to mention "racial healing" is a sign to me that they need to step away from the liberal cocktail parties they go to and focus on priorities. Though one could argue that their mentioning it is only tactical, the goal being to peel away voters from the Democrats. If so, I apologize. Also, I'm not expecting ideological purity from anyone, especially as I change my mind all the time.
There are more slaves in the U.S. today than in 1860. Immigrants owe illegal entry fees to cartels and can almost never work them off. Where is leftist outrage over that? Hypocrites!
Pro-genocide are we?
Um, no. Have you stopped beating your wife?
RFK Jr. is pro-genocide of native Palestinians, so my response is relevant. Your comment is nonsensical; much like your support of Kennedy. At least you are consistent.
I'm a Taibbi lefty too. He's worth more than the whole machine ("Democratic") party put together.
No, a "Taibbi lefty" is not a thing.
Same for me, over in the UK. I still strongly believe in that set of values that once were the core of post-2nd-WW progressive socialism - and which brought many good things to Western society. Imperfect but at its heart were transparency in government, freedom of speech, education for all, trade union rights, social services providing health and welfare for those in need etc. At a certain point in history this value set was pitched against a perceived heartlessness in conservatism. I still belong there politically but on neither side of the pond is there a party which enshrine those old-school leftist views any longer.
I think what you and Matt can't seem to understand is your idealized version of "post 2nd WW progressive socialism" inevitably leads to where we are now. Matt's ending comment was quite telling.
"Where do these people come from, and how did they come to be so entitled?"
Left wing educational institutions and progressive politics carry most of the blame.
Bit of a head-scratcher, that! For one thing, I have not idealised post-war societal progress, such as it has been, in the least - As I said, it was/ is imperfect. ANY social or political model is flawed and imperfect. That's humanity for you. What can be said is that (very broad generalisation....) much of the progress made post-war emanated from governments to an almost passable degree answering to, and represented by, a broad electorate. In the UK, we had a swathe of politicians over several governments, both in power and opposition, whose ethics were characteristically "leftist" in seeking and often, incrementally, achieving a better and more egalitarian society. The decline in the UK, demonstrably, began when ultra-right-wing Margaret Thatcher declared war on the working classes and our welfare state. Many caveats to the above, but this isn't an essay.
Lastly, taking a pop at "left wing educational institutions and and progressive politics" is an off-target generalisation. The present corrupt and sanctimonious nature of our governments has little to do with left- or right-wing politics. It has do do with all governments being hijacked by military and corporate interests, and that includes the despicable right-wing government over here. Not that the Labour Party when they (most likely) come to power will be any better. And this leaves a huge number of the old-school progressive lefties, of which I'm one, devastated and politically homeless (as the cliché goes). All educational institutions are now grooming grounds for the new "culture" of corruption and censorship, and the decline in no way, historically or logically, derives from the efforts of good people to improve the lot of their fellow humans. Sorry, but that's just nonsense!
Many would say the decline in the UK started with the drive towards a "more egalitarian" society and that Thatcher's election was the antidote to decades of decline. Old school progressive lefties who truly believe in transparency and equality probably do feel politically homeless. Once again, however, the current state of affairs is the logical end game from a progressive desire for government to do more and take a larger role in the day to day affairs of its citizens. I think the misguided "efforts of good people to improve the lot of their fellow humans" is exactly how we get the ridiculous Irish politicians who want to censor more in the name of protecting the public. Absurd.
Of course there are many who supported Thatcher, indeed still support what she did. But that she heralded the end of decades of decline is stretching things a bit! Sure, we had trade unions who had become too cocksure and dominant, not recognising the simple fact that screwing companies for every penny in wage increases, striking without consultation and all the other malpractices of the time would lead to the bankruptcy of their employers. The problem there was our industrial revolution heritage: the "us and them" of management and workers. And the solution, which worked well in other European countries, was much earlier on to break down the class-based divisions, introduce better training, education and managerial inclusiveness of the work-force; and a number of - let's avoid the words "liberal" or "socialist" which clearly vex you 😩 - socially conscious measures. So OK, the old girl inherited a tricky problem. But she was someone who hadn't a clue about industry or manufacturing, and instead of working to bring the unions on-side and revolutionise our industrial base, she set out to destroy it. Her vision of a UK work-force selling insurance policies and beef burgers worked, and now, traceable to her, we have a deeply impoverished manufacturing base. [Made worse more recently by Brexit, it's true, which was an impressive display of self-destructiveness by the UK populace. Imperfect though the EC is, we had considerable influence within the 27, far more than with the much-vaunted "sovereignty", which is now accelerating the erosion of our economy. 60% approx. of our trade both ways was with the EC, our neighbours, and we've put a bureaucratic minefield in the way of that which is having devastating consequences.]
But I digress. There were many, many left-wing politicians from earlier times who would abhor what is happening now in the perverted name of "liberalism" - anathema to the principles of decency they (very broadly speaking) held. That's where so many of us feel WE haven't changed, but the "liberal" tide has swirled beyond us.
You speak of the "desire for government to do more and take a larger role in the day to day affairs of its citizens". When we look at the drive to control what we think, then yes, this is perfectly abhorrent and indeed absurd. But this is completely different from state funding, which has has been receding since Thatcher, of our health services, the railways, our education system, or our environmental and river authorities, and so-on. Again, an imperfect system, but there is no evidence at all that the galloping de-funding and/or privatisation of those sectors has brought improvement - far from it. Management for profit and austerity are each arguably a significant part of much social and structural erosion over here since Maggie - an essay in itself. The efforts of those who saw societal benefit in enhancing all those sectors, and improving the health and lives of all, were hardly what led to where we are now.
To follow your logic, if, in the sense I'm speaking of, the "efforts of good people to improve the lot of their fellow humans" can only lead to the insanity of recent Irish, European, British (etc., etc) legislation, then we may as well all give up on aiming for increased fairness and equality in society. But what then is the alternative to that struggle?
The old-time definition of socialism was "the means of production owned and controlled by the workers, or the community in general." In other words, any workers' cooperative. I don't see anything inevitable about the evolution of such projects into fascism or whatever you're getting at above. What you may be getting at is the development of liberalism into the politics of war'n'welfare characteristic of Otto von Bismarck and Lyndon Johnson. Liberalism is not socialism; it's a form of capitalism.
To add to DH's response below, I'd like to also share this prescient "prediction", thought to come from Franklyn:
"When the people discover they can vote themselves money [welfare], that will herald the end of the republic."
And here is a more thorough rebuke of the concept:
'Bread and Circuses' is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader – the barbarians enter Rome." - Robert A. Heinlein
The problem is even worse, however, and much to the point of progressive socialist types too; industry has learned, and to much greater effect, how to pilfer from the public's money. Yet, they cannot see that the mere ability of the state to do so, is the problem.
Personally, it's the exact same problem with the idea of censoring speech. When we ask, who then will decide what speech is acceptable and what is not, "old school lefties" are able to see the dilemma, but I pose the same the question to "old school lefties"; when it comes to doling out the public's money, who then decides to whom and for how much, should the public share their money? Once that power was granted, what we see now was inevitable.
Yes. Only the stockholding class should be allowed to use the government to enrich themselves! Crooked trade deals. Stimulating the economy to inflate asset values more than workers' income. Lockdowns that shut down millions of small businesses and transferred trillions of dollars to the stockholding class.
At one time I lived in a rather old-school conservative (Roman Catholic) community. They were all right with some forms of Welfare, but the people were acutely conscious that the money or stuff would have to be collected from _somebody_, and that that somebody would probably be the lower and middle classes -- themselves. Hence projects, whether welfaristic or intended to benefit the better-off, were looked upon with great suspicion until it became clear how and for whom they were to be funded. Through my experience I came to doubt that the people would simply vote themselves funny money. But in a severely class-based social order like that of the present United States, those further down on the economic food chain come to feel that it is best to get while the gettin's good.
"I don't see anything inevitable about the evolution of such projects into fascism or whatever you're getting at above."
You can't deduce the evolution of socialism into tyranny from the statement about collective ownership alone. You have to dig deeper and ask:
1. What are the ethical/political premises behind the statement, and what do they imply for the broader concept of individual rights?
2. What does history tell us about the relative freedom and prosperity of socialist versus capitalist countries? The extreme examples are particularly illuminating (close to 100% vs. close to 0% state ownership/control of means of production).
Progressive politics that fermented over decades of hiding in academia and government bowels. Spawned from elitist parents who's offspring now feel superior to the masses they have never known or understood while detesting their own privilege. It is very sad if it wasn't so dangerous.
Spot on!
Yay. Another Brit. As Matt Goodwin (another great substacker) says, when people ask him as a former leftie "What happened to you?", his reply is "No, what happened to you?" ... it's not him that's moved to the right - it's the left that's moved much farther left, with Matt (and many others) staying put and realising the tide has gone out around them.
Things are changing to the extent I no longer know what's right-wing or left any more. I only recognise what I think is decency and fair play, and that seems to be smeared across all political persuasions these days. A pity that a basic philosophy embracing openness and kindness in society is too often used as a political target, often by those purportedly on the same side of a given issue. So, for example, I might be against lower taxation and also against constraints on free speech. Another person might disagree with me on the former, but agree on the right to air our opinions. Well, instead of accusing me of being a Marxist leftie dogmatist, why not join forces and agree on free speech, and debate any remaining subjects in an open and amiable way? Too much vitriol around and not enough coming together. I'm with Naomi on that, bless her.
You put it very well. Though have the left moved to the left or to the right? Arguably either: both extremes embody dictatorship, censorship, propaganda and corruption. Which is why I feel along with many others that the left/ right distinction is maybe unhelpful, constantly requiring caveats and qualification. I'm regularly having to clarify my position in this way (e.g. L/ wing doesn't necessarily mean Marxist). Left vs. right: best abandoned if we are to find better unity, looking at a vast array of issues in themselves, rather than apply un-nuanced labels?
Hi Quentin - actually I agree with you. One of the problems people like (I think) us have is finding words to describe what's happening. Woke ? Far-Left ? Intersectional politics ? Neo-Liberalism ? Identity politics ? Neo-Fascism ? Censorship-Industrial Complex ? Cancel Culture ? Things are just "wrong" and most of us could summarise the things which make us uncomfortable, but it's hard to come up with a single label.
Which is a shame because putting a name to something is one of the best ways to make it real and enable people to talk about it and unify around fighting it.
A Taibbi Leftist or a Jimmy Dore Leftist. Its a thing. Would probably be a lot more of us if not for subversion from the Neolib/Neocon Establishment and the use of Champagne Liberalism as the new religion to control the masses.
Bill Clinton finally killed off any sort of leftism that may have existed in mainstream politics.
The use of the word "Left" certainly changed. Historically it meant the side that was in opposition to rank and authority; now, to many people, it seems to mean the opposite -- it's the established order of liars, thieves, and murderers. I suppose the many don't read history, but maybe, along with Henry Ford, they think that history is "mostly bunk" and not worth reading. In any case we seem to lack a vocabulary that would enable us to deal with political facts. As I recall that was the purpose of Newspeak, from _1984_ (a book), so, success! For some people.
Always seemed to me the biggest distinction between Left and Right is the Left believes in social engineering and planning to make society better, while the Right doesn't believe it's possible. As Thomas Sowell calls it, 'the Tragic Vision."
It seems to me you're pointing out a contrast between classical conservatism, for whom social structures are organic and therefore should be modified only very carefully, if at all, and a progressive version of liberalism, for whom social structures are machines which can be modified at will, thus "engineered". The classical Left, as I might call it, did not seem to believe much in social engineering, as this would involve forcing people to submit to an elite. Of course that has changed now, which is one of the reasons the continued existence of the Left seems doubtful.
Classical leftism must be before Marx, under your scheme, I suppose.
Anarchists, certainly.
An additional note: in regard to this subject, a publication called "In These Times" has another side of the question. They seem to be conservatively liberal. There are some errors in article, but it's a widespread point of view and we should let a bit of misinformation stop us. URL is https://inthesetimes.com/article/former-left-right-fascism-capitalism-horseshoe-theory and is worth perusing if only for humor. I think we could call them "Atlanticists".
They aren't left; they are far right-wing unpaid propagandists for the war machine. They pretend to take the "good" side in the political theater of good cop vs. bad cop which is simply a distraction by the duopoly. They are too weak-minded to realize they've been had. Or, as the theory of cognitive dissonance holds, it is too painful to admit they fell for the con. But they certainly are not 'left' of anything.
Same.
Rob .... I see many "Substackers" like you and myself commenting here, and like all of you I look at this attempted purge with incredulity. I, too, am a long time subscriber of The Atlantic, but it seems they have lost their journalistic compass.
One of the reasons I joined Substack was the freedom to write what I want, when I want, without the intrusion of censorious inquisitors. Moreover, I've enjoyed the bonds forged with other writers and podcasters who, like you, are exercising their right to express themselves, exchange ideas, and share the interests we have in common. Keep your voice strong, Rob ... and the same for all the rest of you.
The Atlantic was the last one I cancelled. That was about 3-4 years ago, but before that, I don't remember not getting it. I remember stacks of mags in my office, I didn't want to toss them. Amazing! Now I send insulting letters to journalists.
The only magazine or paper I now keep back issues of is County Highway.
I just got my 1st issue, and you read my mind. I'll be saving them too.
One of the things I most like is just the tactile sensation of holding a newspaper. Matt had mentioned in an earlier article of his experiences when living in Boston. My first experience of living in America, I’m English, was four years in Boston in the early 1980s. On Sunday mornings I would go to my local store and get the Sunday edition of the NYT and the Boston Globe. On Sunday evening I would take the red line to Harvard square and visit Out of Town news, a kiosk which carried newspapers and magazines from all over the world. There I could get that days copies of the British newspapers so I would usually get the Sunday Telegraph and the Sunday Mirror. Then around the corner to the Inman square Mens bar to read the football reports in the Mirror and the rugby reports in the Telegraph over a couple of beers. Now I had my reading for the rest of the week sorted out.
I picked up a newspaper every morning on my way to work. Coffee and a newspaper to start my day. I opened my County Highway and had a deja vu moment when the odor of news print hit me. It was like comfort food.
a tip of the cap to you sir
@Rob Giunta
I never subscribed to The Atlantic, but my ex NYC girl, semi socialist mother was subscribed to The Atlantic the whole time I was growing up ca. 60s - 70s. They were not so awful back THEN. I looked again more recently- And holly $hit.
Back in the day, The Atlantic was a class act. Sometime recently though, it sold its soul and became just another branch in the Propaganda Arm of the Corporate State. The quality writing and critical thinking disappeared, and had re-emerged in Substack, Locals, X and other alternative news sources.
I have a media budget. I dropped The Atlantic, WaPo, NYT, and The Nation for 5 Substack accounts. If--hasn't happened often--there is something at the ones I've dropped I use my tax-supported library card to read the article.
Not just the Atlantic. I took the New Yorker for ages mainly because it was famous for its fact-checking. I.e., it was trustworthy. Then along came "Russiagate" and "Bashar al-Assad used chemicals on Syrians". The moment I heard those, I knew they were created propaganda by the U.S. , never believed them. The New Yorker fell for both, and to this day has not corrected those lies. Not only that. They hired Masha Gesson who hates Putin to the point she's influenced other staff writers. Had to drop a magazine I used to love. Now I read alternative news sources. The MSM has gone to hell. Warning: don't fall for the latest "vaccine" or the digital ID/CBDC that's about to take us to the ultimate Orwellian nightmare.
Used to love both the New Yorker and the Atlantic. Both are dead to me now. Way to go, eastern urban intellectuals! Soon you’ll be writing to an audience no bigger than your last dinner party.
grew up in rural MW and thought by reading these I'd become sophisticated.
They sure don't make intellectuals like they used to.
I read The Atlantic regularly. Sometimes they actually have good articles. I even read the "woke" stuff to keep up on "how the other side thinks". Plus, it feels so good when I stop.
I actually laughed out loud at "Plus, it feels so good when I stop."
And, I understand that there are sometimes good articles in the Atlantic and other establishment publications. And how good it feels sometimes to silence the 24/7 barrage of war propaganda.
Playboy occasionally had good articles, too . . .
New Yorker is the same way. My wife and I got so sick of the Wokism, and were about to cancel, when they would come out with a good article. Eventually we did cancel...
I couldn’t recover from the highly edited , condescending and aggressive “ interview’ David Remnick did with RFK Jr several months ago. He barely let him finish a sentence . The New Yorker makes me sick
I also read The New Yorker. Like The Atlantic it frequently has good articles, both fiction and non-fiction. For the woke-ish pieces I hold my nose and dig in with gusto. It feels good when I stop, but within a week my warped cravings return, just in time for the next issue. I haven't summoned up the moral fiber to cancel.
I still read the Atlantic headlines, but usually to have a reason to send a letter to the editors. My last one was to put Nostradamus Goldberg in the same league as Punxsutawney Phil.
Substitute Harvard for Stanford and I might have written your comment. Thanking the Universe that I can read such words and recognize there are enough of us that we might still save our republic.
Add University of Washington
Amen
Writers pushing ideology on people? You don't say!
You sound like me Rob. I have an MS Computer Science from Stanford 1985 but am embarrassed as hell by them now. Why do these fucking punks like Katz want to tell me what I can and cannot read? It is all about power. The only think keeping the left alive is the total sham of the Republican party. If the Republicans gave up on the right to life bullshit and just said abortion is fine up to 16-20 weeks or something, then maybe they might win elections occasionally. But no, they have to keep their stupid ideology which allows democrats to gain and maintain power. I blame the right for us having to get force fed the bullshit from the left. the two go hand in hand. The Whacko left and the Stupid right. Whacko beats Stupid everytime.
We should hang out some time. There are a few republicans who are aligned with the 15 week limit. That doesn't get enough press. For example, Nikki Haley is not in favor of abortion, but is willing to yield to the will of the people on that. Frankly, when the Supreme Court sent this issue back to the states, I thought it would produce a spectrum of laws that local citizenry could live with and it has. In NJ a mother can birth a child and still abort before the umbilical cord is cut. In TX, quite the opposite. I am sure that not everyone in either state agrees with the laws there.
Where are you located? I am still in the Bay Area (San Jose). The Democrats didn't like the issue going back to the states, as they wanted the issue to remain alive for fundraising and scare tactics. the Republicans keep falling into Democrat traps. I just read a post from some Republican a few days ago that said he would rather lose elections than give up on his no abortion ideology. I wrote back and said, "well you are getting wish, but in the meantime you are saddling me with whacko democrat ideas about everything, so I guess I consider you the enemy more than democrats." And I meant that. Anyone that picks an ideology that is a clear loser, is just that...a clear loser. I can't take the progressives anymore. I want them gone. If that means I have to battle Republicans too, then so be it.
"Our republic" has been held hostage by creeps like Katz, who dominate all establishment media, for decades. Creeping totalitarianism has no room for democracy or a republic.
I still find reading the Atlantic to be useful. I consider myself somewhere in the pragmatic middle of America with strong libertarian leanings. I hope that reading multiple viewpoints provides greater perspective on truth. Now MSNBC is something that I can only tolerate in small doses as I weary of 100% Trump content.
I find the lack of subtlety in the Atlantic a bar to reading it even to keep up with ruling class opinion. Even the headlines are smug and condescending.
There is no such thing as a rational America. You don't know history, you don't know science, you don't study philosophy you feed your children shit and bullshit and expect to turn shit into wisdom. The gods have not blessed America .nothing but lies from the moment you take your first breath.
John Ralston Saul was twice elected head of PEN International.
His 1994 dictionary.
The Doubter Companion: A dictionary of Aggressive Common Sense is well worth reading Viking Press.
UNITED STATES definition 2. The first great empire since Rome not to see itself as the official reincarnation of Rome, which may mean that unlike the others, it is Rome.
Get a subscription to The Walrus. Today's Issue arrived in the mail.
The front cover says Why women hate the pill.
Inside is some great writing.
Let's talk "ships and sails and sealing wax of carpenters and kings." Lewis Caroll aka Charles Dodgson. My wife went to Chicago when it had an education faculty now it is The Chicago School for imbeciles.
What can I say? I always dreamed of being able to write. It took 70 years the greatest teachers in the world, the internet and a keyboard designed for autistic four you olds to do what I always dreamed of doing. It came at a time where I* have too much of everything and I don't know how much time I have left but my wife and I deserve some rewards. SHE IS ONE HELL OF A TEACHER AND PHILOSOPHER and deserves whatever time is left to just sit and study philosophy she doesn't belong in the kitchen except to make my only cup of coffee every day. She listens to Mozart, Bach and Vivaldi and reads the books no longer read in America and the w=orks of America's greatest living philosopher Kinky Friedman. How Kinky can anyone get? Being Canadian I am partial to John Ralston Saul.
The decline of the universities has been one of the worst outcomes of the leftist lunacy. I was once a proud alum of Princeton, but I resigned in 2020 when the university announced it had become racist. I don't miss them at all. They and almost every other "elite" educational institution have become embarrassments. The Ivy League Clown show in Congress this week only solidified that conclusion. How did such mediocrities come to positions of power there? The rot begins at the top and won't stop until competent decent human beings are put back in charge.
I think these presidents are competent. They are, however, woefully indoctrinated in hating America, the greatest force for good in the history of mankind, flaws and all. Their ideology is not a secret yet they continue in their careers (it's god to be tenured). But I agree that the university rot runs deep and cannot be allowed to fester further.
I don't think an indoctrinated university president can be competent. An open mind is a prerequisite to self-doubt required for mastery of anything. Perhaps at best they are competent mediocrities emblematic of their institutions.
"Are their parents still doing their laundry?" I just shot an entire Coke Zero out my nose.
The way Coke keeps raising their prices it might’ve been better if you’d been drinking gasoline. ; )
Have you seen the price of gasoline?
I have and I’m convinced the store brand cola I’m now mixing with my rum and lime must contain at least a little.
Have you seen the price of a bottle!?😳
2.99 today for regular here in VA. I was surprised it was so low. Probably won’t last..
$2.39 this morning here...only about 48% higher than when Uncle Joe took office
I blame Putin...and Big Oil...and greedy gas station owners working on about a 3% margin
I blame the sanctions. Mostly I blame Zombie POTUS and the party apparatchiks that make him dance.
Don't worry. Sleepy Uncle Joe is going to ferret out the evil price-gougers and all will be well.
Uncle Joe is only worried about the price gougers when he heard the price of a blizzard was going up at DQ
Haha took me a second…
Yes
He was just embellishing his cover if Katz is reading.
I don’t know his stuff but he seems like a right proper weenie douchebag
The way Coke went woke it's a good thing you got rid of it ...
Is Coke going to make things better and come out with Diet Woke??
The word "diet" is fat-phobic. Instead, Coke is going to call it Trans Coke.
As an aside to this, earlier today sent me a link to a survey after I expressed that I had enjoyed one of their offerings. The very first questions was what gender I identified as. I stopped at that point.
Because it "identifies" ... ... ??
Man, Substack needs a “trophy” function. This is definitely trophy-worthy, Mick! I can’t wait to ask someone if they want Coke or Trans Coke.
Hey if I can have my Woke without the danger of going up any more pant sizes, I'll take it
Is it true they still put wocaine in Woke? "Aksing for a 'friend'".
Yea, but without the active ingredient
;-)
Isn’t bottled water more expensive than gasoline?
The marketing scam did the water industry wonders.
And the sh*t doesn't even taste like it used to, which is why we no longer buy it.
It would have been cheaper to have the powdered form of Coke go in the other direction.
Considering their behavior, I don't think that anyone (and anyone of them) is doing their laundry, an activity performed by sane people.
Christmas came early, and it's lovely!
How can you knock parents doing the kids laundry after the last Tommy Cutlets performance beating the Packers?
I'm torn between this one and "Katz, destined to be eulogized as a parrot on the shoulder of Received Wisdom". Both great lines.
I was drinking coffee-fortunately none came out my nose. But I had the same reaction. Last paragraph summed it up brilliantly! Where do these people come from and why are they so much smarter then the rest of us? The hubris exposed over the past few years is shocking.
Martin, I’m “too white to drink Coke” but I had a hearty laugh too. Good one, Matt!!!
This was a fun read; I laughed out loud numerous times:
"Substack survived an “exodus” of about five writers..."
If Jonathan Katz is really a stunning and brave reincarnation of Simon Wiesenthal he has plenty of flesh-and-blood Jew haters he can go confront right now—they are out in force in the Harvard library, at his local Antifa/DSA meetings, at all the various protests popping up in NYC and LA, and even nearby to where he shops at Zabars, standing out front or a few stops uptown at Columbia.
Since of course he will never do this, I have no choice but to think he's not only a scold and censor, he's a coward too.
Yeah...it's so weird. Nitwit such as Katz really pick some odd battles. Makes one wonder.....
To be an official member of our "elite thinking" class means that under no circumstances must you actually do any thinking....you just become a loyal attack dog for the official Narrative, which in this case still means "Nazis on the internet are destroying Our Democracy™", even when the action is now out on the streets. The last thing our thinking classes want to do is leave their virtual world of virtual battles for the real world, they prefer to hide behind their screens and let other people do the fighting.
This is on target. I saw an interview of an undergrad 'reporter' from the Harvard Crimson being asked about coverage of Gay, et al. It was astonishing to hear (and see!) the way the situation was talked about, along with the 'newspeak' aspect of the language being used. It's pure and utter indoctrination of these kids....and not in the name of doing anything 'good' for anyone, but in a wholly self serving aspect. Truly a cult.
Exactly! You either _are_ that loyal dog, or you _act_ so much like one that no one can tell the difference. For the pretenders who are really "into it", I'm curious how the stats break down on primary motivations:
Is it mostly fear of losing livelihood, friends, status?
Is it mostly opportunism, seeking enhanced livelihood, friendships and status?
Is it mostly hostility, venting anger on people online?
Is it mostly tribalism, feeling stronger by identifying with a dominant group?
Or is it mostly sadism, actually getting pleasure from causing losses of livelihood, friends and status to others?
From my perch in the Blue Bubble, I'd say it's all of these things in certain proportions depending upon the person, but all of it is intensely enforced by smartphones and Twitter, which work like a lynch mob in your pocket, letting you know constantly what the proper tribal dogma and vocab is and what the penalties are for disobedience.
Trying to be brief, I'd say that liberals have painted themselves into various corners—moral, epistemic, geographic, cultural—and this has created and enforces an intense cult-like form of groupthink and tribalism, where they've all convinced each other that anyone not on their team is a dangerous benighted bigot who needs to be ostracized and condemned, and if you refuse to treat them as such you're just as bad as them and deserve a similar fate.
It feels very fear-based to me, esp among the journalist and thinking classes, who police each other and are terrified of saying anything contrary to their side's Narrative, as this could be a hanging offense. (Also, these people punish each other not just professionally but personally too: get the stink of heretic on you and not only do you lose your job and employment opportunities, but friends and associates too, which can also hurt your spouse and kids too—if you are morally polluted and they live with you, they become morally polluted too).
I think we are approaching “Lord of the Flies” time.
The circular firing squad is real.
Yes!!!
D. All of the above.
And his boss is in a panic that Trump may win in 2024.
The prime objective of controlling the narrative is to control the elections.
I suspect that his boss actually wants DJT to be elected. It would be a windfall.
Same as the bien pensants before the Russian revolution. It was about thinking the correct thoughts, not about thinking well.
I can't decide if we're at the Nihilist phase or the Bolshevik phase, I guess the next year or so will answer the question.
Im not familiar with these phases (they both sound accurate to my middle brow thinking) but I would say in regard to the Harvard situation if the board stands firm behind Gay and Ackman (an activist shareholder advocate who is a tenacious fighter) keeps fighting, it will get very interesting. I am not sure if I have a dog in the fight* but I definitely have my popcorn ready.
* If this is just about anti-Semitism and making sure the protected classes cover that, this is a waste of time. it seems Ackman is recognizing the full on rot he and his friends have been supporting for years and wants things to change. If that is the case i am in full support.
...how much he is paid to be the leader of such a BS battle? ( and who pays him)
Seems to be going around lately, lots of people are wanting others to fight battles they are unwilling to engage in themselves.
Oh dear, the midwits at The Atlantic are having a sad!
What ever happened this time, did Taibbi start hijacking people's browsers and forcing them to read Racket News again?
Is Lee Fang holding solid citizens' children hostage until they read his articles, so naughty?!?
I just woke up and it was my default start page! Then straps came out of my chair and wouldn't let me go until I read the whole thing!
Same with me! I even was forced to read the Comments!
Turn off the music Racket you're ruining the Ludwig Van!!!
This.
With censorship, it’s always about who gets the power to evaluate, not what’s being censored. The choice isn’t between getting rid of a few obvious Nazis, or not. It’s between giving someone like Jonathan Katz, or a bunch of Jonathan Katzes, sweeping power over content or not. Americans have always understood the second danger to be scarier, for good reason.
A lot of truth to that. The Katzes of this world don't so much want to be censors so as much as they want to be gatekeepers. Substack gives them the vapors because they don't get to decide any more.
This power is addictive, and when they lose it (X) or want it (Substack), they still crave it. Send them to Rehab!!!!
And a good therapist...
Do you suppose people like Katz were hall monitors in junior high school, and never got over it coming to an end?
Quite possible..they sure do identify with authority.
I actually went to Andons Reich Press after hearing of this Katz fellas call to censor nazis on substack. The article I perused, maybe a few weeks old had 6 likes and 1 comment. It seems the only nazi problem on substack is that nobody is all the interested in reading what they have to say. I’d venture to guess that Katz has the same issue here as well.
Amazing how hard people like Katz will dig for Nazi content, hmm?
Makes one wonder.
Maybe Katz should go looking for Antifa arsonists.... much easier to find. Ah, but no - their rage is "justified".
You said that right… After having two houses burned I wish someone would ⚔️👍
And yet not a peep re: the hullabaloo with Uni Adminstators. One wonders, indeed.
Its projection at its worst
...wonder--who is telling him this is a hill to die on--hmmm usual suspects
Which is harder to find: A real, rightwing NAZI or a KKK rally? The SPLC HAD to branch out to keep the donations coming in when they ran out of KKK members to denounce. Getting hooked up with Lefty Corporations as their go-to designators of hateful organizations and speech was a stroke of evil genius!
Not a whole lot more likes or comments on Katz substack defending his position either
He prob. has some #resistance boomer fans.
Be off with you Jonathan.....what you’re peddling can be found anywhere now. It’s sad, like an aging beauty queen, longing for her halcyon days and not realizing that the lipstick she keeps selecting calls out her advancing years and sell by date.
aka Madonna.
Oh she’s special......never a matriarch always a transhuman maiden......a dystopian woman if there ever was one.
C'mon man! 80's Madonna earned her superstar status...held on toooo long, but won't deny her her flowers.
You’re a kind soul. Better person than me.
At least her reedy, insubstantial voice wasn't auto tuned. And I once got $50 for painting a picture of her for my housemate. So there's that.
A superstar who leaned heavily on her sexual power as a young desirable woman. No wonder she can’t let go
She looks like she no longer has a neck. Like her head is just plopped between her shoulders. So weird. And her head is huge. Ew.
Oh that's cold. But true.
Oh so cruelly correct.
We should say to Katz what Elon told the advertisers...Go F@&! Yourself!
Or John Kerry's recent utterance .."PPffffft"
Maybe "PPfffft" is a greenhouse gas. Given the author and all.
These people don't or won't realize how "irrelevant" they are. (I wish Taibbi cud debate Katz! I'd love to witness a FaceOff between the 2 of them. I bet Katz wud become hysterical and super self righteous (and ir condescending) while Matt wud just plod onward while grinning from ear to ear.)
Unfortunately for Katz in a battle of wits he’s an unarmed man.
that's y it wud be so entertaining, for me, atleast.
Kinda like the DeSantis / Newsom debate.
That wasn't a debate. It was a debacle. Ron was landing punches while Gavin could not decide whether he was Gore, Kerry or Trudeau. The sandbox was still intact when they were finished.
Very well-said. Newsom’s inability to engage on a substantive level was astonishing really. It doesn’t speak well of the American voter. In a country of 340m talented people, we vote for these superficial grifters.
The last time I read an article in The Atlantic I was convinced that the author and editors had eaten a fresh batch of magic mushrooms and downed half a bottle of cheap amphetamines.
I've noticed--after the fresh air of the journalism on Substack--that I have a literal physical reaction when I encounter the depth of a thimble blathering of the MSM. They seem totally pathological. Or, as if I'm peering into a room at the inhabitant of an insane asylum.
I think we all may be reaching a point where our personal trust in the integrity of those subscription journalists we choose to support might allow us to emotionally "let go" of so called legacy media altogether. Journalists here leave me informed about things others have no idea of and I'm always for the most part two weeks to a month ahead of news and events in general.
And, of course as an added bonus I get to rant and opine at will.
I feel hopeful that "we the people" are at long last beginning to enjoy the objective truth/fact based journalism and the healthy national conversation the American Republic deserves.
This is what the bad cat calls the reputation economy.
Three years ago, we had no idea we needed to completely rebuild the industry from the ground up -- but now we do.....and it's going pretty well so far.
I broke the MSM habit about four years ago. It took a little effort but got easier by the day. Now that I realize that they derive 70-80% of their advertising revenue from the pharmaceutical industry I know I made the correct choice.
Years ago I took a medical terminology course in college. The phrase you’re thinking of is called “emesis”. The physical and uncontrollable act of vomiting.
Thank you Sir!!;-)
Well at least you found your emetic Mike.
Well spoken, friend. Totally agree.
I subscribed to the Atlantic for a number of years, but 2 years ago I came to the conclusion that I could more wisely spend my money and time elsewhere. I then opted to subscribe to The Epoch Times and seek out Substack and Locals. I realized that I could then read articles by progressives who were HONEST and not be beholden to the corrupt leftist ideology which allows chumps like Katz to claim more authoritarianism is what this country needs. May you drown in your own vommit Mr Katz.
The Atlantic to Epoch Times is quite a turn. I think you skipped over several degrees of nuance. Try the Free Press. just a suggestion
Something I don't understand about Epoch: Apparently they were set up by the CIA, or with CIA help. Also, aren't they the house organ of Falun Gong? Both of those make me wonder about them having become the default voice of Medical Freedom and sanity. Is this house built on sand?
I read the epoch. They do have some questionable views and sensationalism about medical issues. They also have articles that are very well written and objective. Something you don't see at all in the NYT and sadly, less and less in the news part of the WSJ.
We subscribe to the Epoch Times, and are glad it offers a range of viewpoints as well as a number of useful columns.
I get its physical news paper, never read it, it's now a 5' tall stack for posterity. Some of their TV is good, like their interviews.
Hey, print newspapers are great to have on hand. Good for the bottom of chick brooders, makes a decent weed barrier in the garden or around trees with bark mulch over it...
The Wall Street Journal shed their journalistic integrity at the time of Covid, Jan 6, and the cultural mainstreaming of all that is moronic downstream of morally bankrupt postmodernism (critical theory, DEI, intersectionality, BLM, trans/nonbinary gender religion, ...)
The WSJ enthusiastically signed up to have their news and editorial content controlled by the vile "Trusted News Initiative". At that moment, the WSJ decided that the facts, and the story that emerged from them, were no longer sacred. In that decision, the WSJ committed their journalistic souls to a new (trigger warning) master: a groupthink narrative that is, ironically, defined and driven by their economic and political enemies.
Really WSJ, you thought it best to collude with, rather than compete with, your anti-Western peers at the BBC? "Yes," said the WSJ, abandoning its readers and jumping in the pool with such sneering and stupid woke thought-control publications as the NYT and WaPo. The WSJ decided that its readers were too stupid to be allowed to consider the possibility that not every damn syllable that escaped the maws of Fauci, Pfizer, and the CCP were necessarily true. Today, TNI control extends beyond Covid into foreign policy, domestic politics, and even WSJ's slant on financial news.
The WSJ also censors discussion on its website comment board, controlling the conversations readers have amongst themselves. For example, the previous paragraph would be blocked by WSJ moderators because it hints that not everything the TNI forced down our throats has turned out to be anywhere close to the truth.
Racket News and/or Public will no doubt soon prove what has been apparent since 2020, which is that the humorously-named TNI is just as integral in the interlocking, authoritarian web woven by the Censorship Industrial Complex as, for example, The Virality Project.
Thank heaven for Matt Taibbi.
I heard about 15 years ago that a Saudi prince owned about 20% of WSJ's stock.
That's why I read it. The WSJ has been my MSM paper of choice, but I have found its news section disappointing for two years or so. I get it for $1 a week now, and will never again pay the $30 plus per month they charge
The WSJ has long been three newspapers in one. It’s a reliable source for stock, bond, and interest rate data as long as you use it as a data source rather than rely on their articles about companies and the economy that their advertisers drive. The second part is their “news” reporting, especially their political reporting from Washington, DC. This is as liberal and biased as any you will find in the NY Times or the Washington Post. The third part is their editorial section, an amalgam of Bush Republicanism with a sprinkling of Libertarianism. It’s a much cheaper version of a Bloomberg machine for people interested in market data.
@David 1260
Re: the CIA startup Epoch Times confusingly taking center stage in what you perceive as (more or less) "anti USA establishment" venues?
There is nothing new about the CIA trying to "front run" trends and get in on the ground floor of any developing movement, all the better to monitor, neuter or subvert to their own ends as they might need down the line.
Opposition groups will inevitably develop, it is more efficient if the most visible OpFors are actually YOUR OWN cultivated creatures, not some feral (and possibly impenetrable!) entity. See the CIA providing protection, weaponry and the startup funding for ISIS and our military inexplicably freeing their founders from Abu Graib prison in Iraq?
See the YEARS of Israeli funding and intelligence support for Hamas vs. the PLO, with Mossad essentially starting up Hamas to counter the secular, socialist (and intractable) PLO? Those "assets" they developed are now cashing in at a good return.
And way, way back when the CIA was young and officially forbidden to operate INSIDE USA, the CIA either founded (or hijacked at near their time of origin?) the good old National Students Association! Apparently they needed a tame student opposition/Vietnam war protesting movement of their own to compete with the more organically grown (and socialist derived) Students for a Democratic Society. The SDS later splintered and spun off a small group calling themselves "The Weathermen", you may recall them from a number of bombings in the 60s & 70s?
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/cias-student-activism-phase/
I would bet good money that SEVERAL ostensibly anti empire Substacks, Telegram channels & etc. are paid for or run directly by our 3 letter agencies.
And there was the singing group that went around the western world - started in the Eisenhower admin and when I joined was doing shows at USOs. "Up With People". It certainly was not anti-Vietnam war.
South Park performed an excellent piss take of Up With People.
@Shelley
Kind of like being a Mouskateer for NATO?
Cracked me up.
When I told my father I had joined UWP he only said geez, that's a commie group.
When your gig is sabotage you hold your friends close and your enemies closer.
If only...
Don't forget the box of wine they washed it down with.
It’s the Atlantic. Very posh, only the best amphetamines.
Well, middling…sort of a Merlot…
Yes. And 10,000 words to do it.
It started with the legitimization of the ridiculous term, "hate speech." There is no such thing as hate speech. Just speech. You may hate what someone says, but so what? Argue or ignore. No one has to support your delusions, agree with you, or even like you. All the laws and policies regarding this bullshit term are unconstitutional. Same goes for "hate crime." The laws need to apply to everyone EQUALLY. That's why the sybols for justice include scales and blindfolds. No extra points for "special" folks.
I’m with you on hate speech, but I think hate crime is a thing, where, in addition to the direct victims, identified groups are singled out and threatened (should be a high bar to assert).
That's just CRIME, whether you threaten an individual or a group. But the threat has to be credible. Hurt feelings don't count. Stating you don't agree with or even protest what a person, group, or country does also is not a crime. BUT if you declare you're going to commit a violent act against them, or instruct others to do so, THAT'S A BIG MF CRIME. Always was, always will be.
I get the sentiment but basic question:
If you curb stomp someone, or you chain 'em to the bumper of a truck and drag them to death, what the fuck difference does your "motivation" make?
If you beat random strangers for "reasons"....welp, fuck ya. Enjoy accommodations at the Concrete Motel.
No need to make "special" crimes.
I’m here to learn, but for the sake of argument, what if someone credibly claims (I.e., they’ve assaulted before) that they will attack the next 5 xxxxxxs they see, should that be legal?
If it's a credible threat, as in "I'm gonna kill the next 5 _ I see!", then it's currently NOT LEGAL and they can (and should) be arrested.
It is and needs to remain legal to hate someone based on their characteristics. Not because this is a desirable thing, but because for the state to get involved in judging sentiment is for the state to start deciding who can and can’t be disliked. That’s an invitation to exploitation.
The feds’ definition of hate crime seems reasonable as far as it goes but there’s nothing there which isn’t already covered by the concept of civil or human rights. The issue is, there’s more in civil and human rights than is included in “hate crime”. Hate crime is defined by group membership and the examples given are all of member(s) of subaltern groups being violently attacked by member(s) of groups that, it’s implied, are subaltern groups. Everyone, however, has civil rights and human rights. Hate crime weakens the concept and case law of civil rights by adding a layer of rules that can be applied to a crime first, so that civil rights don’t need to be applied as a test. Meanwhile hate crimes aren’t understood to be committed against dominant groups by minorities. They can be, of course, but good luck finding that understanding uniformly in general society. Trial by jury of peers should be able to defend the interests of the victim as well as apply the law evenly to the accused. The concept of hate crime makes this less likely just due to its inherent bias.
And then there’s this: “Bias or Hate Incident: Acts of prejudice that are not crimes and do not involve violence, threats, or property damage.” It’s simply unacceptable to legally discriminate against sentiment in this way. As everyone has surely noticed, acts of prejudice against the (scant) majority in America are incredibly common these days. Acts of prejudice against white women, at once a majority and a minority, are accepted by most to be amusing and entertaining, socially beneficial even. It’s clear that the law doesn’t consider this to be a hate or bias incident. Yet the same behavior against a minority could and would be swiftly punished. “Hate crime or act” doesn’t apply equally. But if the only legal option available were “civil rights violation”, when the law were applied unequally, everyone would be able to immediately recognize it. “Hate crime or act” undermines the constitution.
Oh, forgot to include this. https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/learn-about-hate-crimes
Please read the link that I added downthread. We are not just talking about crimes we are also talking about "bias and hate incidents" which the Justice dept specifically says are not crimes, but still feels justified in adjudicating, based on this idea that feelings can be prosecuted.
When you say that you don't understand the complaint because law enforcement and prosecutors can be biased, you're saying that in order to solve problem A, we need to add a solution to a different problem, which comes with its own set of problems and which also weakens the very structures which could be used to solve problem A (the problem of bias). You don't solve individual lapses into bias by introducing another form of bias.
Yes, this way one person can take a server full of classified information, for example, and walk, while another person will be prosecuted because we can judge their intent. Those with pure hearts, like the witch that doesn't float, are pardoned..
Of course that is all patent nonsense, but it allows us to make some excuse according to our politics where in pre-Clown world fewer people would fall for that.
If you killed me I'm not sure if I'd mind extra that you hated me prior.
PREACH IT, BROTHER!!
Ah, Jonathan Katz, one of the Good White Men (tm Freddie DeBoer). Who shall now come to our rescue by deliberately searching for a handful of Substacks with almost no readership and declare we have a problem that only he can solve.
(I don't like the term "white savior" but in Katz's case, it fits.)
It's the White Moron's Burden.
🤣
Funny u mention deBoer...finding myself getting somewhat fed up with his stuff of late
Yeah, his behavior in his own comments section finally made me unsubscribe; spent the money to subscribe to The Free Press and never looked back
Is anyone else noticing a trend, when your opinion is not mainstream, you're deemed a "Nazi." I was just informed today, that I'm in a "cult," for supporting women's sex based rights, on the site for high minded intellectuals known as Instagram. This is while the president of Harvard supports a (literally) Nazi inspired, barbaric sex cult known as Hamas, backed by our CAUCASIAN enemies: the Iranian government as the left's youth are changing in the streets for the genocide of Jews. As a person who had a Jewish Grandfather who lived through WW2 Europe, and who's Mother and I (had I been alive at the time) would have been labeled "Mischling" by the Nazi's and burned along with them, I find this offensive and absurd. I wish these authoritarians wold get a real job, and let free speech be.
There is also the slight problem that most of the views these dipshits associate with Nazis these days are things most of the men who fought the Nazis believed in. Read the Bible? Check! Believe in nation states? Check? Think there are only two sexes? Check! Think the Bill of Rights means something? Checkmate! My grandpa almost got his balls blown off by German flack, so I am more than a little pissed when they start pulling "Nazi" out of their ass.
I think that’s the problem...no one wants to hire them...except government-aligned censors, I suppose.
Sadly, that's a rapidly growing sector of the economy.
Unfortunately gubmint hiring is always up...but our betters indicate that it helps the tax base
GDP UP!
Dig into the monthly jobs report the Fed cares about, and you will find government hiring (all levels) a significant contributor to job growth.
Unfortunately for them the demand is greater than the supply.
They are the kind that make good Gestapo's on the airlines, keeping passengers in line.
We the sane Americans need to reclaim our place as “ mainstream”. I think we are indeed just that
Bullies are always the minority. The silent majority goes along with the bullies out of fear of being silenced , job loss, disbarment. If we can reclaim that silent majority somehow to push back on the woke religious cult sanity could once again prevail. There has to be away.
The silent majority doesn't go along out of fear. We just had other things to worry about...until it became too much.
The push back has already begun.
I wish they would get a functioning brain.
I love it when you get snarky, Matt. Made me laugh out loud! My husband looked up. I explained it was just something Matt wrote. Still giggling.
This is why I subscribe to what you write, Matt. You're standing up for the rest of us against these authoritarian asswipes determined to tell the rest of us how to think, or else. Keep it up, friend. We're with you.
Seems to me that this (ahem) staggering intellect and their pro-censorship collaborators may wish to confine their hunt for Nazis to the one they see every morning while brushing their teeth.