People should not be under any illusions of anyone who works within the democratic party. Their job is to uphold the billionaire/millionaire economic system.
Yes, Susan there is; my state’s Rep. Rashida who has fought endlessly against supporting the Ziofilth Regime (presently being the only Palestinian-American in Congress, although Michigan also holds the distinction of another: former US Rep. Justin Amash, before he retired.)
I’m proud of MY STATE for having elected the individuals mentioned above ( Amash was from quite a conservative district, btw.) AIPAC can spend a $billion trying to unseat Rashida and it ain’t gonna happen; her constituents, primarily Black, know better, because of how she’s fought for them. You shitheads in St. Louis let Cori Bush get primaried by an AIPAC candidate.
So when the REST of you motherfucking Amerikkkans gonna say FUCK THE LIKES of AOC and start electing some REAL antigenocide candidates?
FUCK AIPAC; FUCK ISRAHELL; FUCK AOC and her phony-ass ilk.
For the discussion about Sanders. There's a transcript here where Joti Brar of Britain excoriates Jeremy Corbyn and accuses him of betraying Labor.
Keir Starmer is now the Labor PM and if you've been paying attention, is totally screwing things up. He continues to push for war with Russia, not a proxy war, real war.
Sanders and Corbyn seem to be two peas in a pod. The truth is that the Anglo-American Oligarchy (which is dominated by "Jewish Supremacists" and the "Jewish Mafia", although saying "Jewish" in each case diverts attention from other Oligarchs and criminals) cooperates with the Deep State (as defined by Aaron Good) to push for hegemony. The politicians dance to their tune.
I mean my interpretation of your response is that you basically said "water isn't wet".
Are you a Corbyn supporter or a Sanders supporter? What's the difference between them? Is it the nature of the US election process vs the English process? (just guessing here)
Anyway, you can make a declaration like you have, but no one cares. Fill it out and explain why.
Jewish Supremicists are Zionists. Jews who do not consider themselves supreme beings are just Jews. Like Christians who are not Zionists are just Christians.
Finkelstein says he no longer uses the term "Zionist" to describe the people he opposes.
Zionists presupposes this group supports Israel. That isn't really true. Israel is just the proxy used by the Anglo-American Oligarchy to spread chaos and fear throughout the Middle East.
A lot of people don't see the distinction.
It is extremely difficult to understand the difference.
He tried to hold on as long as he could. Then they told him, "We will destroy you; you will lose everything." At his age, I don't blame him for folding.
One could make the case for Bernie Sanders being 'controlled opposition'. He seems to be a more complex character, possibly stuck in-between two worlds? I really used to like him in tha past, but ever since Oct 7th 2023 (and a few times before that when he cowardly caved to the demands of the Democratic Party), I think quite differently of him now.
When he immediately echoed pinhead Biden, calling the Russian invasion of Ukraine “unprovoked,” it was clear as a bell that he would spin any propaganda required to protect the party that he so passionately sought to change from within. He calls himself a friggin socialist, he honeymooned in Moscow, but seems to be shit-scared of uttering any truth that would be construed as confronting the DP.
Ralph Nader opted to retain his dignity over a moment of basking in the spotlight, only to be played as a kook or a fool. Sanders is a sellout, and that is his legacy.
It is well known, and has been for years, that Sanders and his new bride Jane traveled to the USSR in 1988. It probably wasn’t technically a “honeymoon,” but he joked that it was.
I have known Bernie since meeting him through a friend teaching in Vermont 1993. Bernie is very bright make no mistake, very, very bright. I think he was a genuine Socialist part way through the 2016 race and then folded. I what I heard was, Bernie didn't want to be Ralph Nader who people from the campaign whispered to him more and more. I agree with you, once turned as an agent of the evil empire all trust is lost. I say that after 4800$ and many hours of work. Damn, if only I was a smart person : )
Bernie has been my Congressman in the US House, and later, US Senate for decades. Here in Vermont (as in 20-some other states) we do not affiliate with any party when we register to vote, thus Bernie was (and is), by default, an independent. However he *never* ran as an independent in either of his two presidential bids. He is smart enough to realize that he would have had zero chance of winning as an independent.
When he launched his presidential campaign in 2016 (and again later in 2020) he jumped thru the hoops put before him to run as a democrat. One of which was to actively support their presidential nominee, if someone other than himself. The DNC, and a complicate press, screwed him over royally, but despite that, he very nearly won the nomination in 2016, a remarkable feat.
During both of Bernie's campaigns, he opened up public awareness to the oligarch takeover of this country. Before that, the general public did not understand the root cause of their struggles. If he accomplished nothing else, he did this.
It's hard to know what he might have accomplished had he won the WH. I think it would be most likely that the powers-that-be would have eliminated him JFK style.
I am friends with someone that teaches at Stratton mountain. So I have know Bernie since 1993. I disagree with you, Bernie running as an independent in 2016 would have easily split the vote between to hated candidates. That race was the only race he could have won of the two. When I knocked doors for Bernie 2015 , Trump voters in my State told me they would vote for Bernie if he was on the ballot. They hated Hitlery.
I still have an email written by Bernie, on AOL hahaha.
He is one of the few to vote against shoveling money to Israel with no accountability. It is disappointing however that he will not oppose Israel's basic right to exist.
Progressive, except for Palestine. A shameful double standard when someone says that a genocide is taking place but actively collaborate to it, not by looking away, not by closing the eyes, but by sending weapons to the genocidal government. Offensive or defensive, a Byzantine discussion in the middle of a raging holocaust. AOC clearly underestimates the intelligence of the American public.
First of all, to my knowledge, Bernie never lived in Israel, he may have gone there as a teenage for the Jewish "rite of passage trip", although I doubt it as he came from a relatively poor family. He worked in a sawmill to earn money for college. And a honeymoon in Russia? You sound MAGA to me, that's always their comment about Bernie.
Also, Francesca Albanese is constantly asked the same thing. What are you going to say? The fact is, it does exist and anyone who says it doesn't deserve to exist is going to take a lot of shit for that comment. I loathe Israel. I'm 70 and I've known about the heinous actions against the Palestinians since I was a young teenager, because I had Palestinians who were our neighbors and schoolmates. My parents raised my siblings and I staunchly Pro-Palestinian.
Also remember that immediately after 10/07 everyone hated Hamas, because those horrible lies about them made by Netanyahu. "Beheaded babies, babies baked in ovens, rapes of Israeli women DURING the attack, all a bunch of lies made to get sympathy for Israel. Meanwhile the truth is Netanyahu set up 10/07 by giving millions of dollars to Hamas over the years and by calling away the IDF for 6 hours that day. Later the same day, he had the IDF kill 200 survivors of the attack so there would be no witnesses. I watched a clip on YT where an IDF soldier described to his girlfriend how it felt to behead an 8 months old Palestinian infant.He was "shocked that the head didn't come off as easily as he had expected.
The lies of Oct 7th are still being pushed by Bernie Sanders. He has anti-genocide protesters forcibly removed from the oligarchy tour, instead of allowing a Palestinian flag to be displayed in the crowd. He’s a rabid Zionist, and it’s not something that is in question.
He lived in a kibbutz, which was built on stolen Palestinian land in the 60’s, for a few months.
Why the fuck would MAGA say this about him?
You sound like a shitlib, because this is exactly what they say every time.
I fear the american people and jews have forgotten they were once strangers in a strange land. They never lived up to their supposed ideals, but they were meant to at least try to be better. Now is the time of monsters. Maybe it always has been.
I love his campaign so far. However, I have been disappointed in the past by people who looked better than him. Bernie, a civil rights activist tops them all.
We should support him until he sells his soul to the devil.
Follow the money. Some MPs are bought so cheaply they could do a few dozen at a time and still save money. What is so exciting about getting an Israeli donation/bribe of $1,500, is it a weekly donation, fortnightly, monthly, yearly or a one off?
On my age pension I get from one fortnight to the next by a thread but I would not cross the road to lose honour for a paltry $1,500 no matter how much it would help. So what the hell is wrong with these people who are on a much higher salary than most, that they can be bought on the cheap?
The answer to your question can be found in a classic scene on the TV series, "Dallas". In the dialogue, oil baron J.R. Ewing (played by Larry Hagman), proposes to win the bidding for some offshore drilling rights by deceit:
J.R.: Ahem. Let me see, what did I want to talk about? Oh, yeah. Um, I got to thinking, it’s getting very close to auction time for those offshore leases. [Begins cutting food] And it occurred to me, I ought to find out who I’m going to be bidding against. So who filed intention to bid? [He puts a forkful of food into his mouth and chews. Edgar is silent.] Edgar, who filed intention to bid?
EDGAR: Intentions to bid were filed by Westar, Four State, your company and Barnes/Wentworth.
J.R.: There, that wasn’t so hard, was it? My second question is: Who has actually placed bids? Which one of those?
EDGAR: Everyone bid but Westar, Barnes and Ewing.
J.R.: All right. Next, I want a phone call from you when Westar and Barnes make their bid. We’ll have a meeting and you tell me what the highest bid is — and I’ll hand you mine.
EDGAR: [Leans forward] I don’t see how you can live with yourself.
J.R.: Oh, it’s not hard. You’ll see. Once you give up integrity, the rest is a piece of cake. [Chuckles]
Thank you, excellent! When there is a genocide planned or in progress, it is the duty of all nations to end it, even if it requires direct involvement. Only Yemen has the fortitude so far. Shame on all others.
True, but 'duty' is a 'nice-to-have' principle for TPTB that run most nations of the world. In reality, 'duty' seems to matter little - whether in the context of 'geopolitcs' or 'business' (i.e. corporations, etc.)
Actually, it's international law, but that also carries little weight these days, what with the Empire of the West (NATO, orange menace, etc.) flailing about in hopefully its death throes.
International Law is MEANINGLESS without the 'enforcement' component. Also, how much of 'International Law' is really international and not just 'Western nations Law'?
Laws are all well and good, but often when the rubber meets the road, history shows us that 'any law - international or otherwise' takes a backseat/subservient position to the 'forces of power and money'.
I've thought this for a long time. Her attacks against Jill Stein and the green party when it was AOC's party that worked with major media to silence any alternate view of what is possible politically or economically made that clear.
If ever there is waking moment, we, the populations of the West (namely NATO member states), will come to realize our governments are in service to the empire and are more than willing to cannibalize their own nations for the sake of forever wars. We have been conditioned by the narrative of endless propaganda for decades, and Stockholm Syndrome is endemic in our societies.
End Stage Capitalism demands it. We are past the tipping point now. We thought this was ugly, more is coming. I am very worried people think the use of nuclear weapons is an option, people I know who should know better. Run to the Light. The light being the Neutrons scintillating your eye.
🎯💯 Of course she is, I just didn't know HOW MUCH (and I yet may not know the full extent of her duplicitious personality).
CJ>>"Leftists shouldn’t hate AOC less than the politicians to her right, they should hate her much more."
EXACTLY! Thank You for making that clear Caitlin - there are so many unnecessary debates I get embroiled with liberals in (that don't understand that the U.S. Congress DOES NOT HAVE ANY 'left'). The term LEFT has been so abused in the West that MOST people don't even know what it means.
BTW, I ❤️ every word of this article, and people really need to take the effort to understand the multiple narratives that you have dismantled in it. 🙏
She lied at the Democratic Convention when she said Harris had worked tirelessly to resolve the situation in Gaza. Good points in the article. I hadn’t seen covered elsewhere the few who voted for the bill.
I don’t know why anyone is really surprised. All of the “progressive” darlings turn out to be extreme disappointments and they can’t just blame it on republicans but it’s their own deeply held views. Is there a single representative who’s not a Zionist at this point?
I believe that those six congresspersons listed, the ones who voted for that amendment by MTG to restrict that $500 million, are among the few, or maybe the only ones, who do not take AIPAC money.
Thanks for the correction. She has received $2250. When you look at the rest of the GA contingent, including Warnok at almost a million, she's pretty good. There is one other, Andrew Clyde, at the $500 mark, and the winner at 0 is HANK JOHNSON.
I will never understand why Iran didn’t pound Israel into oblivion when the opportunity was there. This ceasefire seems to only benefit the Zionist’s reload and rearmament. Am I missing something?
The general consensus among analysts I pay attention to (well over 20) is that Iran did not want to get nuked by the USA. It would rather maintain the "high ground" of world-wide opinion.
There seems to be some kind of "rule" that a nation like Iran (and every nation other than the US) has to maintain "restraint". They have to slowly ascend the escalatory ladder or they will lose support of world-wide public opinion. (where it isn't quite clear if "public opinion" really is "everyone" or just the leaders/rulers of other nations.)
The meme before the Israeli attack that began the 12-day war, was suppose to be how Iran was a den of evildoers.
After the 12-day war, Iran is "standing up to the evil Jews."
I'll grant that this seems extremely simple-minded, but in so many important issues, "simple-minded" wins. Look at how many people refuse to understand the complexity of the Ukraine war. They insist that history started in February 2022 and "it is all Russia's fault!" Public opinion now divides between the "yes it was" and "no it wasn't" of this question.
Public opinion (which may not be all that "public") is fickle.
Here is an English version of "Women is fickle". Not picking on women here when I post it. It is a famous opera song. I'm sure you've heard it dozens of time. My point is this is also "public opinion"
Yes, the Oligarchy does what it wants to do. They are the only men with agency.
However, they work very, very hard to ensure whatever actions they take is supported by a large portion of the public. Or, as with Obamacare, they hoodwink the public into believing something that isn't true.
This is the purpose of the "No Kings" demonstrations.
The Oligarchy is not monolithic or homogeneous. Note how Trump and Musk have turned on one another. Is it "real" or is it another "fake out"?
>>"The strong do as they wish and care nothing for public opinion."
Au contraire, Feral, 'public opinion' matters a lot (more than most people think). Simply do a search on terms like "the impact of public opinion on policy making", or "how public opinion changed the course of history", etc.
I so agree, and yet, gasp, two of my favorite renditions of a couple of arias are in the 'wrong' language. But I defy anyone to not think they are amongst the very finest ever.
O du süßestes Mädchen (O soave fanciulla) In German! No less.
Thanks. I agree that the La Bohème duet sounds great in any language and this rendition in German was excellent. Sadly, I'm not so familiar with this Bizet.
It's important to understand, that in the context of the opera, Rigoletto, this is irony in the extreme. There are quite a few pertinent lessons to be had in that particular opera regarding political, and moral, corruption. For that reason alone, it is among my favorites of Verdi's operas.
I agree with you that public opinion is fickle. More than that it is the conditioning that the public is subjected to that makes it so. How they frame Russia is a case in point. Using opera to show that " public opinion is as fickle as a woman" is amusing. I always thought that Rigoletto was simply misogynist.
Anyway thanks for the English version, though I rather prefer the original. The music is always fantastic.
Yes, simple-mindedness certainly won in the 2020s, as to the co[N]vid hoax, based on the ASSUMPTION of there being pathogenic viruses, leading to enormous societal self-destruction, ongoing.
genuine interest. time machine is of course no option, but what specific ongoing societal destruction by covid would you like to put a halt to? and what do you propose to do about simple-mindedness (education ?) to prevent it from happening again?
I cannot disagree with you -- except that a good friend died supposedly of COVID.
This is not the only personal experience.
It is very difficult to "square" these events. I believe it would not be helpful at this point to delve into the questions. If you want to write a book on it, perhaps you can be persuasive.
They claim they have not sought nuclear weapons as this is against their religion. Perhaps that moral stance carries over to other areas. One can object to certain of their domestic policies, while still recognizing, that when it comes to mass murder, they have staked out the moral high ground.
Yes. I’ve heard it’s a moral stance, based on the word of Islam. They refuse to do preemptive attacks and only respond to attacks with what they deem equal force. It’s a doctrine they follow, though it’s probably not the best when dealing with psychopaths that have no problem killing masses of civilians.
It’s definitely their goal. Western media would smear Iran mercilessly if they did anything they could remotely consider a war crime. They had the fucking nerve to say that Iran commited a war crime by bombing a hospital, after what they’ve done to all the hospitals in Gaza. The hospital that was hit in Israel also has a military command post underneath it, and is in the middle of a bunch of Israeli military sites. Every single thing they claim Hamas does, is what they actually do.
Sorry to get sidetracked. Yes, they most definitely want to drag Iran down to their level of sadistic brutality. I commend Iran for having such integrity. I hope it doesn’t come back to haunt them.
Joy, politics - especially geopolitics - is RARELY (if ever) about morality (though morality is often used and abused to lend credence, virtue, righteousness, etc.).
I asked myself that question, it comes from the Quran, equal blows to the assailant. That may be about to change with a change to the directive. Great question though isn't it. Clearly Iran's worries about the coming escalation are real and could easily have been avoided. israel the size of New Jersey with 9 million in population 2 million of which are Arab. The Euro/u.s. israeli's would have run away in mins. Great question for history.
Nope, we in the u.s. are loud mouth chicken sh its. The mere thought of Iran closing the straits of Hormuz caused panic. Iran has been in practice for this for decades. I do think all has changed in any treaty talks with the u.s. now. Bombing on the day of peace talks, not good. I would not be shocked if Yemen begins using the new Iranian missile tech.
Excellent article… the point about Liberals can’t be stressed enough. Especially in times of upheaval. Malcolm X often mentioned that he always preferred to deal with the open racists rather than liberals… he knew what he was dealing with when working with racists. The liberals were more dangerous. Here’s a speech of his about the 1963 march on Washington that went from an angry grass roots black led movement that wanted to shut down the city into an integrated love fest that was co-opted by the white power structure… of course, with respectable negro leaders pushed to the front. Malcolm called it the Farce on Washington.
There is a difference between Democrats and Republicans… Republicans tell you they are going to fuck you over and take your money; Democrats tell you they’ve got your back as they stick a knife in it. Like Malcolm, I’d rather deal with the Republicans.
I think we too often forget that we’ve been through a lot of this before and there are usually some really good lessons we can reference going forward.
Ultimately, politics is about class interests and AOC is on the other side of the barricades. At the outset of the genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, I heard an interview with with a Israeli who justified the IDF onslaught against the people in Gaza on the grounds that Israel is defending liberal democratic values. But at its core, liberalism is a barbaric ideology. Read Engels brilliant monograph, written at the age of 24, on the conditions faced by the industrial working classes of England in Ireland circa 1845 - liberalism in its purest form - used to justify the most egregious treatment of workers - what Engels called social murder. This book was written just prior to the English colonial engineered famine in Ireland in which liberal government of Britain oversaw the starvation of some 3 million Irish. Read Lusordo’s Liberalism: A Counter History. The apostles of liberalism, vociferous in their opposition to the rights and privileges of the aristocracy, justified the pernicious forms of capitalist exploitation in the name of free markets including the plantation slave system in the southern United States where British capital had massive investments. PS Phil Ochs, unlike Dylan, never turned his back on his principles. At the kick off fund raising concert for Greenpeace in Vancouver in 1970 with Joni Mitchel and Phil Ochs, the first thing he said upon coming on stage is ‘I hear Canada is on a death trip.’ Given our contribution to climate catastrophe through the unimpeded unregulated exploitation of the tar sands, we are at the head of the pack of neoliberals bringing on our collective suicide.
Fair enough, I agree with you. But I would add that Conservatism is WORSE than Liberalism - it has all the 'bads' of liberalism PLUS quite a few additional ones. I, for one, do not belong on the 'liberal-conservative' spectrum, as I am a (real) LEFTist.
But I am open to hearing about why some people think 'Conservatism' is better than 'Liberalism'. If you feel this is a digression/tangent, I'm ok with leaving things here.
Where liberalism is more pernicious than conservatism is that makes a pretense of being concerned about its victims, championing human rights, the ‘rules-based-order’, and the like; whereas conservatism - at least in its present extreme rightwing iterations - tends toward straightforwardly justifing its crimes. It’s not a matter of deciding whether one is worse than the other but of realizing that both are deeply hostile to the interests of the majority of humankind. Here, the metaphor ‘two wings of the same bird of prey’ is apt. For example, the Biden liberals aided and abetted the Israeli genocide from its inception but unlike the proto-fascists at the helm in Washington professed to be concerned about civilian casualties. The latter, Trump and his minions, for their part, straightforwardly support the genocide. Either way, both support the settler colonial, apartheid, genocidal state of Israel.
And it was the wholesale betrayal and abandonment of the U.S. working class by the Democrats (always in essence a party of the corporate elites) that set the stage for the rise of Trumpism in the first place. As the polls then indicated, even the moderate left liberal Bernie Sanders, if his campaign had not been sabotaged by the Democratic Party establishment, could have defeated Trump. The fact is that the Democratic Party establishment is more afraid of a moderate reformist like Sanders than they are a proto-fascist like Trump. Why? Because they are doing the bidding of powerful corporate and financial interests who detest someone like Sanders and his policies like universal public healthcare, progressive taxation, moderate environmental regulations…
Prior to the 2016 U.S. election, before his stroke, Noam Chomsky argued that it was preferable for voters to hold their nose and vote for the Democrats because the alternative - Trump’s proto-fascism - would bring about a state of affairs in which it would be impossible for the Left to organize. I think Chomsky pragmatism was misplaced because the emphasis should have always been on building an alternative populist movement and genuine Left party. That conclusion - casting off illusions about the Democratic Party - I would argue has been born out by the Democrats unreserved support for genocide in Gaza. And both the neoliberals and neoliberals are unequivocal defenders of the U.S. imperium, most notably, the preparations for a global war on China.
I think you may be confusing multiple things into the meanings of 'liberalism' and 'conservatism'.
There is the ACTUAL meaning of LIBERALISM (regardless of how DIFFERENT groups/sets of people implement/follow-through on the implementation of the philosophy/ideology). (Here's some reference: https://thisvsthat.io/conservatism-vs-liberalism)
Then there is the IMPLEMENTATION of 'liberalism' by DIFFERENT classes of power (hierarchies of power). For instance - TPTB, political players, etc. will USE liberalism (just as they would use conservatism or any other such ideology/philosophy) to attain their goals.
Ordinay people (that don't have the goals/ambitions of power, careerism, etc.) would go about displaying their 'philosophy of liberalism' often in VERY DIFFERENT ways from the 'power elite'.
Yet another point to consider is the 'confounding bias' - i.e. where a separate factor feeds into BOTH the factors and may be the more important cause of the problems - i.e. CAPITALISM. Both liberalism and conservatism belive in Capitalism.
I think you may be imprinting the 'rhetoric of liberalism' by those in power (eg. Democrats) or the power elite onto what liberalism really means. FYI, as mentioned before, I'm not on the liberal-conservative spectrum (as I am a true LEFTIE - maybe some kind of socialist?), but if I had to choose between being a liberal or a conservative (and those were my ONLY choices), then I would choose to be a liberal without hesitation over being a conservative - as I repeat - "there is NOTHING about being a conservative that is better than being a liberal".
I still haven't seen a convincing argument of why 'being a conservative might be better than being a liberal'. That's not to say that there might not be one, it's more to say that after searching (and trying to challenge my viewpoint), I have yet not come across any.
Conservative ideologies are INFERIOR on environmental policy, social policy, economic policy, foreign policy, and more (in comparison to liberal ideologies). I'll go on to say that Liberal ideologies are ALSO inferior to other ideologies in such policies, but here I'm interested in Conservatism VS. Liberalism instead of a wide-open discussion/comparison.
(This is a lightly edited version of my earlier reply)
Hi Chang,
This is a complicated discussion and unfortunately I don’t have time to do it justice: so just a few quick points.
Liberalism is the ideology that reflected the material interests of the bourgeoisie at the outset of the advent of capitalism, during the period of transition from the archaic feudal system. In its initial iterations it was a progressive political philosophy which drew on the humanistic values and ideas of the European Enlightment: freedom of expression, an impartial judiciary, separation of church and state, individual liberty, and the like. It found its most powerful expression in the French Revolution of 1789-1791.
I think it is these Enlightenment values and ideas in the ‘Liberal’ tradition with which you rightly identify, and many of its key political elements should continue to be valued and supported by those of us on the Left. Marx, for example, the most trenchant critic of Liberalism, began his political journey as a liberal - fighting for freedom of press, againsst the semi-feudal barriers to trade and commerce, for an impartial judiciary, and the like
But here we need to make a key qualification. Those liberal values and ideas reflected and embodied the class interests and hence the world view of the propertied classes. So if you closely examine the European Revolutions of that period, particularly in France or in England, (see Eric Hobsbawm brilliant The Age of Revolution those concepts of individual liberty were never extended voluntarily to the productive classes - those who produce the wealth. Rather rights like the right to vote and extending the franchise to the oppressed strata of the population such as the urban and rural proletariat, women…. had to be fought for tooth and nail. For example, the notion of individual liberty for the rising bourgeoisie, particularly the factory owners at the centre of the ‘great transformation’ being wrought by industrial capitalism in England were never extended to the majority - those in wage-slavery and in service. During the political revolutions in France, the propertied classes enlisted the ‘lower classes’ against the landed aristocracy, but as soon as the social question came to the fore - extending those cherished liberal values and ideas to the underclasses - the bourgeoise soon drew a line in the sand, choosing rather to ally with reaction, representatives of the old order against, in the case of the French Revolutions of 1789 and 1848 to the ‘san culotte’ in the streets of Paris who dared to advocate for the liberation of all including those without property.
Conservatism, on the other, orginates as the political philosophy of the land aristocracy and reflected their interest in controlling landed property, even as that landed property was increasingly commodified and integrated into the commercial / industrial capital system. Rather than preserving their paternal role as land gentry with a subservient rural proletariat, the land gentry, due their monopoly of land, became rentier capitalists to the newly emergent industrial bourgeoisie who were compelled to pay rent for the lands on which their factories, mines, and mills were situated.
As the capital system became the dominant mode of production in Britain in the mid-nineteenth century, liberalism assumed its most pure expression, as essentially a market-driven political ideology reflecting the naked self-interests of the industrial bourgeoisie. For example, in Britain the industrialists through their rising power in Parliament abolished any meaningful semblance of the ‘Poor Laws’ that provided the most meagre sustenance for displaced and unemployed workers in town and country. If workers were thrown out of work by the recurrent economic crises they often starved. This expression of liberal values took its most egregious form as the liberal bourgeoisie turned its back on the millions of subsistence farmers in Ireland in 1847-1848 as they perished from the blight of their main staple: potatoes. The English liberal bourgeoisie could have readily send food aid, but following their cherished ‘free market’ i..e., liberal doctrines preferred to let the market decide who lived, perished from starvation or was forced into exile. Karl Polanyi provides a brilliant treatment of this period of classic liberalism in his book The Great Transformation, and it is notable that it was most often the conservative land gentry that insisted on maintaining some forms of social support for the impoverished masses.
When we examine liberalism in its most current iteration, it has utterly divested itself of any progressive elements that it may have once embraced. If this wasn’t clear several decades ago - it is brutally clear now. Liberalism has taken on its real content in the form of neoliberalism - an intensified form of capitalist exploitation and imperial domination. In term of U.S. liberalism, it is demonstrated most clearly in the eclipse of any form of liberal values by the empire: liberal democratic institutions and values are ultimately inconsistent with the interests of empire except in the form of ‘free markets’ prerogrative to plunder, pillage and indebt poor countries through liberal institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Those cherished liberal values - the rights of the individual, the rule of law… - can’t co-exist as we see presently with the rise of Trumpism. It is also evident in the actions of the neoliberal elites across the western world, as the cowtow to U.S. dictate, most notably in supporting the savagery and barbarism of the Israeli state and its genocide against the Palestinian people. Any vestige of the ‘rules-based order’, already under savage attack by the U.S. imperium, has been swept aside.
Conservatism in its most current iteration - neoconservatism - has very little continuity with traditional conservatism as expounded by say Edmund Burke. In its U.S. imperial form, it reflects the most brutal and reactionary elements of empire. It is the neoconservatives who are now guiding U.S. imperialist policy as it attempts to shore up its domination of West Asia - its support for being central to this strategy - and prepares for a global war of aggression against its most serious rival, China. Neoliberalsim that holds sway across most ‘western’ capitalist democracies and neoconservatism are basically joined at the hip. Trumpism - a form of protofascism - draws on the most reactionary barbaric elements of both traditions…
For Palestinians and other oppressed peoples suffering under the totalizing yoke of the imperium it doesn’t matter whether it is the so-called liberals, neoconservatives or Trumpian protofascists who are dropping massive bombs on their tents, hospitals, schools, mosques; cafes, or engineering a famine, sniping starving people including children as they desparately line up for food aid. All are the face of radical evil, the defining feature of the present-day capital / imperial system, personified by the monsters at the helm in Washington.
If you haven’t read much Marxist literature on ideology - in my view, axiomatic for everyone on the Left as its core concepts are essential to achieving some form of postcapitalist socialist future - a good primer is the following:
But always keeping in mind that we can’t just oppose the imperium with words: in the final analysis countervailing action is required, action guided by the most powerful ideas. When these ideas are properly understood, they inevitably become a material force.
I knew this and failed to see it. Jimmy Carter, murdered 1 million East Timor as a religious man of God. My first vote, hopey dreamy : ( Then Obummer, Bernie. I am a failure as a voter pretending my vote means something other than local. I will still vote, I had to write in Jill Stein who was a absolute failure in campaign. I can work in the mountains of Chile, maybe that's my next vote, with my feet : )
I would say yes on national elections so it seems. Local elections a friend of mine won a Mayoral election three months ago and is already making positive great changes seen by those in the city. I have another friend who won a State Senate election who is also making major progress within the state for her district. We will know more when Mamdami is elected. His election will having meaning IF he does even one thing on the list. The Demoncrats are already lining up to sabotage him, even the traitor Bernie. We shall see. I don't have great hope though. Not kidding myself.
Obviously, local administration must predominate, with voting an afterthought. There are no 'great' or meaningful changes made within the current system - not possible.
Logically, voting presides the administration change/s. That is the risk we take in voting, liars lie. So far my friends have not lied about their goals from election. They both fight for working people everyday in office. Without voting they would not be in office. The people who presided them were horrible people who now are being investigated for crimes. That is how rare a successful election is, those are the only two I know of in my state. Revolution is coming.
Nope. Voting is a formalism. What's called for is concensus, following the local model. It takes patience; voting is a quick fix. Implicit in it is irresponsibility.
I loved listening to Malcom X speak the truth. Such a brilliant mind, thanks for sharing this speech.
I didn’t know the early roots and then the infiltration history of the march nor James Baldwin being cancelled. Malcom still proving the honest truth about our country.
AOC and Obama are kindred spirits: fucking disgusting Aunt Jemima and Uncle Tom that sold out non-whites to continue feeding in the white supremacy trough.
Upton Sinclair said it best:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Do you even know why this world is so fucked up? Just look at the ongoing live-streamed genocide happening in Gaza.
How many times did AOC or Obama criticise the Jews for the cruelties inflicted on the Palestinians?
There is only one group of people that is more evil and disgusting than Jews and white people: fucking Aunt Jemima and Uncle Toms fronting for white supremacy to earn a place in the feeding trough.
People should not be under any illusions of anyone who works within the democratic party. Their job is to uphold the billionaire/millionaire economic system.
are there any politicians in either party who do not have that job?
Yes, Susan there is; my state’s Rep. Rashida who has fought endlessly against supporting the Ziofilth Regime (presently being the only Palestinian-American in Congress, although Michigan also holds the distinction of another: former US Rep. Justin Amash, before he retired.)
I’m proud of MY STATE for having elected the individuals mentioned above ( Amash was from quite a conservative district, btw.) AIPAC can spend a $billion trying to unseat Rashida and it ain’t gonna happen; her constituents, primarily Black, know better, because of how she’s fought for them. You shitheads in St. Louis let Cori Bush get primaried by an AIPAC candidate.
So when the REST of you motherfucking Amerikkkans gonna say FUCK THE LIKES of AOC and start electing some REAL antigenocide candidates?
FUCK AIPAC; FUCK ISRAHELL; FUCK AOC and her phony-ass ilk.
Saying it like it is!👍👍
Amen!
Thanks, my Lone Star friend
❤️👍🏼
Amen brother. I thought of these two differently, just like I held tulsi gabbard in high regards in the past. That makes me sad.
Politicians never fail to disappoint the people they promise to work for.
Any person in the US Congress must pledge allegiance to Israel regardless of the act they put on.
I reluctantly suggest Thomas Massie.
I haven't figured out his anti-AIPAC campaign, but it appears to be legit.
Bernie Sanders
Maggie, Sanders is even worse. He got everyone excited about his program and then walked away. The plan always was to turn it over to Hillary.
For the discussion about Sanders. There's a transcript here where Joti Brar of Britain excoriates Jeremy Corbyn and accuses him of betraying Labor.
Keir Starmer is now the Labor PM and if you've been paying attention, is totally screwing things up. He continues to push for war with Russia, not a proxy war, real war.
Sanders and Corbyn seem to be two peas in a pod. The truth is that the Anglo-American Oligarchy (which is dominated by "Jewish Supremacists" and the "Jewish Mafia", although saying "Jewish" in each case diverts attention from other Oligarchs and criminals) cooperates with the Deep State (as defined by Aaron Good) to push for hegemony. The politicians dance to their tune.
https://www.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/1logqzc/the_real_reason_the_imperial_west_hates_russia/
There's no comparison between Sanders and Corbyn.
Why not?
I mean my interpretation of your response is that you basically said "water isn't wet".
Are you a Corbyn supporter or a Sanders supporter? What's the difference between them? Is it the nature of the US election process vs the English process? (just guessing here)
Anyway, you can make a declaration like you have, but no one cares. Fill it out and explain why.
Jewish Supremicists are Zionists. Jews who do not consider themselves supreme beings are just Jews. Like Christians who are not Zionists are just Christians.
Finkelstein says he no longer uses the term "Zionist" to describe the people he opposes.
Zionists presupposes this group supports Israel. That isn't really true. Israel is just the proxy used by the Anglo-American Oligarchy to spread chaos and fear throughout the Middle East.
A lot of people don't see the distinction.
It is extremely difficult to understand the difference.
YES. But when he was running as an Independent most didn't vote for him!
Sorry, Bernie never ran as an independent other than in Vermont races.
NOT true.
They did in 2016. That was when he betrayed them
As a Demoncrat.
He tried to hold on as long as he could. Then they told him, "We will destroy you; you will lose everything." At his age, I don't blame him for folding.
One could make the case for Bernie Sanders being 'controlled opposition'. He seems to be a more complex character, possibly stuck in-between two worlds? I really used to like him in tha past, but ever since Oct 7th 2023 (and a few times before that when he cowardly caved to the demands of the Democratic Party), I think quite differently of him now.
When he immediately echoed pinhead Biden, calling the Russian invasion of Ukraine “unprovoked,” it was clear as a bell that he would spin any propaganda required to protect the party that he so passionately sought to change from within. He calls himself a friggin socialist, he honeymooned in Moscow, but seems to be shit-scared of uttering any truth that would be construed as confronting the DP.
Ralph Nader opted to retain his dignity over a moment of basking in the spotlight, only to be played as a kook or a fool. Sanders is a sellout, and that is his legacy.
💯👏 Well said unwarranted!
He did NOT honeymoon in Russia. Good grief you sound like MAGA.
https://weddingsinathens.com/did-bernie-sanders-and-his-wife-honeymoon-in-russia.html
It is well known, and has been for years, that Sanders and his new bride Jane traveled to the USSR in 1988. It probably wasn’t technically a “honeymoon,” but he joked that it was.
He's been very outspoken about it many months now. And by the way he was forced out of the race because our Zionist overlords control everything.
Yes, I disagree too with your apologia/explanation of Bernie's behavior - I'm not buying your narrative.
I couldn't care less what you think, Chang.
I have to disagree, read my reply to our friend Chang.
I have known Bernie since meeting him through a friend teaching in Vermont 1993. Bernie is very bright make no mistake, very, very bright. I think he was a genuine Socialist part way through the 2016 race and then folded. I what I heard was, Bernie didn't want to be Ralph Nader who people from the campaign whispered to him more and more. I agree with you, once turned as an agent of the evil empire all trust is lost. I say that after 4800$ and many hours of work. Damn, if only I was a smart person : )
Bernie has been my Congressman in the US House, and later, US Senate for decades. Here in Vermont (as in 20-some other states) we do not affiliate with any party when we register to vote, thus Bernie was (and is), by default, an independent. However he *never* ran as an independent in either of his two presidential bids. He is smart enough to realize that he would have had zero chance of winning as an independent.
When he launched his presidential campaign in 2016 (and again later in 2020) he jumped thru the hoops put before him to run as a democrat. One of which was to actively support their presidential nominee, if someone other than himself. The DNC, and a complicate press, screwed him over royally, but despite that, he very nearly won the nomination in 2016, a remarkable feat.
During both of Bernie's campaigns, he opened up public awareness to the oligarch takeover of this country. Before that, the general public did not understand the root cause of their struggles. If he accomplished nothing else, he did this.
It's hard to know what he might have accomplished had he won the WH. I think it would be most likely that the powers-that-be would have eliminated him JFK style.
I am friends with someone that teaches at Stratton mountain. So I have know Bernie since 1993. I disagree with you, Bernie running as an independent in 2016 would have easily split the vote between to hated candidates. That race was the only race he could have won of the two. When I knocked doors for Bernie 2015 , Trump voters in my State told me they would vote for Bernie if he was on the ballot. They hated Hitlery.
I still have an email written by Bernie, on AOL hahaha.
Nah. He’s a Zionist.
He is one of the few to vote against shoveling money to Israel with no accountability. It is disappointing however that he will not oppose Israel's basic right to exist.
He didn’t until the Dems were out of office.
Progressive, except for Palestine. A shameful double standard when someone says that a genocide is taking place but actively collaborate to it, not by looking away, not by closing the eyes, but by sending weapons to the genocidal government. Offensive or defensive, a Byzantine discussion in the middle of a raging holocaust. AOC clearly underestimates the intelligence of the American public.
That my friend is so true, and not only her thought.
'Fraid not,Maggie.He is on record as having recently advised Mandami to "be careful " about what he said on Israel.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mamdani-dc-swing-house-democrats-093041327.html
True, but he is an independent. He doesn’t belong to either party.
He belongs to the uniparty.
💯👍🏽
I wish that was still true : ( I liked Bernie as a person having known him for a very long time.
Hell no! He’s a rabid Zionist. He lived in Israel for Christ’s sake. He an AOC play the same role. Sanders is a lying POS!
First of all, to my knowledge, Bernie never lived in Israel, he may have gone there as a teenage for the Jewish "rite of passage trip", although I doubt it as he came from a relatively poor family. He worked in a sawmill to earn money for college. And a honeymoon in Russia? You sound MAGA to me, that's always their comment about Bernie.
Also, Francesca Albanese is constantly asked the same thing. What are you going to say? The fact is, it does exist and anyone who says it doesn't deserve to exist is going to take a lot of shit for that comment. I loathe Israel. I'm 70 and I've known about the heinous actions against the Palestinians since I was a young teenager, because I had Palestinians who were our neighbors and schoolmates. My parents raised my siblings and I staunchly Pro-Palestinian.
Also remember that immediately after 10/07 everyone hated Hamas, because those horrible lies about them made by Netanyahu. "Beheaded babies, babies baked in ovens, rapes of Israeli women DURING the attack, all a bunch of lies made to get sympathy for Israel. Meanwhile the truth is Netanyahu set up 10/07 by giving millions of dollars to Hamas over the years and by calling away the IDF for 6 hours that day. Later the same day, he had the IDF kill 200 survivors of the attack so there would be no witnesses. I watched a clip on YT where an IDF soldier described to his girlfriend how it felt to behead an 8 months old Palestinian infant.He was "shocked that the head didn't come off as easily as he had expected.
The lies of Oct 7th are still being pushed by Bernie Sanders. He has anti-genocide protesters forcibly removed from the oligarchy tour, instead of allowing a Palestinian flag to be displayed in the crowd. He’s a rabid Zionist, and it’s not something that is in question.
He lived in a kibbutz, which was built on stolen Palestinian land in the 60’s, for a few months.
Why the fuck would MAGA say this about him?
You sound like a shitlib, because this is exactly what they say every time.
🙄@ Maggie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_Group_(Jewish_group)
There are none in the uniparty, but this article seems interesting on how they might be blackmailed/bought off.
There are but it requires only one hand to count them!
When are Americans going to learn: Dems are same as Repubs. Don't vote for either.
Your Country is owned by AIPAC
I fear the american people and jews have forgotten they were once strangers in a strange land. They never lived up to their supposed ideals, but they were meant to at least try to be better. Now is the time of monsters. Maybe it always has been.
Not the Jews. The zionists.
Americans fall for it every time. Look at the obsession for Zohran. It’s ridiculous.
I love his campaign so far. However, I have been disappointed in the past by people who looked better than him. Bernie, a civil rights activist tops them all.
We should support him until he sells his soul to the devil.
There is no left in the US. Left is regarded as communist and the US made communists the devil, euh...the ennemy justifying the enormous arm industry.
Wondering who writes her speeches now?
AOC wants to have her cake and eat it too. Faux progressive who always leans mainstream.
Follow the money. Some MPs are bought so cheaply they could do a few dozen at a time and still save money. What is so exciting about getting an Israeli donation/bribe of $1,500, is it a weekly donation, fortnightly, monthly, yearly or a one off?
On my age pension I get from one fortnight to the next by a thread but I would not cross the road to lose honour for a paltry $1,500 no matter how much it would help. So what the hell is wrong with these people who are on a much higher salary than most, that they can be bought on the cheap?
The answer to your question can be found in a classic scene on the TV series, "Dallas". In the dialogue, oil baron J.R. Ewing (played by Larry Hagman), proposes to win the bidding for some offshore drilling rights by deceit:
J.R.: Ahem. Let me see, what did I want to talk about? Oh, yeah. Um, I got to thinking, it’s getting very close to auction time for those offshore leases. [Begins cutting food] And it occurred to me, I ought to find out who I’m going to be bidding against. So who filed intention to bid? [He puts a forkful of food into his mouth and chews. Edgar is silent.] Edgar, who filed intention to bid?
EDGAR: Intentions to bid were filed by Westar, Four State, your company and Barnes/Wentworth.
J.R.: There, that wasn’t so hard, was it? My second question is: Who has actually placed bids? Which one of those?
EDGAR: Everyone bid but Westar, Barnes and Ewing.
J.R.: All right. Next, I want a phone call from you when Westar and Barnes make their bid. We’ll have a meeting and you tell me what the highest bid is — and I’ll hand you mine.
EDGAR: [Leans forward] I don’t see how you can live with yourself.
J.R.: Oh, it’s not hard. You’ll see. Once you give up integrity, the rest is a piece of cake. [Chuckles]
Thank you, excellent! When there is a genocide planned or in progress, it is the duty of all nations to end it, even if it requires direct involvement. Only Yemen has the fortitude so far. Shame on all others.
>>"it is the duty of all nations to end it..."
True, but 'duty' is a 'nice-to-have' principle for TPTB that run most nations of the world. In reality, 'duty' seems to matter little - whether in the context of 'geopolitcs' or 'business' (i.e. corporations, etc.)
Actually, it's international law, but that also carries little weight these days, what with the Empire of the West (NATO, orange menace, etc.) flailing about in hopefully its death throes.
International Law is MEANINGLESS without the 'enforcement' component. Also, how much of 'International Law' is really international and not just 'Western nations Law'?
Laws are all well and good, but often when the rubber meets the road, history shows us that 'any law - international or otherwise' takes a backseat/subservient position to the 'forces of power and money'.
I've thought this for a long time. Her attacks against Jill Stein and the green party when it was AOC's party that worked with major media to silence any alternate view of what is possible politically or economically made that clear.
Matthew: THIS!
If ever there is waking moment, we, the populations of the West (namely NATO member states), will come to realize our governments are in service to the empire and are more than willing to cannibalize their own nations for the sake of forever wars. We have been conditioned by the narrative of endless propaganda for decades, and Stockholm Syndrome is endemic in our societies.
End Stage Capitalism demands it. We are past the tipping point now. We thought this was ugly, more is coming. I am very worried people think the use of nuclear weapons is an option, people I know who should know better. Run to the Light. The light being the Neutrons scintillating your eye.
There’s only one party in Washington.
CJ -> "AOC Is A Genocidal Con Artist"
🎯💯 Of course she is, I just didn't know HOW MUCH (and I yet may not know the full extent of her duplicitious personality).
CJ>>"Leftists shouldn’t hate AOC less than the politicians to her right, they should hate her much more."
EXACTLY! Thank You for making that clear Caitlin - there are so many unnecessary debates I get embroiled with liberals in (that don't understand that the U.S. Congress DOES NOT HAVE ANY 'left'). The term LEFT has been so abused in the West that MOST people don't even know what it means.
BTW, I ❤️ every word of this article, and people really need to take the effort to understand the multiple narratives that you have dismantled in it. 🙏
She lied at the Democratic Convention when she said Harris had worked tirelessly to resolve the situation in Gaza. Good points in the article. I hadn’t seen covered elsewhere the few who voted for the bill.
I don’t know why anyone is really surprised. All of the “progressive” darlings turn out to be extreme disappointments and they can’t just blame it on republicans but it’s their own deeply held views. Is there a single representative who’s not a Zionist at this point?
Tlaib.
Fuckin aye Jenny!
I believe that those six congresspersons listed, the ones who voted for that amendment by MTG to restrict that $500 million, are among the few, or maybe the only ones, who do not take AIPAC money.
Oh Joy. MTG not taking money??????
Thanks for the correction. She has received $2250. When you look at the rest of the GA contingent, including Warnok at almost a million, she's pretty good. There is one other, Andrew Clyde, at the $500 mark, and the winner at 0 is HANK JOHNSON.
GA-04 (D). The rest are all in 5 digits or more.
https://www.trackaipac.com/congress
AOC is such a disappointment. Bloody genocide supporter that she is.
I reserve nicknames for friends, Rep. Cortez : (
I will never understand why Iran didn’t pound Israel into oblivion when the opportunity was there. This ceasefire seems to only benefit the Zionist’s reload and rearmament. Am I missing something?
The general consensus among analysts I pay attention to (well over 20) is that Iran did not want to get nuked by the USA. It would rather maintain the "high ground" of world-wide opinion.
There seems to be some kind of "rule" that a nation like Iran (and every nation other than the US) has to maintain "restraint". They have to slowly ascend the escalatory ladder or they will lose support of world-wide public opinion. (where it isn't quite clear if "public opinion" really is "everyone" or just the leaders/rulers of other nations.)
The meme before the Israeli attack that began the 12-day war, was suppose to be how Iran was a den of evildoers.
After the 12-day war, Iran is "standing up to the evil Jews."
I'll grant that this seems extremely simple-minded, but in so many important issues, "simple-minded" wins. Look at how many people refuse to understand the complexity of the Ukraine war. They insist that history started in February 2022 and "it is all Russia's fault!" Public opinion now divides between the "yes it was" and "no it wasn't" of this question.
Public opinion (which may not be all that "public") is fickle.
Here is an English version of "Women is fickle". Not picking on women here when I post it. It is a famous opera song. I'm sure you've heard it dozens of time. My point is this is also "public opinion"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UAgETVR-lE
"But public opinion!" is another one of those copes used to make excuses for indecision.
The strong do as they wish and care nothing for public opinion.
They care enough to change public opinion to justify what they want.
The "news" about "sleeper cell" attacks by Iran for example, or the Iranian "bomb" threat.
Public Opinion is easily swayed.
The Epstein problem that Trump faces right now may not "blow over", but he handled it really badly.
This allows those segments of the Oligarchy who want to get rid of Trump to move against him.
I am not sure what you are saying here.
Yes, the Oligarchy does what it wants to do. They are the only men with agency.
However, they work very, very hard to ensure whatever actions they take is supported by a large portion of the public. Or, as with Obamacare, they hoodwink the public into believing something that isn't true.
This is the purpose of the "No Kings" demonstrations.
The Oligarchy is not monolithic or homogeneous. Note how Trump and Musk have turned on one another. Is it "real" or is it another "fake out"?
On a national level, getting public support makes the job of oligarchy that much easier.
In an international level, they don't even bother with that.
An example: the American people were overwhelmingly in favor of Net Neutrality. The people in power still voted to kill it off.
Do I have to say "Oligarchy" again? /s/s/s
>>"The strong do as they wish and care nothing for public opinion."
Au contraire, Feral, 'public opinion' matters a lot (more than most people think). Simply do a search on terms like "the impact of public opinion on policy making", or "how public opinion changed the course of history", etc.
Oh Geez, La Donna è Mobile in Inglese. Verdi trema nella sua tomba.
I so agree, and yet, gasp, two of my favorite renditions of a couple of arias are in the 'wrong' language. But I defy anyone to not think they are amongst the very finest ever.
O du süßestes Mädchen (O soave fanciulla) In German! No less.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THtukNDeZ9c
The second one is a French aria in Italian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMh73njyeEQ
Enjoy!
Thanks. I agree that the La Bohème duet sounds great in any language and this rendition in German was excellent. Sadly, I'm not so familiar with this Bizet.
Dang. You and Joy got some CLASS, Vin. My idea of good music is Garth Brooks and Dwight Yoakum 😁
He surely would if he heard the version played on the Radio.
EDIT: I recall it was a polka.
It's important to understand, that in the context of the opera, Rigoletto, this is irony in the extreme. There are quite a few pertinent lessons to be had in that particular opera regarding political, and moral, corruption. For that reason alone, it is among my favorites of Verdi's operas.
JohnOnKaui;
I agree with you that public opinion is fickle. More than that it is the conditioning that the public is subjected to that makes it so. How they frame Russia is a case in point. Using opera to show that " public opinion is as fickle as a woman" is amusing. I always thought that Rigoletto was simply misogynist.
Anyway thanks for the English version, though I rather prefer the original. The music is always fantastic.
Decades ago, the radio in my home town played a pop version of the song often enough that I remember. It plays in my head on occasion.
Women is fickle
False hearted lovers
Women with laughing eyes
and lips that tantalize
I'm surprised I can't find this version.
Yes, simple-mindedness certainly won in the 2020s, as to the co[N]vid hoax, based on the ASSUMPTION of there being pathogenic viruses, leading to enormous societal self-destruction, ongoing.
what would you like to be done about it?
An end to simple-mindedness would be good. Are you asking a serious question or are you trifling?
genuine interest. time machine is of course no option, but what specific ongoing societal destruction by covid would you like to put a halt to? and what do you propose to do about simple-mindedness (education ?) to prevent it from happening again?
I cannot disagree with you -- except that a good friend died supposedly of COVID.
This is not the only personal experience.
It is very difficult to "square" these events. I believe it would not be helpful at this point to delve into the questions. If you want to write a book on it, perhaps you can be persuasive.
There is a book on it: Farewell to Virology by Dr. Mark Bailey. Read and learn about the biggest dupe job of our times.
I had a friend who very likely died of the jabs - foisted on him fraudulently, since there's zero evidence of pathogenic viruses.
Sorry about your friend's death, but 'supposedly' doesn't cut it - the stakes are too high.
Well, you are "supposedly" offering other evidence.
Not disagreeing about the "stakes"
Ignorance is slavery.
They claim they have not sought nuclear weapons as this is against their religion. Perhaps that moral stance carries over to other areas. One can object to certain of their domestic policies, while still recognizing, that when it comes to mass murder, they have staked out the moral high ground.
Yes. I’ve heard it’s a moral stance, based on the word of Islam. They refuse to do preemptive attacks and only respond to attacks with what they deem equal force. It’s a doctrine they follow, though it’s probably not the best when dealing with psychopaths that have no problem killing masses of civilians.
maybe they think that is the actual goal of the psychopaths, to drag you down to their level where they know they have superior terrain knowledge.
It’s definitely their goal. Western media would smear Iran mercilessly if they did anything they could remotely consider a war crime. They had the fucking nerve to say that Iran commited a war crime by bombing a hospital, after what they’ve done to all the hospitals in Gaza. The hospital that was hit in Israel also has a military command post underneath it, and is in the middle of a bunch of Israeli military sites. Every single thing they claim Hamas does, is what they actually do.
Sorry to get sidetracked. Yes, they most definitely want to drag Iran down to their level of sadistic brutality. I commend Iran for having such integrity. I hope it doesn’t come back to haunt them.
Joy, politics - especially geopolitics - is RARELY (if ever) about morality (though morality is often used and abused to lend credence, virtue, righteousness, etc.).
It's possible that religious belief in this case overrules geopolitics. Don't underestimate such in SW asia in general and Iran in particular.
Not in Iran's case. For Yemen, yes.
I asked myself that question, it comes from the Quran, equal blows to the assailant. That may be about to change with a change to the directive. Great question though isn't it. Clearly Iran's worries about the coming escalation are real and could easily have been avoided. israel the size of New Jersey with 9 million in population 2 million of which are Arab. The Euro/u.s. israeli's would have run away in mins. Great question for history.
I suggest they knew they would be bombed by the US and wisely held off until they got help from China and Russia which they were offered before.
Nope, we in the u.s. are loud mouth chicken sh its. The mere thought of Iran closing the straits of Hormuz caused panic. Iran has been in practice for this for decades. I do think all has changed in any treaty talks with the u.s. now. Bombing on the day of peace talks, not good. I would not be shocked if Yemen begins using the new Iranian missile tech.
Democrats. Republicans. Two wings of the same beast.
Both serve the Zionist lobby.
Bought, blackmailed, or silenced—take your pick.
Billions to Israel. Silence on genocide.
Different parties, same puppet strings. Democrats cry “diversity,” Republicans scream “freedom”—but both kiss AIPAC’s ring.
Biden signs the cheques. Trump moved the embassy.
Schumer, Graham, Pelosi? Loyal servants.
Genocide gets bipartisan applause.
#ZionistLobby #FreePalestine #FakeDemocracy
👏❤️🙏
Excellent article… the point about Liberals can’t be stressed enough. Especially in times of upheaval. Malcolm X often mentioned that he always preferred to deal with the open racists rather than liberals… he knew what he was dealing with when working with racists. The liberals were more dangerous. Here’s a speech of his about the 1963 march on Washington that went from an angry grass roots black led movement that wanted to shut down the city into an integrated love fest that was co-opted by the white power structure… of course, with respectable negro leaders pushed to the front. Malcolm called it the Farce on Washington.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DC-_UKic6DM
The issue of exposing liberals was very much out there culturally as well. Here’s a few examples. Phil Ochs’s song is wickedly sharp.
Phil Ochs
Love Me I’m a Liberal
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3cdqQ2BdgOA
Smiling Faces Sometimes (Tell Lies)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g0WPPAN9JyM&pp=0gcJCfwAo7VqN5tD
There is a difference between Democrats and Republicans… Republicans tell you they are going to fuck you over and take your money; Democrats tell you they’ve got your back as they stick a knife in it. Like Malcolm, I’d rather deal with the Republicans.
That Malcom X link was very powerful.
The drum major running to the front of the band.
"You integrate it with cream!" What a great metaphor.
This is exactly what Bernie Sanders did.
Keeping us all "on the plantation".
Yes, that perfect analogy my friend yes.
I think we too often forget that we’ve been through a lot of this before and there are usually some really good lessons we can reference going forward.
Ultimately, politics is about class interests and AOC is on the other side of the barricades. At the outset of the genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, I heard an interview with with a Israeli who justified the IDF onslaught against the people in Gaza on the grounds that Israel is defending liberal democratic values. But at its core, liberalism is a barbaric ideology. Read Engels brilliant monograph, written at the age of 24, on the conditions faced by the industrial working classes of England in Ireland circa 1845 - liberalism in its purest form - used to justify the most egregious treatment of workers - what Engels called social murder. This book was written just prior to the English colonial engineered famine in Ireland in which liberal government of Britain oversaw the starvation of some 3 million Irish. Read Lusordo’s Liberalism: A Counter History. The apostles of liberalism, vociferous in their opposition to the rights and privileges of the aristocracy, justified the pernicious forms of capitalist exploitation in the name of free markets including the plantation slave system in the southern United States where British capital had massive investments. PS Phil Ochs, unlike Dylan, never turned his back on his principles. At the kick off fund raising concert for Greenpeace in Vancouver in 1970 with Joni Mitchel and Phil Ochs, the first thing he said upon coming on stage is ‘I hear Canada is on a death trip.’ Given our contribution to climate catastrophe through the unimpeded unregulated exploitation of the tar sands, we are at the head of the pack of neoliberals bringing on our collective suicide.
… should read ‘with Joni Mitchel and James Taylor’…
All 'isms' are worthless. All 'isms' are divisive, and thus serve suicide.
that is so called centrism, part of conservatism (and status quo capitalism).
Fair enough, I agree with you. But I would add that Conservatism is WORSE than Liberalism - it has all the 'bads' of liberalism PLUS quite a few additional ones. I, for one, do not belong on the 'liberal-conservative' spectrum, as I am a (real) LEFTist.
But I am open to hearing about why some people think 'Conservatism' is better than 'Liberalism'. If you feel this is a digression/tangent, I'm ok with leaving things here.
Where liberalism is more pernicious than conservatism is that makes a pretense of being concerned about its victims, championing human rights, the ‘rules-based-order’, and the like; whereas conservatism - at least in its present extreme rightwing iterations - tends toward straightforwardly justifing its crimes. It’s not a matter of deciding whether one is worse than the other but of realizing that both are deeply hostile to the interests of the majority of humankind. Here, the metaphor ‘two wings of the same bird of prey’ is apt. For example, the Biden liberals aided and abetted the Israeli genocide from its inception but unlike the proto-fascists at the helm in Washington professed to be concerned about civilian casualties. The latter, Trump and his minions, for their part, straightforwardly support the genocide. Either way, both support the settler colonial, apartheid, genocidal state of Israel.
And it was the wholesale betrayal and abandonment of the U.S. working class by the Democrats (always in essence a party of the corporate elites) that set the stage for the rise of Trumpism in the first place. As the polls then indicated, even the moderate left liberal Bernie Sanders, if his campaign had not been sabotaged by the Democratic Party establishment, could have defeated Trump. The fact is that the Democratic Party establishment is more afraid of a moderate reformist like Sanders than they are a proto-fascist like Trump. Why? Because they are doing the bidding of powerful corporate and financial interests who detest someone like Sanders and his policies like universal public healthcare, progressive taxation, moderate environmental regulations…
Prior to the 2016 U.S. election, before his stroke, Noam Chomsky argued that it was preferable for voters to hold their nose and vote for the Democrats because the alternative - Trump’s proto-fascism - would bring about a state of affairs in which it would be impossible for the Left to organize. I think Chomsky pragmatism was misplaced because the emphasis should have always been on building an alternative populist movement and genuine Left party. That conclusion - casting off illusions about the Democratic Party - I would argue has been born out by the Democrats unreserved support for genocide in Gaza. And both the neoliberals and neoliberals are unequivocal defenders of the U.S. imperium, most notably, the preparations for a global war on China.
I think you may be confusing multiple things into the meanings of 'liberalism' and 'conservatism'.
There is the ACTUAL meaning of LIBERALISM (regardless of how DIFFERENT groups/sets of people implement/follow-through on the implementation of the philosophy/ideology). (Here's some reference: https://thisvsthat.io/conservatism-vs-liberalism)
Then there is the IMPLEMENTATION of 'liberalism' by DIFFERENT classes of power (hierarchies of power). For instance - TPTB, political players, etc. will USE liberalism (just as they would use conservatism or any other such ideology/philosophy) to attain their goals.
Ordinay people (that don't have the goals/ambitions of power, careerism, etc.) would go about displaying their 'philosophy of liberalism' often in VERY DIFFERENT ways from the 'power elite'.
Yet another point to consider is the 'confounding bias' - i.e. where a separate factor feeds into BOTH the factors and may be the more important cause of the problems - i.e. CAPITALISM. Both liberalism and conservatism belive in Capitalism.
I think you may be imprinting the 'rhetoric of liberalism' by those in power (eg. Democrats) or the power elite onto what liberalism really means. FYI, as mentioned before, I'm not on the liberal-conservative spectrum (as I am a true LEFTIE - maybe some kind of socialist?), but if I had to choose between being a liberal or a conservative (and those were my ONLY choices), then I would choose to be a liberal without hesitation over being a conservative - as I repeat - "there is NOTHING about being a conservative that is better than being a liberal".
I still haven't seen a convincing argument of why 'being a conservative might be better than being a liberal'. That's not to say that there might not be one, it's more to say that after searching (and trying to challenge my viewpoint), I have yet not come across any.
Conservative ideologies are INFERIOR on environmental policy, social policy, economic policy, foreign policy, and more (in comparison to liberal ideologies). I'll go on to say that Liberal ideologies are ALSO inferior to other ideologies in such policies, but here I'm interested in Conservatism VS. Liberalism instead of a wide-open discussion/comparison.
(This is a lightly edited version of my earlier reply)
Hi Chang,
This is a complicated discussion and unfortunately I don’t have time to do it justice: so just a few quick points.
Liberalism is the ideology that reflected the material interests of the bourgeoisie at the outset of the advent of capitalism, during the period of transition from the archaic feudal system. In its initial iterations it was a progressive political philosophy which drew on the humanistic values and ideas of the European Enlightment: freedom of expression, an impartial judiciary, separation of church and state, individual liberty, and the like. It found its most powerful expression in the French Revolution of 1789-1791.
I think it is these Enlightenment values and ideas in the ‘Liberal’ tradition with which you rightly identify, and many of its key political elements should continue to be valued and supported by those of us on the Left. Marx, for example, the most trenchant critic of Liberalism, began his political journey as a liberal - fighting for freedom of press, againsst the semi-feudal barriers to trade and commerce, for an impartial judiciary, and the like
But here we need to make a key qualification. Those liberal values and ideas reflected and embodied the class interests and hence the world view of the propertied classes. So if you closely examine the European Revolutions of that period, particularly in France or in England, (see Eric Hobsbawm brilliant The Age of Revolution those concepts of individual liberty were never extended voluntarily to the productive classes - those who produce the wealth. Rather rights like the right to vote and extending the franchise to the oppressed strata of the population such as the urban and rural proletariat, women…. had to be fought for tooth and nail. For example, the notion of individual liberty for the rising bourgeoisie, particularly the factory owners at the centre of the ‘great transformation’ being wrought by industrial capitalism in England were never extended to the majority - those in wage-slavery and in service. During the political revolutions in France, the propertied classes enlisted the ‘lower classes’ against the landed aristocracy, but as soon as the social question came to the fore - extending those cherished liberal values and ideas to the underclasses - the bourgeoise soon drew a line in the sand, choosing rather to ally with reaction, representatives of the old order against, in the case of the French Revolutions of 1789 and 1848 to the ‘san culotte’ in the streets of Paris who dared to advocate for the liberation of all including those without property.
Conservatism, on the other, orginates as the political philosophy of the land aristocracy and reflected their interest in controlling landed property, even as that landed property was increasingly commodified and integrated into the commercial / industrial capital system. Rather than preserving their paternal role as land gentry with a subservient rural proletariat, the land gentry, due their monopoly of land, became rentier capitalists to the newly emergent industrial bourgeoisie who were compelled to pay rent for the lands on which their factories, mines, and mills were situated.
As the capital system became the dominant mode of production in Britain in the mid-nineteenth century, liberalism assumed its most pure expression, as essentially a market-driven political ideology reflecting the naked self-interests of the industrial bourgeoisie. For example, in Britain the industrialists through their rising power in Parliament abolished any meaningful semblance of the ‘Poor Laws’ that provided the most meagre sustenance for displaced and unemployed workers in town and country. If workers were thrown out of work by the recurrent economic crises they often starved. This expression of liberal values took its most egregious form as the liberal bourgeoisie turned its back on the millions of subsistence farmers in Ireland in 1847-1848 as they perished from the blight of their main staple: potatoes. The English liberal bourgeoisie could have readily send food aid, but following their cherished ‘free market’ i..e., liberal doctrines preferred to let the market decide who lived, perished from starvation or was forced into exile. Karl Polanyi provides a brilliant treatment of this period of classic liberalism in his book The Great Transformation, and it is notable that it was most often the conservative land gentry that insisted on maintaining some forms of social support for the impoverished masses.
When we examine liberalism in its most current iteration, it has utterly divested itself of any progressive elements that it may have once embraced. If this wasn’t clear several decades ago - it is brutally clear now. Liberalism has taken on its real content in the form of neoliberalism - an intensified form of capitalist exploitation and imperial domination. In term of U.S. liberalism, it is demonstrated most clearly in the eclipse of any form of liberal values by the empire: liberal democratic institutions and values are ultimately inconsistent with the interests of empire except in the form of ‘free markets’ prerogrative to plunder, pillage and indebt poor countries through liberal institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Those cherished liberal values - the rights of the individual, the rule of law… - can’t co-exist as we see presently with the rise of Trumpism. It is also evident in the actions of the neoliberal elites across the western world, as the cowtow to U.S. dictate, most notably in supporting the savagery and barbarism of the Israeli state and its genocide against the Palestinian people. Any vestige of the ‘rules-based order’, already under savage attack by the U.S. imperium, has been swept aside.
Conservatism in its most current iteration - neoconservatism - has very little continuity with traditional conservatism as expounded by say Edmund Burke. In its U.S. imperial form, it reflects the most brutal and reactionary elements of empire. It is the neoconservatives who are now guiding U.S. imperialist policy as it attempts to shore up its domination of West Asia - its support for being central to this strategy - and prepares for a global war of aggression against its most serious rival, China. Neoliberalsim that holds sway across most ‘western’ capitalist democracies and neoconservatism are basically joined at the hip. Trumpism - a form of protofascism - draws on the most reactionary barbaric elements of both traditions…
For Palestinians and other oppressed peoples suffering under the totalizing yoke of the imperium it doesn’t matter whether it is the so-called liberals, neoconservatives or Trumpian protofascists who are dropping massive bombs on their tents, hospitals, schools, mosques; cafes, or engineering a famine, sniping starving people including children as they desparately line up for food aid. All are the face of radical evil, the defining feature of the present-day capital / imperial system, personified by the monsters at the helm in Washington.
If you haven’t read much Marxist literature on ideology - in my view, axiomatic for everyone on the Left as its core concepts are essential to achieving some form of postcapitalist socialist future - a good primer is the following:
https://www.liberationschool.org/what-is-ideology/
But always keeping in mind that we can’t just oppose the imperium with words: in the final analysis countervailing action is required, action guided by the most powerful ideas. When these ideas are properly understood, they inevitably become a material force.
correction to the last sentence. It should read ‘…both the neoliberals and the neoconservatives…’
I knew this and failed to see it. Jimmy Carter, murdered 1 million East Timor as a religious man of God. My first vote, hopey dreamy : ( Then Obummer, Bernie. I am a failure as a voter pretending my vote means something other than local. I will still vote, I had to write in Jill Stein who was a absolute failure in campaign. I can work in the mountains of Chile, maybe that's my next vote, with my feet : )
Voting: a trap for fools.
I would say yes on national elections so it seems. Local elections a friend of mine won a Mayoral election three months ago and is already making positive great changes seen by those in the city. I have another friend who won a State Senate election who is also making major progress within the state for her district. We will know more when Mamdami is elected. His election will having meaning IF he does even one thing on the list. The Demoncrats are already lining up to sabotage him, even the traitor Bernie. We shall see. I don't have great hope though. Not kidding myself.
Obviously, local administration must predominate, with voting an afterthought. There are no 'great' or meaningful changes made within the current system - not possible.
Logically, voting presides the administration change/s. That is the risk we take in voting, liars lie. So far my friends have not lied about their goals from election. They both fight for working people everyday in office. Without voting they would not be in office. The people who presided them were horrible people who now are being investigated for crimes. That is how rare a successful election is, those are the only two I know of in my state. Revolution is coming.
Nope. Voting is a formalism. What's called for is concensus, following the local model. It takes patience; voting is a quick fix. Implicit in it is irresponsibility.
I loved listening to Malcom X speak the truth. Such a brilliant mind, thanks for sharing this speech.
I didn’t know the early roots and then the infiltration history of the march nor James Baldwin being cancelled. Malcom still proving the honest truth about our country.
AOC is the establishment
now.
Spot on as usual... I could see AOC was a fraud when I first saw her.
Bels, Remember... AOC wearing a ball gown to the Met gala emblazoned with the words 'Tax the rich'.... If you don't laugh.. you will cry.
I wish I had known you then, it would have saved me tons of cash and work. : (
AOC and Obama are kindred spirits: fucking disgusting Aunt Jemima and Uncle Tom that sold out non-whites to continue feeding in the white supremacy trough.
Upton Sinclair said it best:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
It's interesting to me, that we have these negative expressions about these two characters, neither of whom were actually negative in their context.
Do you even know why this world is so fucked up? Just look at the ongoing live-streamed genocide happening in Gaza.
How many times did AOC or Obama criticise the Jews for the cruelties inflicted on the Palestinians?
There is only one group of people that is more evil and disgusting than Jews and white people: fucking Aunt Jemima and Uncle Toms fronting for white supremacy to earn a place in the feeding trough.
Wake up! Stop pretending to be asleep!