It's important to have a view from the Left's perspective on this, and while Jimmy Dore is (unfortunately) a useful idiot progressive because he seems to want to maintain principles (which is contrary to Leftism).
It's clear to me that the Corporatists are trying to undermine Trump's "Law & Order" narrative while they literally use the Communists and Black National Socialists to promote an insurgency and violence.
They are literally making the argument: "I'll stop beating you just as soon as you stop resisting." The progressives are only slowly recognizing they are never going to get a piece of the Corporatist pie unless you're a puppet for them like Shawn King.
It's sad watching Jimmy cling to leftism so hard. The leftists have the democrats pegged, but won't follow through to the obvious conclusion that the left is only power hungry cunts. Kamala is a cop that will crush antifa with actual secret police, and Bernie Sanders killed Rosa Luxemburg. Feel free to join the side that doesn't slaughter their friends Jimmy.
Moral conditioning. They see leftism as a moral principle in itself. The idea of being progressive is a moral act. Of course, if nazism were considered progressive, being a reactionary would be the moral stance.
Thing is, Nazism was progressive. The Leftists just always try to hold the political initiative to dictate what is progressive and when. That's how useful (but principled) idiots like Jimmy Dore get dragged along.
Hitler had the full support of the Cathedral until he turned on their pet project in Russia. I want to see the timeline where Nazi Germany goes up against Tsarist Russia in WW2. Does France, Britain, or America still care? Does the war with Japan still happen without Germany to protect Mao? Is Mao even around without the Soviets to get the gongfei started?
Hitler had the full support of the Cathedral until he turned on their pet project in Russia.
I wouldn't call the Soviet Union a pet project of the Cathedral. To me, "the Cathedral" of globalism is mostly located within the west as well as Berlin. Considering the incessant agitation, sponsored rebellions, and large scale invasion of the Soviet Red Army into eastern & central Europe in the interwar period; I really don't think it's fair to consider the Soviet Union as a "pet" of the globalist Fabian Socialists.
They feared Hitler because it was clear that Fascists were going to be an entirely separate intellectual and power elite that would not engage with them. That's what shocked them when Hitler & Stalin allied.
John Reed from the New Yorker is buried in the wall of Kremlin because he was handing out bags of cash to Lenin and friends, aka Civil Affairs. The Soviet Union couldn't have survived as long as it did without the west constantly funneling them resources, such as FDR's gift of industrialization. It was a client-state like China.
I think you're off base. I absolutely agree that western intellectuals and Fabian Socialists would have supported both China and the Soviet Union... but to call them Client States is utter nonsense.
One thing you've got to realize is that Russia was almost destined to be a Super Power in the 20th century by virtue of natural resource wealth alone. It was long suspected by European powers that their two major contenders in the 20th century would be Russia and the US. It wasn't clear in the 1800's who would win, but it was clear that both would absolutely surpass Europe, and that Russia could absolutely out-pace the US if they could get their shit together. This is one of the primary reasons Germany was dead set on waging war against Russia prior to WW1. They knew a war against Russia would be inevitable.
Whatever international support Russia or China may have gotten from the west, it absolutely wasn't enough for them to maintain power on that alone, and both states had more than enough potential to be independent of Europe & the US.
The communist system is unable to capitalize on it's resources. The countries have plenty enough resources to be super powers, but communism is a force of entropy itself. The parties of both countries would have collapsed if forced to be independent.
It's clear to me that the Corporatists are trying to undermine Trump's "Law & Order" narrative
Now that I've had a night to think this over, it seems quite obvious that that's the purpose of picking Harris for Biden's VP, that or the Dems have just given up on this year entirely of course. She represents both a pivot away from the riotous disorder that's proving more unpopular by the day, and bait to get Trump to cede ground on the 'law and order' front.
Definitely not a trap his campaign should fall for by going after her on the grounds that she 'just' locked up criminals - they're never going to attract the diehard progressive dangerhair vote, and such a tack would weaken them with suburban voters who want safety and calm above all.
IMO, it'd be best for the Trump campaign to instead continue running on a strident law & order, tough-on-crime line - while also hammering home the point that Harris doesn't represent law & order herself, but self-centered anarcho-tyranny. And fortunately, Tulsi Gabbard has done most of the work there with her own attack on Harris on the debate stage. There's absolutely nothing lawful or orderly about smoking weed while jailing other weed-smokers or hiding exonerating evidence to get innocents killed for the sake of one's own ambitions.
IMO, it'd be best for the Trump campaign to instead continue running on a strident law & order, tough-on-crime line - while also hammering home the point that Harris doesn't represent law & order herself, but self-centered anarcho-tyranny.
I really wish Trump (and conservatives in general) would hammer the concept of anarcho-tyranny more. And the WuFlu/race riots dichotomy has provided such good examples of it: "why are police arresting people for sitting on the beach but not for setting buildings on fire? Why are we letting violent criminals out of jail while jailing small business owners for trying to make a living? Shouldn't it be the other way around?"
Even a Seattle leftist will sometimes, when they think they're among friends, wonder aloud why they got a ticket for parking too close to a fire hydrant while nothing ever seems to happen to the run-down RV illegally parked down the street.
This isn't anarcho-tyranny though. True anarchy is purely chaotic. Leftist anarchy is targeted at specific people and institutions while being heavily funded and logistically supported. There's no anarchism here. This is effectively an insurgency conducted by the proxies of their paymasters.
It is anarcho-tyranny in the way that Sam Francis used/defined the term. It was not intended to describe a true state of anarchy but rather a directed and controlled "anarchy" with the explicit goal of terrorizing and controlling the law-abiding.
The elementary concept of anarcho-tyranny is simple enough. History knows of many societies that have succumbed to anarchy when the governing authorities proved incapable of controlling criminals, warlords, rebels, and marauding invaders. Today, that is not the problem in the United States. The government, as any taxpayer (especially delinquent ones) can tell you, shows no sign of collapsing or proving unable to perform its functions. In the United States today, the government works efficiently. Taxes are collected (you bet), the population is counted (sort of), the mail is delivered (sometimes), and countries that never bothered us are invaded and conquered.
Yet, at the same time, the country habitually wallows in a condition that often resembles Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature--nasty, brutish, and short. Crime rates have indeed declined in the last decade or so, but violent crime remains so common in larger cities and their suburbs that both residents and visitors live in a continuous state of fear, if not terror...
What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny--the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through “sensitivity training” and multiculturalist curricula, “hate crime” laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.
I mean, I guess that definition makes sense, but I wouldn't use it. The kind of anarchy he describes is an aspect of tyranny and authoritarianism being unable to have totalitarian control, so they leave certain portions to be utterly out of control, but also unable to form any normal parallel society.
Authoritarians prefer subjective laws that can be enforced on everyone and anyone at any given notice. Segments of the society outside of the authoritarian system are not purely anarchistic, but are a place of perpetual chaos subjective to eternal authoritarian oppression.
This is just what the natural state of non-totalitarian tyranny looks like.
It is the definition of insurgency. Portland, CHAZ, Chicago, etc are stage 3, taking territory. Fallujah, Sadr City, ISIS, etc were stage 3. Beirut is too right now.
I don't know which stages you're referring to, but as a matter of personal experience, Fallujah, Basra, ISIS's activity, Beirut both now and during the Lebonese Civil War are wholly different from what's going on in Seattle, Washington, and Chicago.
This isn't even really an insurgency, it's a counter-revolution.
Donald Trump et all, is effectively a Velvet Revolution ... (Orange Revolution ha ha ha)... against the Fabian Socialist establishment of the West. This means that while the attacks on the Federal Courthouse look like an insurgency... it isn't. It's a counter-revolutionary movement against a portion of the government that is genuinely against the modern establishment. NORMALLY the overthrow of the national government by revolutionary forces is the last part of a revolution, not the first. Our situation is slightly different from the norm.
Stage 1 is recruitment. Stage 2 is harassment attacks and organization. Stage 3 is holding territory. I don't remember if it was stages or levels or whatever, but it was a common term in COIN white papers.
I agree about it being backwards revolution day, but 99th generational regime change is uncharted territory.
I don't remember if it was stages or levels or whatever, but it was a common term in COIN white papers.
I don't remember seeing that in my COIN manual, but w/e.
99th generational regime change is uncharted territory.
No it's not, it's just the collapse of an old order. The "changing of the elites". I think this is the collapse of the Fabian Socialist order in the same way that WW1 was the the collapse of the European Royalist Aristocracy.
When you think about it, it's truly and evil and sadistic scam that has been done by many authoritarians before.
Cause absolute chaos in the streets, and waltz in like a knight in shining armor promising to save the citizenry from the violence that you created.
IMO, it'd be best for the Trump campaign to instead continue running on a strident law & order, tough-on-crime line - while also hammering home the point that Harris doesn't represent law & order herself, but self-centered anarcho-tyranny.
Agreed. Use the prosecutorial misconduct as a weapon. Point out that she goes hard to put political opponents in jail, but is prepared to let leftists walk. It's probably only about 3/4ths true (she'll only let useful leftists walk. She'll go after Antifa, but avoid anyone with BLM who is working with her campaign).
There's absolutely nothing lawful or orderly about smoking weed while jailing other weed-smokers or hiding exonerating evidence to get innocents killed for the sake of one's own ambitions.
Right, point out the morality policing like the Communists & Leftists do. They'll ignore rapes, murders, arson, and even serial killers. But they'll prosecute you over tweets, licences, and "hate speech".
It's important to have a view from the Left's perspective on this, and while Jimmy Dore is (unfortunately) a useful idiot progressive because he seems to want to maintain principles (which is contrary to Leftism).
It's clear to me that the Corporatists are trying to undermine Trump's "Law & Order" narrative while they literally use the Communists and Black National Socialists to promote an insurgency and violence.
They are literally making the argument: "I'll stop beating you just as soon as you stop resisting." The progressives are only slowly recognizing they are never going to get a piece of the Corporatist pie unless you're a puppet for them like Shawn King.
It's sad watching Jimmy cling to leftism so hard. The leftists have the democrats pegged, but won't follow through to the obvious conclusion that the left is only power hungry cunts. Kamala is a cop that will crush antifa with actual secret police, and Bernie Sanders killed Rosa Luxemburg. Feel free to join the side that doesn't slaughter their friends Jimmy.
Moral conditioning. They see leftism as a moral principle in itself. The idea of being progressive is a moral act. Of course, if nazism were considered progressive, being a reactionary would be the moral stance.
Thing is, Nazism was progressive. The Leftists just always try to hold the political initiative to dictate what is progressive and when. That's how useful (but principled) idiots like Jimmy Dore get dragged along.
Hitler had the full support of the Cathedral until he turned on their pet project in Russia. I want to see the timeline where Nazi Germany goes up against Tsarist Russia in WW2. Does France, Britain, or America still care? Does the war with Japan still happen without Germany to protect Mao? Is Mao even around without the Soviets to get the gongfei started?
I wouldn't call the Soviet Union a pet project of the Cathedral. To me, "the Cathedral" of globalism is mostly located within the west as well as Berlin. Considering the incessant agitation, sponsored rebellions, and large scale invasion of the Soviet Red Army into eastern & central Europe in the interwar period; I really don't think it's fair to consider the Soviet Union as a "pet" of the globalist Fabian Socialists.
They feared Hitler because it was clear that Fascists were going to be an entirely separate intellectual and power elite that would not engage with them. That's what shocked them when Hitler & Stalin allied.
John Reed from the New Yorker is buried in the wall of Kremlin because he was handing out bags of cash to Lenin and friends, aka Civil Affairs. The Soviet Union couldn't have survived as long as it did without the west constantly funneling them resources, such as FDR's gift of industrialization. It was a client-state like China.
I think you're off base. I absolutely agree that western intellectuals and Fabian Socialists would have supported both China and the Soviet Union... but to call them Client States is utter nonsense.
One thing you've got to realize is that Russia was almost destined to be a Super Power in the 20th century by virtue of natural resource wealth alone. It was long suspected by European powers that their two major contenders in the 20th century would be Russia and the US. It wasn't clear in the 1800's who would win, but it was clear that both would absolutely surpass Europe, and that Russia could absolutely out-pace the US if they could get their shit together. This is one of the primary reasons Germany was dead set on waging war against Russia prior to WW1. They knew a war against Russia would be inevitable.
Whatever international support Russia or China may have gotten from the west, it absolutely wasn't enough for them to maintain power on that alone, and both states had more than enough potential to be independent of Europe & the US.
The communist system is unable to capitalize on it's resources. The countries have plenty enough resources to be super powers, but communism is a force of entropy itself. The parties of both countries would have collapsed if forced to be independent.
Now that I've had a night to think this over, it seems quite obvious that that's the purpose of picking Harris for Biden's VP, that or the Dems have just given up on this year entirely of course. She represents both a pivot away from the riotous disorder that's proving more unpopular by the day, and bait to get Trump to cede ground on the 'law and order' front.
Definitely not a trap his campaign should fall for by going after her on the grounds that she 'just' locked up criminals - they're never going to attract the diehard progressive dangerhair vote, and such a tack would weaken them with suburban voters who want safety and calm above all.
IMO, it'd be best for the Trump campaign to instead continue running on a strident law & order, tough-on-crime line - while also hammering home the point that Harris doesn't represent law & order herself, but self-centered anarcho-tyranny. And fortunately, Tulsi Gabbard has done most of the work there with her own attack on Harris on the debate stage. There's absolutely nothing lawful or orderly about smoking weed while jailing other weed-smokers or hiding exonerating evidence to get innocents killed for the sake of one's own ambitions.
I really wish Trump (and conservatives in general) would hammer the concept of anarcho-tyranny more. And the WuFlu/race riots dichotomy has provided such good examples of it: "why are police arresting people for sitting on the beach but not for setting buildings on fire? Why are we letting violent criminals out of jail while jailing small business owners for trying to make a living? Shouldn't it be the other way around?"
Even a Seattle leftist will sometimes, when they think they're among friends, wonder aloud why they got a ticket for parking too close to a fire hydrant while nothing ever seems to happen to the run-down RV illegally parked down the street.
This isn't anarcho-tyranny though. True anarchy is purely chaotic. Leftist anarchy is targeted at specific people and institutions while being heavily funded and logistically supported. There's no anarchism here. This is effectively an insurgency conducted by the proxies of their paymasters.
It is anarcho-tyranny in the way that Sam Francis used/defined the term. It was not intended to describe a true state of anarchy but rather a directed and controlled "anarchy" with the explicit goal of terrorizing and controlling the law-abiding.
I mean, I guess that definition makes sense, but I wouldn't use it. The kind of anarchy he describes is an aspect of tyranny and authoritarianism being unable to have totalitarian control, so they leave certain portions to be utterly out of control, but also unable to form any normal parallel society.
Authoritarians prefer subjective laws that can be enforced on everyone and anyone at any given notice. Segments of the society outside of the authoritarian system are not purely anarchistic, but are a place of perpetual chaos subjective to eternal authoritarian oppression.
This is just what the natural state of non-totalitarian tyranny looks like.
It is the definition of insurgency. Portland, CHAZ, Chicago, etc are stage 3, taking territory. Fallujah, Sadr City, ISIS, etc were stage 3. Beirut is too right now.
I don't know which stages you're referring to, but as a matter of personal experience, Fallujah, Basra, ISIS's activity, Beirut both now and during the Lebonese Civil War are wholly different from what's going on in Seattle, Washington, and Chicago.
This isn't even really an insurgency, it's a counter-revolution.
Donald Trump et all, is effectively a Velvet Revolution ... (Orange Revolution ha ha ha)... against the Fabian Socialist establishment of the West. This means that while the attacks on the Federal Courthouse look like an insurgency... it isn't. It's a counter-revolutionary movement against a portion of the government that is genuinely against the modern establishment. NORMALLY the overthrow of the national government by revolutionary forces is the last part of a revolution, not the first. Our situation is slightly different from the norm.
Stage 1 is recruitment. Stage 2 is harassment attacks and organization. Stage 3 is holding territory. I don't remember if it was stages or levels or whatever, but it was a common term in COIN white papers.
I agree about it being backwards revolution day, but 99th generational regime change is uncharted territory.
I don't remember seeing that in my COIN manual, but w/e.
No it's not, it's just the collapse of an old order. The "changing of the elites". I think this is the collapse of the Fabian Socialist order in the same way that WW1 was the the collapse of the European Royalist Aristocracy.
When you think about it, it's truly and evil and sadistic scam that has been done by many authoritarians before.
Cause absolute chaos in the streets, and waltz in like a knight in shining armor promising to save the citizenry from the violence that you created.
Agreed. Use the prosecutorial misconduct as a weapon. Point out that she goes hard to put political opponents in jail, but is prepared to let leftists walk. It's probably only about 3/4ths true (she'll only let useful leftists walk. She'll go after Antifa, but avoid anyone with BLM who is working with her campaign).
Right, point out the morality policing like the Communists & Leftists do. They'll ignore rapes, murders, arson, and even serial killers. But they'll prosecute you over tweets, licences, and "hate speech".
oof looks like somebody got left off the payoff list.
Nah, I think Jimmy Dore just accidentally believes in principles.