I wish that "liberal" hadn't been redefined to mean "whatever the Ds do," but admit that it's a lost cause. If Big Media decides to redefine a word, they can.
So I don't use this or any other Orwellized words. It's better to discuss specific issues and actions.
It's diabolical -- get someone to identify as "liberal", then as the decades pass gradually redefine it as endless war, censorship, lawfare, and giving big business all it wants, all within the confines of a corrupt police state. And it worked. Most impressive. If I hadn't seen it done I wouldn't have believed it.
It is ironic that "liberals" have morphed from freedom-seeking, "live and let live" libertines and epicureans to witch-hunters so sour, priggish, self-righteous and humorless that they make The Church Lady look like Johnny Rotten by comparison.
Meanwhile, the subversives, the pranksters, the Tellers Of Forbidden Truths, the Lenny Bruces, are to be found on the Alt-Right, and to a lesser extent, the Dirtbag Left.
This is not because of any inherent censoriousness on the part of liberals, much less any innate principle on the part of conservatives, but rather, is the result of their changing relationships to power.
Having abandoned the havenots, the Ds thumpingly lost the 1994 election. For 1996 they needed a new source of votes. As reported by Robert Reich in his Locked In The Cabinet, Clinton hired data-driven consultant Robert Morris. This worthy targeted a new base of "women, Hispanics, and young marrieds." (Blacks were already in the fold and so not new.) Appalled by this abandonment, his efforts as Secretary of Labor largely blocked, Reich resigned shortly afterward. Identity politics has continued to this day.
But at base money still dominates politics. This will not change. You can propagandize the people all you want, but if someone's standard of living is decreasing they face this reality every day. The havenots and their sympathizers want change. No change is on offer. In order to contain the growing disgruntlement the state resorts to censorship and heavy handed police tactics. However as standards of living continue to decrease rebellion nevertheless grows.
The 2008 Obama campaign asked "Do you want change, or more of the same?" They cleverly omitted to mention which of these alternatives they would pursue.
Reich said the most lasting change he made as Secretary of Labor was coining the term "corporate welfare." This was inadvertent. He used it in a minor speech. The R press made a big deal of this, thusly popularizing the term.
Liberals insist that all of the above are knuckle-dragging conservatives and probably beat their wives and sometimes even misuse pronouns to boot, even if the names you mentioned insist otherwise.
How did I never hear of the "Dirtbag Left?" This is me to a tee; my liberal sisters would literally disown me if they saw my tweets. I rarely get a follower now, probably due to my profile ("Hope I live to see the death of the US Empire and capitalism and the 1% on their knees.") but then my content has dwindled from angry snark to admittedly boring as I lose energy and interest in trying to convince anybody of anything.
Thank you! I'm wondering if I should wear my upside down "weathered" American flag T-shirt on July 4th. It has Thomas Jefferson quote on it, "When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty." I'm sure all my neighbors will freak, both the homeowners and the renters (a huge topic of conversation in my town is who owns and who rents).
Liberalism has always meant a whiny self-entitled middle class inflicting their feelings-based designs on everyone else. It is the theology of capitalism, nothing more. People need to stop having romantic relations with their property.
No. What you're describing used to be called "politically correct", which ha morphed to a broader and more dangerous concept of "woke".
People tend to blend and conflate the cultural versus the political-economic definitions of that word, as well and confuse the distinction between "classic [UK] liberalism" and the US mid 20the century version of it. Very different.
I think you’re deconstructing identity politics. The static defining of liberals as Democrats when the DP goes from calling for publicly funded elections and raising taxes (to 1964 levels) to rekindling the Cold War and condemning anyone who questions the legitimacy of elections, is the propaganda of the current posers calling the shots and pushing their narratives via their obedient media. The sleeping masses cling to their party when their party has set its house on fire. Identity politics.
They did it to with "populist", a term that was used for a politician like Eugene Debs.....but in the hands of today's propaganda merchants now equates to far right demagogue not favoured by the establishment. I
Hmm, how about a list of Orwellized words. Liberal, conservative, right, left, racist, populist, terrorist, genocide, democracy, socialist, journalism, law.
I'd include "fascist" but Orwell himself noted that in his day it meant "any authoritarian regime that I don't like." Then both sides can quite reasonably denounce one another as fascist. Since "communism" is used in the same way, it is not unusual to see the same policy or person denounced both as fascist and also as communist.
"Think tank". They aren't paid to think. They are employed to sell a Big Money position. My brother-in-law worked for one and complained about this before he retired. However it wasn't Orwellized because it wasn't around in the old days to be later Orwellized. It was BS from the getgo.
Then there are words that nevermore appear in the corporate media. Peace, corruption, compromise, justice, fairness, honesty, compassion, love, forgiveness, the little guy. I guess this form of Orwellization should be called memory-holed words. I was particular struck how in Bill Clinton's memoirs he never even hinted at the influence of big donors on politics. That confirmed to me that big donors dominate politics.
What's the difference between a neoliberal and a neoconservative other than an increasingly meaningless party label? I say these words serve only to give a thin illusion of choice.
I'm sure there are more, but I've boycotted corporate media for the last five years so I'm behind the curve. Little help?
Seems like it’s easier to stick with your tribe than risk uncertainty in an effort to retain your humanity. The definition of “liberal” hasn’t changed, but those who were Democrats before oligarchy and still call the DP their tribe were never liberals, but followers of the path of least resistance. Identify politics was made for committed followers.
Agreed. But I think it’s more a corporate media operation, tho I would certainly agree that the divide between corporate and military is negligible. Btw, Jimmy just dud a good take down of how corporations are co-opting the word “woke” so that ignorant troglodytes can attack it and never have to wake up. God help the middle class if it ever woke up. And in fact I think that is why the Sheeple have been such recalcitrant Sheeple—they know their well being is predicated on all the misery they see around them and they are afraid to lose it by waking up.
Some know, others are just ignorant. Since we can't read their minds, how to say which is which. But studies of knowledge show a level of ignorance that can boggle the mind. 6% of US citizens can't find the USA on a map of the world. (Presumably infants were excluded from this poll.)
Spoken like a true neoliberal. So unable to “read minds” they can’t even see what is right in front of them, acted out over and over. In fact can’t even identify a single value that they will defend because everything is relative and it might cost privilege to stand up for it. Pfft.
Gloria Steinem the famous “female liberation icon” will not talk about her time as a CIA asset. The ‘women’s liberation movement” was gutted and disinfo’d from the inside. Not the first time the CIA has used this standard operation and tactic which has snare drug rings or weapons dealers or activists.
So for the last 8 years the DNC have been slowly captured by the CIA and their assets. They want both parties fighting [divide - conquer] but delivering the identical program and message. The “Left” is no longer the left it’s been captured by the ‘deep state’ and turned into a right wing puppet. All media is now owned by 5 corporations. They all purvey the “same old” just using different phrasing. FWIW there is no left in the USA whatsoever.
The DNC hasn't been "captured"; the "Progressive" (liberal legalist) movement has always sought to inflict their particular Puritan autism on the entire world and the DNC is just the vehicle they landed in. All this dates back to 1890-1920, with Progressive icon Woodrow Wilson and WWI crowning their actualization and giving a foretaste of the secularized "not peace but a sword" they would be bringing us.
I use those terms in particular technical senses: Puritan being that of the English Calvinists and their pietist ways, autism in the sense of obsession with models and ideals to the exclusion of the real world.
You aren't entitled to exemption from criticism just because you need to feel good about your property, and that goes for this imaginary intersubjectivity you call a movement as well. Feelings warrant nothing. Managers lie. All social capital owners lie. Learn something about your own movement's history instead of thinking you are entitled to make up myths and have them respected:
There's no populist right wing, either--and I mean the loving kind, not the corporatist Nazi kind. The CIA enlisted Nazis at the end of 1945; look up Operation Paperclip.
"If my hunch is correct..." If you want proof all you have to do is pick up a how-to book on sales, advertising, and marketing. Advertising spending world-wide is projected to reach a trillion dollars in 2026. And don't get me started on Michel Foucault.
I'm sorry if you fail to get the drift of my acronyms and are apparently deeply ignorant of history. IWW is "Industrial Workers of the World". The Molly Maguires were coal miners (you can do the Google). Both founded "Movements" and neither were "super-rich", hence contradicting your silly claim. Sufficently intelligible for you?
But you didn't know of those things, therefore you are displaying ignorance of them. It's not anyone else's problem but yours that you needed to emotionalize the word to escape acknowledging the state of play and avoid repairing your untrue belief matrix. In fact, it's quite common with that community of ideologues known as "Debate Bros" to exploit their own performative ignorance for political aims.
So there is a very large problematic that you are only making worse by pretending that people who don't know history have a right to introduce falsehoods into the conversation, which is an error that is characteristic of the neoliberal thought collective, the enemy of nature and reality itself.
As Caitlin says, even were both sides equally bad it doesn't justify standing on the sidelines and letting it go where it will. But my view is that "both sides bad" is neither the case nor a tenable position. It isn't the case because of the power/wealth imbalance, and differences in history and outlook. Who/what has Russia invaded juxtaposed against who has the West - England and the US invaded, stolen from, lied about, exploited, etc.. ? Seems pretty clear: Russia is fighting for its life - as Russia, over against the deliberate marginalization and existential threat posed by NATO and the West. The recent and recent past history clearly supports this take. And we must support it because not only is it right and just - its rightness and justness is intimately related to our survival: Russia will never give in. That is the whole point of nuclear weapons. Russia is clearly on the moral high ground. If justice will not be done because of the intransigence and ignorance and greed of players and observers, the ensuing injustice and suffering will be shared by all players and observers.
I Agree with you Doris Wrench Eisler " both sides bad" is not a tenable position. America is the Empire and we all know its record of death squads, regime change, creating "civil wars", of never ending wars resulting in death and destruction and masses of displaced refugees and of stealing resources of the global south, not to mention its war on its own marginalised people. Why did the empire and its vassal states start this war to diminish Russia if not to balkanise and subjugate. The Russian Federation is fighting a war of survival against a powerful western war machine with its relentless propaganda. Of course justice and morality is on its side. Our survival depends on what happens next.
doris and Indu: You miss the point. Nation States are obsolete. Their time has come and gone. Nation States are dinosaurs who don't realize that their ass end is dead. The signal hasn't reached the brains, and I use the term loosely, of those in charge of nation states.
The Globalists want one big Nation State. They are swimming against the tide of history.
Decentralization is the future of mankind. Big isn't better. Small is better. Empires provide nothing for the workers.
How does this differ from what I or Indu Abeysekara say? The globalists are for one big nation state: we say cooperation and respect for every nation and culture -interdependence, symbiosis, is the answer - and that is decentralization. How can you have decentralization without separate nations?
Doris Wrench Eisler: I'll be specific. What is a nation? How do you define a nation? Are the Cherokee a nation? Are the Celts? Are Americans (USA)? Are the British? French? Ukrainians? Nigerians?
How many civil wars have been fought and are being fought in these "nations"?
A nation is not a culture. Don't confuse the two terms.
How about Iraq? or Afghanistan?
You can point to any country/nation on Earth and find divisions. I suppose Japan and the Han Chinese, Koreans are exceptions.
The "globalists" love the Nation State because it is a very effective vehicle for them to manipulate passions of national identity and patriotism to promote war and to enforce the legal and regulatory and financial requirements of capitalism (and trade and investment). A "rules based order" is actually implemented very effectively and exclusively by Nations.
No, the "globalists" love the Nation State because it is a very effective vehicle for them to manipulate passions of national identity and patriotism to promote war and to enforce the legal and regulatory and financial requirements of capitalism (and trade and investment). A "rules based order" is actually implemented very effectively and exclusively by Nations
bill wolfe: I agree. Nation States are great ways to keep slavery going. People don't even realize that they are slaves. "Hey, I get to vote for my Massa(s)."
Passports didn't exist before WWI. The monarchies ended after WWI and now we have Nation States. Same slave game with a new name.
Yes, all Christian religions want one big slave market, and they come out and say as much several times throughout the NT.
Your proud ignorance sounds more like you're a paid shill with strict office IT policies and a set of scripts. Considering that you paste from capitalist propagandists such as Sowell uncritically, I think I can write you off as nothing more than a neoliberal noise source, but I will leave you with an Abstract (since your office IT won't see it otherwise):
Bobbitt, The Rise of the Market-State, and Race
The importance of Philip Bobbitt’s seminal works is already being recognized as on par with such classics as Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. In these books, Bobbitt argues that the nature of the state is changing in a fundamental way in that our country is shifting from a nation-state into a market-state. Bobbitt's theories have profound significance for many areas of law which scholars are just beginning to explore. This article is seeking to fill a gap in the literature by considering the implications of his views in the area of race and immigration law. Specifically, the article contends that Bobbitt's theories explain much of what we observe in the area of race, including hyper-incarceration of blacks, the current beneficiaries of affirmative action, radical changes in pleading requirements in civil rights actions, and that sub-national attempts to preserve culture through the control of immigration will fail. This paper argues that race theorists must take into account Bobbitt's theories regarding the changing nature of the state.
I'm with you on decentralization...but perhaps we can admit that everyone in this thread is anti-globalist or anti-imperial.
I don't agree with Freud on many things, but I think his warning about the "narcissism of small differences" is something that is worth consideration, especially among those of us with essentially compatible heterodox views. First, let's overthrow The Empire, then we can break up the nation states and return to the 5000 to 6000 unique cultural/political groups that used to exist.
JackSirius: I agree that people on this thread are anti-globalist and anti-imperial, but the root of the problem is the idea of the nation state. Our masters don't care if we like imperialism or globalism or not as long as we keep believing in the nation state so that we stay enslaved to the oligarchs who run this place.
Third side is redundant. Get it straight: Russia will not back down: it's calling the shots because it is the country under Western attack: it will not make concessions, and why should it? The West contrived the whole deal-the proxy war, costly to it, Ukraine and Russia: let it live with it. Russia goes down, we all go down. But that would only happen if Western intransigence goes from mulish to suicidal.
Liberals are now tyrants because the Democrat Party, formerly the home base of old school liberals, was repurposed by the Clintons and Tony Coelho to be a mirror for the Republican Party. The latter was the proud defender of corporate privilege, while the DP was defending labor unions and focused on economic fairness and protection of the vulnerable.
Now, the DP is the war party and the champion of identity issues, which costs its billionaire patrons nothing. Inclusiveness is a great platform for a party that has nothing substantial to offer 90% of its members. The DP stands for racial equality, gender equality, access to abortion, and freedom of expression, provided what s being expressed is in line with the narratives of its benefactors. Substack is probably soon going to be targeted as a criminal platform that gives voice to crazies, and the charges will, no doubt, be leveled by liberals.
Its not so much that both parties are pro-war, thats obvious, its more that they are both pro-death, any cause, any source, any action that kills humans is approved and any effort that promotes humanities healthy growth is the enemy.
Hmm. I will presume to say that you feel that if you were to take a stance in favor of peace that you would stand the chance of being confused with a pacifist. That could be, but know that Dwight Eisenhower, whom no one ever mistook for a pacifist, entitled his memoirs "Waging Peace." He was a peace activist and not at all anti-war.
What I have in mind with "anti-peace" is that these people are literally opposed to peace. They see war as a value for its own sake, with peace as a threat to this order. I would go so far as to say that the anti-peace view dominates DC. Paul Krugman calls this "weaponized Keynesianism."
Psychologists tell us that a position in favor of something is always stronger than one opposed to something. That's how we got the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." This is why I advocate the terms pro-peace and anti-peace, framing the issue advantageously.
In 1974 the Kissinger institute published a strategy paper that described population reduction as a main priority for the future and pushed the idea that abortion, sterilization and non-reproductive relationships should be priorities for government guidance. If you look at the goals of both parties they push this plan, willing sterilization is happening today, abortion as a right, non stop death campaigns around the world, everything possible to reduce the population and stem its growth now seems to be political platform dogma on both sides of the isle.
"So now we’re in this bizarre situation where being “liberal” effectively means supporting censorship to silence your political enemies for the benefit of the most murderous and tyrannical people on this planet." No one can state the obvious like you can, Caitlin. And that, of course, is the hardest thing to see.
Analagous to how the term 'woke' was politicised and redefined in a polar opposite way, 'Liberal' now seems to have lost any of its original meaning in an age when send you to sleep cell agents like Biden and Starmer have completely captured the mainstream 'Liberal' agenda. Political homogenisation of the masses (Operation Dumbing Down) is now largely complete.
No, Liberalism has always referred to the theology of capitalism, and Progressivism has always referred to the ideology of liberal legalism. In fact, you are the one falling in love with your imaginary friend.
Well said. I think the term 'liberal' needs to be used correctly. The people who call themselves 'liberals' are anti-liberals and are, ironically, often right wing.
Actually, I think the people in the West who consider themselves conservative are Liberal, just as the people who consider themselves liberal are Liberal. They all believe first and foremost in personal freedom and human rights. They differ significantly on some specific rights and freedoms (e.g., abortion, transgender issues, guns), but they are united in their belief in the basic idea. That's why liberals and conservatives have been able to get along, most of the time, during American history. They all adhere to principles of the Enlightenment.
John Mearsheimer has noted this and points out that Liberalism allows people to get along with those whose more fundamental beliefs differ from their own; for example, Catholics and Protestants, Christians and non-Christians, Theists and Atheists, etc. But at the same time, Liberalism makes people want to impose their Liberal attitude onto other people in the rest of the world. Otherwise, the people in other places aren't enjoying their proper freedom and human rights. So we have to go out and liberate them --> Humanitarian Imperialism. Or Secular Zionism.
The 'liberals' are authoritarian and strongly believe in imperialism, as do the 'conservatives.' Neither believe in individual liberty. Both want control. Wanting to violently impose ones 'liberal' beliefs on other countries is the definition of imperialism. Using the old terms of left and right is too simplistic because the 'liberals' and 'conservatives' and both strongly socialistic and statist. Abortion bans, Covid vaccine mandates, government spying, corporate subsidies, big military, corporate fascism, and big gov worship are highly supported and adored by both 'liberals' and 'conservatives.' This is why we need to use words correctly, otherwise people will call themselves anything. I don't care what comes out of peoples' mouths; I look at their actions and lifestyles to determine what they are politically.
The paragon of free speech and speaking truth to power is rotting in prison and being tortured, while the malignant liars are free to spew their filth, including to run for POTUS. What is wrong with this picture?
Free Julian Assange.
The propaganda machine of the government and the powerful have distorted the concept of spreading democracy as an excuse to fight foreign wars and exercise sanctions. What is the truth of democracy in Ukraine? Just like the truth of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan and a dozen other wars by USA Empire. Ukraine did have a democratically elected leader pro Russia until in 2014 it was overthrown in a mini coup assisted by the US Government. If it wasn’t for the fact that the USA was pushing to include Ukraine into NATO I speculate that there would not have been a Russian invasion. Russia’s survival would be mortally and constantly threatened by first strike NATO nuclear weapons placed 500 miles from Moscow, by a country who already used two nuclear bombs on another (get inside the mind of a Russian). Think Cuban missile crisis for comparison. The war is horrendous and Ukraine is being destroyed by the USA proxy war against Russia. Simply stating that Putin is another Hitler and he wants to reestablish an Empire is too simplistic. Russia’s actions in the past 30 years was to form a better relationship with Europe, especially with energy trade. This was a direct threat to USA’s influence in Europe.
The dominoes fall and the threat of nuclear war increases daily. We need diplomacy, not war.
I've always held the view that in a democracy it was your duty to be politically incorrect. To question what elected officials are doing. I don't even know what the term means but I can see the results. The term seldom is used now so it looks like it achieved it's intended goals, one being to divide the country while both parties work towards the same end goals. If you don't completely agree with either party you are considered politically "incorrect" by the people who still think there are differences in the parties and ostracized.
"So now we’re in this bizarre situation where being “liberal” effectively means supporting censorship to silence your political enemies for the benefit of the most murderous and tyrannical people on this planet."
Liberals love to virtue-signal their being open to other points of view, but then are always outraged when someone actually expresses another point of view.
"They are pitting race against race, gender against gender, rich against poor, and therein inciting the masses to fight amongst each other and in the process overlook the real danger that should unite us – the unceasing growth of centralized State control." -- The Academy of Ideas
That also includes RINOs, Marxists, progressives, communists, leftists and a host of other government imperialists and terrorists. It's no use.
Government has failed the test of time, every time, for all time.
It is no longer viable, in any form, because with government you always have ONE ruler of some type and a hoard of arrogant parasites all trying to obtain power from this congloberation of hierarchy.
Great article. I hope more find the ability to stand on their own two feet rather than be swallowed up by a particular party. Of course more can be achieved when we co-operate but this rule is not strictly too. Parties are controlled by donors who then dictate policy. Ultimately politics is a game of compromise, but how far to you go with party politics until your breaking your own set of beliefs and values? By being independent and standing on your own two feet you can stick to your principles more. We need to find a system that promotes independent thinking not succumbing to the powerful lobbyists with their offers of money and power that feeds the system of narcissism that we have today
I wish that "liberal" hadn't been redefined to mean "whatever the Ds do," but admit that it's a lost cause. If Big Media decides to redefine a word, they can.
So I don't use this or any other Orwellized words. It's better to discuss specific issues and actions.
It's diabolical -- get someone to identify as "liberal", then as the decades pass gradually redefine it as endless war, censorship, lawfare, and giving big business all it wants, all within the confines of a corrupt police state. And it worked. Most impressive. If I hadn't seen it done I wouldn't have believed it.
It is ironic that "liberals" have morphed from freedom-seeking, "live and let live" libertines and epicureans to witch-hunters so sour, priggish, self-righteous and humorless that they make The Church Lady look like Johnny Rotten by comparison.
Meanwhile, the subversives, the pranksters, the Tellers Of Forbidden Truths, the Lenny Bruces, are to be found on the Alt-Right, and to a lesser extent, the Dirtbag Left.
This is not because of any inherent censoriousness on the part of liberals, much less any innate principle on the part of conservatives, but rather, is the result of their changing relationships to power.
Correct, but even more important was the displacement of political-economic concepts by cultural and identitarian ones.
Having abandoned the havenots, the Ds thumpingly lost the 1994 election. For 1996 they needed a new source of votes. As reported by Robert Reich in his Locked In The Cabinet, Clinton hired data-driven consultant Robert Morris. This worthy targeted a new base of "women, Hispanics, and young marrieds." (Blacks were already in the fold and so not new.) Appalled by this abandonment, his efforts as Secretary of Labor largely blocked, Reich resigned shortly afterward. Identity politics has continued to this day.
But at base money still dominates politics. This will not change. You can propagandize the people all you want, but if someone's standard of living is decreasing they face this reality every day. The havenots and their sympathizers want change. No change is on offer. In order to contain the growing disgruntlement the state resorts to censorship and heavy handed police tactics. However as standards of living continue to decrease rebellion nevertheless grows.
The 2008 Obama campaign asked "Do you want change, or more of the same?" They cleverly omitted to mention which of these alternatives they would pursue.
Reich said the most lasting change he made as Secretary of Labor was coining the term "corporate welfare." This was inadvertent. He used it in a minor speech. The R press made a big deal of this, thusly popularizing the term.
Interesting point, but note how the liberal tribe has repudiated all of the names you mentioned,.
Liberals insist that all of the above are knuckle-dragging conservatives and probably beat their wives and sometimes even misuse pronouns to boot, even if the names you mentioned insist otherwise.
How did I never hear of the "Dirtbag Left?" This is me to a tee; my liberal sisters would literally disown me if they saw my tweets. I rarely get a follower now, probably due to my profile ("Hope I live to see the death of the US Empire and capitalism and the 1% on their knees.") but then my content has dwindled from angry snark to admittedly boring as I lose energy and interest in trying to convince anybody of anything.
Thank you! I'm wondering if I should wear my upside down "weathered" American flag T-shirt on July 4th. It has Thomas Jefferson quote on it, "When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty." I'm sure all my neighbors will freak, both the homeowners and the renters (a huge topic of conversation in my town is who owns and who rents).
Liberal Legalists, aka Progressives.
Liberalism has always meant a whiny self-entitled middle class inflicting their feelings-based designs on everyone else. It is the theology of capitalism, nothing more. People need to stop having romantic relations with their property.
No. What you're describing used to be called "politically correct", which ha morphed to a broader and more dangerous concept of "woke".
People tend to blend and conflate the cultural versus the political-economic definitions of that word, as well and confuse the distinction between "classic [UK] liberalism" and the US mid 20the century version of it. Very different.
I think you’re deconstructing identity politics. The static defining of liberals as Democrats when the DP goes from calling for publicly funded elections and raising taxes (to 1964 levels) to rekindling the Cold War and condemning anyone who questions the legitimacy of elections, is the propaganda of the current posers calling the shots and pushing their narratives via their obedient media. The sleeping masses cling to their party when their party has set its house on fire. Identity politics.
Outsiders consider this odd. But it appears to be normal human herd instinct.
They did it to with "populist", a term that was used for a politician like Eugene Debs.....but in the hands of today's propaganda merchants now equates to far right demagogue not favoured by the establishment. I
Hmm, how about a list of Orwellized words. Liberal, conservative, right, left, racist, populist, terrorist, genocide, democracy, socialist, journalism, law.
I'd include "fascist" but Orwell himself noted that in his day it meant "any authoritarian regime that I don't like." Then both sides can quite reasonably denounce one another as fascist. Since "communism" is used in the same way, it is not unusual to see the same policy or person denounced both as fascist and also as communist.
"Think tank". They aren't paid to think. They are employed to sell a Big Money position. My brother-in-law worked for one and complained about this before he retired. However it wasn't Orwellized because it wasn't around in the old days to be later Orwellized. It was BS from the getgo.
Then there are words that nevermore appear in the corporate media. Peace, corruption, compromise, justice, fairness, honesty, compassion, love, forgiveness, the little guy. I guess this form of Orwellization should be called memory-holed words. I was particular struck how in Bill Clinton's memoirs he never even hinted at the influence of big donors on politics. That confirmed to me that big donors dominate politics.
What's the difference between a neoliberal and a neoconservative other than an increasingly meaningless party label? I say these words serve only to give a thin illusion of choice.
I'm sure there are more, but I've boycotted corporate media for the last five years so I'm behind the curve. Little help?
Seems like it’s easier to stick with your tribe than risk uncertainty in an effort to retain your humanity. The definition of “liberal” hasn’t changed, but those who were Democrats before oligarchy and still call the DP their tribe were never liberals, but followers of the path of least resistance. Identify politics was made for committed followers.
For the great majority it's easier but it depends on one's character. A few will ride their beliefs all the way to the grave.
'The definition of “liberal” hasn’t changed'
Do tell.
Agreed. But I think it’s more a corporate media operation, tho I would certainly agree that the divide between corporate and military is negligible. Btw, Jimmy just dud a good take down of how corporations are co-opting the word “woke” so that ignorant troglodytes can attack it and never have to wake up. God help the middle class if it ever woke up. And in fact I think that is why the Sheeple have been such recalcitrant Sheeple—they know their well being is predicated on all the misery they see around them and they are afraid to lose it by waking up.
Some know, others are just ignorant. Since we can't read their minds, how to say which is which. But studies of knowledge show a level of ignorance that can boggle the mind. 6% of US citizens can't find the USA on a map of the world. (Presumably infants were excluded from this poll.)
Spoken like a true neoliberal. So unable to “read minds” they can’t even see what is right in front of them, acted out over and over. In fact can’t even identify a single value that they will defend because everything is relative and it might cost privilege to stand up for it. Pfft.
I shall not respond further to your insults.
Excellent. It’s such a waste of my time to try to educate neolibs.
That would be Mr. Leo Strauss, author of _Persecution and the Art of Writing_, and it's actually been a systematic op since 1947 if not before
Gloria Steinem the famous “female liberation icon” will not talk about her time as a CIA asset. The ‘women’s liberation movement” was gutted and disinfo’d from the inside. Not the first time the CIA has used this standard operation and tactic which has snare drug rings or weapons dealers or activists.
So for the last 8 years the DNC have been slowly captured by the CIA and their assets. They want both parties fighting [divide - conquer] but delivering the identical program and message. The “Left” is no longer the left it’s been captured by the ‘deep state’ and turned into a right wing puppet. All media is now owned by 5 corporations. They all purvey the “same old” just using different phrasing. FWIW there is no left in the USA whatsoever.
You’re welcome
If the Establishment is good at nothing else, it is very good at determining whom to buy off, whom to co-opt, whom to neutralize, whom to ignore.
Capitalism, for its own part, is really good at making ways of cutting things apart and moving the pieces around.
The DNC hasn't been "captured"; the "Progressive" (liberal legalist) movement has always sought to inflict their particular Puritan autism on the entire world and the DNC is just the vehicle they landed in. All this dates back to 1890-1920, with Progressive icon Woodrow Wilson and WWI crowning their actualization and giving a foretaste of the secularized "not peace but a sword" they would be bringing us.
I use those terms in particular technical senses: Puritan being that of the English Calvinists and their pietist ways, autism in the sense of obsession with models and ideals to the exclusion of the real world.
You aren't entitled to exemption from criticism just because you need to feel good about your property, and that goes for this imaginary intersubjectivity you call a movement as well. Feelings warrant nothing. Managers lie. All social capital owners lie. Learn something about your own movement's history instead of thinking you are entitled to make up myths and have them respected:
https://repository.library.brown.edu/studio/collections/id_594/?q=professional+managerial+class&search-scope=id_bdr%3A26166
There's no populist right wing, either--and I mean the loving kind, not the corporatist Nazi kind. The CIA enlisted Nazis at the end of 1945; look up Operation Paperclip.
"If my hunch is correct..." If you want proof all you have to do is pick up a how-to book on sales, advertising, and marketing. Advertising spending world-wide is projected to reach a trillion dollars in 2026. And don't get me started on Michel Foucault.
wouldn't it be Cheaper
to just install Chips?
your Own Personal
SIRI or ALEXA: Al-
ways closer than
your fingertips
.
a real
amazonian
mind-meld
Workers have already been paid by employers to have tracking chips installed.
how long till
Amazon rents
their brains* for 8 hrs?
.
*let The Big A
take over whilst
you Relax and Enjoy
a Cold one in your Mind
flitting around like Bambi
.
on shrooms.
.
now that's
Capitalism!
omg I can already
Hear the Argu-
ments
"The only people with the time and leisure to do things like found "movements" are super-rich people. "
IWW? Molly Maguires? Come on!
I'm sorry if you fail to get the drift of my acronyms and are apparently deeply ignorant of history. IWW is "Industrial Workers of the World". The Molly Maguires were coal miners (you can do the Google). Both founded "Movements" and neither were "super-rich", hence contradicting your silly claim. Sufficently intelligible for you?
But you didn't know of those things, therefore you are displaying ignorance of them. It's not anyone else's problem but yours that you needed to emotionalize the word to escape acknowledging the state of play and avoid repairing your untrue belief matrix. In fact, it's quite common with that community of ideologues known as "Debate Bros" to exploit their own performative ignorance for political aims.
So there is a very large problematic that you are only making worse by pretending that people who don't know history have a right to introduce falsehoods into the conversation, which is an error that is characteristic of the neoliberal thought collective, the enemy of nature and reality itself.
As Caitlin says, even were both sides equally bad it doesn't justify standing on the sidelines and letting it go where it will. But my view is that "both sides bad" is neither the case nor a tenable position. It isn't the case because of the power/wealth imbalance, and differences in history and outlook. Who/what has Russia invaded juxtaposed against who has the West - England and the US invaded, stolen from, lied about, exploited, etc.. ? Seems pretty clear: Russia is fighting for its life - as Russia, over against the deliberate marginalization and existential threat posed by NATO and the West. The recent and recent past history clearly supports this take. And we must support it because not only is it right and just - its rightness and justness is intimately related to our survival: Russia will never give in. That is the whole point of nuclear weapons. Russia is clearly on the moral high ground. If justice will not be done because of the intransigence and ignorance and greed of players and observers, the ensuing injustice and suffering will be shared by all players and observers.
I Agree with you Doris Wrench Eisler " both sides bad" is not a tenable position. America is the Empire and we all know its record of death squads, regime change, creating "civil wars", of never ending wars resulting in death and destruction and masses of displaced refugees and of stealing resources of the global south, not to mention its war on its own marginalised people. Why did the empire and its vassal states start this war to diminish Russia if not to balkanise and subjugate. The Russian Federation is fighting a war of survival against a powerful western war machine with its relentless propaganda. Of course justice and morality is on its side. Our survival depends on what happens next.
doris and Indu: You miss the point. Nation States are obsolete. Their time has come and gone. Nation States are dinosaurs who don't realize that their ass end is dead. The signal hasn't reached the brains, and I use the term loosely, of those in charge of nation states.
The Globalists want one big Nation State. They are swimming against the tide of history.
Decentralization is the future of mankind. Big isn't better. Small is better. Empires provide nothing for the workers.
How does this differ from what I or Indu Abeysekara say? The globalists are for one big nation state: we say cooperation and respect for every nation and culture -interdependence, symbiosis, is the answer - and that is decentralization. How can you have decentralization without separate nations?
Doris Wrench Eisler: I'll be specific. What is a nation? How do you define a nation? Are the Cherokee a nation? Are the Celts? Are Americans (USA)? Are the British? French? Ukrainians? Nigerians?
How many civil wars have been fought and are being fought in these "nations"?
A nation is not a culture. Don't confuse the two terms.
How about Iraq? or Afghanistan?
You can point to any country/nation on Earth and find divisions. I suppose Japan and the Han Chinese, Koreans are exceptions.
How many more can you name?
No nations. You have communities. Cultures are not nations. Don't fall for the BS.
The "globalists" love the Nation State because it is a very effective vehicle for them to manipulate passions of national identity and patriotism to promote war and to enforce the legal and regulatory and financial requirements of capitalism (and trade and investment). A "rules based order" is actually implemented very effectively and exclusively by Nations.
No, the globalists want one big market state. Your feelings are disinformation.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2798824
No, the "globalists" love the Nation State because it is a very effective vehicle for them to manipulate passions of national identity and patriotism to promote war and to enforce the legal and regulatory and financial requirements of capitalism (and trade and investment). A "rules based order" is actually implemented very effectively and exclusively by Nations
bill wolfe: I agree. Nation States are great ways to keep slavery going. People don't even realize that they are slaves. "Hey, I get to vote for my Massa(s)."
Passports didn't exist before WWI. The monarchies ended after WWI and now we have Nation States. Same slave game with a new name.
SSP: The globalists want one big slave market. I'm not reading any of your links. Write your own synopsis. Don't be lazy.
Yes, all Christian religions want one big slave market, and they come out and say as much several times throughout the NT.
Your proud ignorance sounds more like you're a paid shill with strict office IT policies and a set of scripts. Considering that you paste from capitalist propagandists such as Sowell uncritically, I think I can write you off as nothing more than a neoliberal noise source, but I will leave you with an Abstract (since your office IT won't see it otherwise):
Bobbitt, The Rise of the Market-State, and Race
The importance of Philip Bobbitt’s seminal works is already being recognized as on par with such classics as Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. In these books, Bobbitt argues that the nature of the state is changing in a fundamental way in that our country is shifting from a nation-state into a market-state. Bobbitt's theories have profound significance for many areas of law which scholars are just beginning to explore. This article is seeking to fill a gap in the literature by considering the implications of his views in the area of race and immigration law. Specifically, the article contends that Bobbitt's theories explain much of what we observe in the area of race, including hyper-incarceration of blacks, the current beneficiaries of affirmative action, radical changes in pleading requirements in civil rights actions, and that sub-national attempts to preserve culture through the control of immigration will fail. This paper argues that race theorists must take into account Bobbitt's theories regarding the changing nature of the state.
SSP: Your personal attacks and hatred of religion is boring.
Nothing they said contradicts your points and vice-versa. You're actually in agreement.
T-E Roll: To acknowledge nations is to set one on the path to globalism. Get big or get small. The status quo won't last.
I'm with you on decentralization...but perhaps we can admit that everyone in this thread is anti-globalist or anti-imperial.
I don't agree with Freud on many things, but I think his warning about the "narcissism of small differences" is something that is worth consideration, especially among those of us with essentially compatible heterodox views. First, let's overthrow The Empire, then we can break up the nation states and return to the 5000 to 6000 unique cultural/political groups that used to exist.
JackSirius: I agree that people on this thread are anti-globalist and anti-imperial, but the root of the problem is the idea of the nation state. Our masters don't care if we like imperialism or globalism or not as long as we keep believing in the nation state so that we stay enslaved to the oligarchs who run this place.
Take away Russia and Ukraine would be a pariah state.
Both sides are irrelevant would be closer to the truth.
Third side needed.
Third side is redundant. Get it straight: Russia will not back down: it's calling the shots because it is the country under Western attack: it will not make concessions, and why should it? The West contrived the whole deal-the proxy war, costly to it, Ukraine and Russia: let it live with it. Russia goes down, we all go down. But that would only happen if Western intransigence goes from mulish to suicidal.
Liberals are now tyrants because the Democrat Party, formerly the home base of old school liberals, was repurposed by the Clintons and Tony Coelho to be a mirror for the Republican Party. The latter was the proud defender of corporate privilege, while the DP was defending labor unions and focused on economic fairness and protection of the vulnerable.
Now, the DP is the war party and the champion of identity issues, which costs its billionaire patrons nothing. Inclusiveness is a great platform for a party that has nothing substantial to offer 90% of its members. The DP stands for racial equality, gender equality, access to abortion, and freedom of expression, provided what s being expressed is in line with the narratives of its benefactors. Substack is probably soon going to be targeted as a criminal platform that gives voice to crazies, and the charges will, no doubt, be leveled by liberals.
"See, as long as we have abortion and gay rights, then that makes the corporate imperialism okay!"
My understanding is that the D's favor war with Russia while the R's prefer China.
It really is a big argument over which moiety gets to run the potlatch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moiety_(kinship)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch
Its not so much that both parties are pro-war, thats obvious, its more that they are both pro-death, any cause, any source, any action that kills humans is approved and any effort that promotes humanities healthy growth is the enemy.
Please don't go with the war vs. anti-war frame. I say it's peace vs. anti-peace. There is no peace party. There are two anti-peace parties.
Hmm. I will presume to say that you feel that if you were to take a stance in favor of peace that you would stand the chance of being confused with a pacifist. That could be, but know that Dwight Eisenhower, whom no one ever mistook for a pacifist, entitled his memoirs "Waging Peace." He was a peace activist and not at all anti-war.
What I have in mind with "anti-peace" is that these people are literally opposed to peace. They see war as a value for its own sake, with peace as a threat to this order. I would go so far as to say that the anti-peace view dominates DC. Paul Krugman calls this "weaponized Keynesianism."
Psychologists tell us that a position in favor of something is always stronger than one opposed to something. That's how we got the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." This is why I advocate the terms pro-peace and anti-peace, framing the issue advantageously.
And its users hunted down and delivered to the authorities by the New York Times and Washington Post.
In 1974 the Kissinger institute published a strategy paper that described population reduction as a main priority for the future and pushed the idea that abortion, sterilization and non-reproductive relationships should be priorities for government guidance. If you look at the goals of both parties they push this plan, willing sterilization is happening today, abortion as a right, non stop death campaigns around the world, everything possible to reduce the population and stem its growth now seems to be political platform dogma on both sides of the isle.
"So now we’re in this bizarre situation where being “liberal” effectively means supporting censorship to silence your political enemies for the benefit of the most murderous and tyrannical people on this planet." No one can state the obvious like you can, Caitlin. And that, of course, is the hardest thing to see.
Thanks Caitlin.
Analagous to how the term 'woke' was politicised and redefined in a polar opposite way, 'Liberal' now seems to have lost any of its original meaning in an age when send you to sleep cell agents like Biden and Starmer have completely captured the mainstream 'Liberal' agenda. Political homogenisation of the masses (Operation Dumbing Down) is now largely complete.
Never underestimate the power of disinformation.
No, Liberalism has always referred to the theology of capitalism, and Progressivism has always referred to the ideology of liberal legalism. In fact, you are the one falling in love with your imaginary friend.
Well said. I think the term 'liberal' needs to be used correctly. The people who call themselves 'liberals' are anti-liberals and are, ironically, often right wing.
Actually, I think the people in the West who consider themselves conservative are Liberal, just as the people who consider themselves liberal are Liberal. They all believe first and foremost in personal freedom and human rights. They differ significantly on some specific rights and freedoms (e.g., abortion, transgender issues, guns), but they are united in their belief in the basic idea. That's why liberals and conservatives have been able to get along, most of the time, during American history. They all adhere to principles of the Enlightenment.
John Mearsheimer has noted this and points out that Liberalism allows people to get along with those whose more fundamental beliefs differ from their own; for example, Catholics and Protestants, Christians and non-Christians, Theists and Atheists, etc. But at the same time, Liberalism makes people want to impose their Liberal attitude onto other people in the rest of the world. Otherwise, the people in other places aren't enjoying their proper freedom and human rights. So we have to go out and liberate them --> Humanitarian Imperialism. Or Secular Zionism.
I once heard Noam Chomsky declare himself a conservative for these very reasons.
The 'liberals' are authoritarian and strongly believe in imperialism, as do the 'conservatives.' Neither believe in individual liberty. Both want control. Wanting to violently impose ones 'liberal' beliefs on other countries is the definition of imperialism. Using the old terms of left and right is too simplistic because the 'liberals' and 'conservatives' and both strongly socialistic and statist. Abortion bans, Covid vaccine mandates, government spying, corporate subsidies, big military, corporate fascism, and big gov worship are highly supported and adored by both 'liberals' and 'conservatives.' This is why we need to use words correctly, otherwise people will call themselves anything. I don't care what comes out of peoples' mouths; I look at their actions and lifestyles to determine what they are politically.
The paragon of free speech and speaking truth to power is rotting in prison and being tortured, while the malignant liars are free to spew their filth, including to run for POTUS. What is wrong with this picture?
Free Julian Assange.
The propaganda machine of the government and the powerful have distorted the concept of spreading democracy as an excuse to fight foreign wars and exercise sanctions. What is the truth of democracy in Ukraine? Just like the truth of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan and a dozen other wars by USA Empire. Ukraine did have a democratically elected leader pro Russia until in 2014 it was overthrown in a mini coup assisted by the US Government. If it wasn’t for the fact that the USA was pushing to include Ukraine into NATO I speculate that there would not have been a Russian invasion. Russia’s survival would be mortally and constantly threatened by first strike NATO nuclear weapons placed 500 miles from Moscow, by a country who already used two nuclear bombs on another (get inside the mind of a Russian). Think Cuban missile crisis for comparison. The war is horrendous and Ukraine is being destroyed by the USA proxy war against Russia. Simply stating that Putin is another Hitler and he wants to reestablish an Empire is too simplistic. Russia’s actions in the past 30 years was to form a better relationship with Europe, especially with energy trade. This was a direct threat to USA’s influence in Europe.
The dominoes fall and the threat of nuclear war increases daily. We need diplomacy, not war.
"Politically correct. "
I've always held the view that in a democracy it was your duty to be politically incorrect. To question what elected officials are doing. I don't even know what the term means but I can see the results. The term seldom is used now so it looks like it achieved it's intended goals, one being to divide the country while both parties work towards the same end goals. If you don't completely agree with either party you are considered politically "incorrect" by the people who still think there are differences in the parties and ostracized.
"So now we’re in this bizarre situation where being “liberal” effectively means supporting censorship to silence your political enemies for the benefit of the most murderous and tyrannical people on this planet."
Yes, but pronouns. *Pronouns*, people!
Not only pronouns, some of us have problems with prenouns. Why I no longer am on twitter. Stuck here on substack.
See, I am so oppressed, that humans misuse parts of speech referring to me that haven't even bee discovered yet.
I imagine Finster many don't want to discover you or any of us. We are the English class outcasts.
O, oppressed is me!
o.0
Liberals love to virtue-signal their being open to other points of view, but then are always outraged when someone actually expresses another point of view.
"Liberals love to virtue-signal their being open to other points of view,."
Not any more.
Somehow the concept of "safety" has managed to displace almost completely the traditional enlightenment values.
Property protection, translated into the world of social capital.
Why is it common to call the current criminal monstrosity of US uniparty and recent Dem administrations -- “leftist” ??
I consider myself a leftist and what all of us jointly criticize has nothing “left” but a lot of fascist...
One of the likely reasons is that US conservatives have been brainwashed over decades that anything bad is / must be -- “evil and godless Communism.”
Hence a general blindness toward recognition that recent Dem administrations have been and are fully fascist.
"They are pitting race against race, gender against gender, rich against poor, and therein inciting the masses to fight amongst each other and in the process overlook the real danger that should unite us – the unceasing growth of centralized State control." -- The Academy of Ideas
A Liberal is the 1st person to leave the room when the fight breaks out. - Big Bill Haywood, IWW
That also includes RINOs, Marxists, progressives, communists, leftists and a host of other government imperialists and terrorists. It's no use.
Government has failed the test of time, every time, for all time.
It is no longer viable, in any form, because with government you always have ONE ruler of some type and a hoard of arrogant parasites all trying to obtain power from this congloberation of hierarchy.
Great article. I hope more find the ability to stand on their own two feet rather than be swallowed up by a particular party. Of course more can be achieved when we co-operate but this rule is not strictly too. Parties are controlled by donors who then dictate policy. Ultimately politics is a game of compromise, but how far to you go with party politics until your breaking your own set of beliefs and values? By being independent and standing on your own two feet you can stick to your principles more. We need to find a system that promotes independent thinking not succumbing to the powerful lobbyists with their offers of money and power that feeds the system of narcissism that we have today