forjusticethunders
forjusticethunders's JournalPop leftism is a form of disaster capitalism.
And ironically, Naomi Klein is one of the disaster capitalists.
People like Sarandon, Nader, Stein, Greenwald, Moore, etc etc, as well as the people who undermined Gore and Humphrey, and who tried to argue that they'd come to power by "resisting" Hitler after sabotaging the German Social Democrats, who try to market themselves as "dissident, anti-establishment, etc etc" and try to undermine electable, mainstream people on the left no matter what they do or how left they move, calling them some variant of "neoliberal", are actively causing disasters (the elections of far right authoritarians) so that they can profit from said disasters by trying to position themselves as "leaders of the resistance", which they can translate into book deals, popular influence, etc etc. That's how Greenwald got big in the Bush years, despite being a right-wing libertarian, for example. However a key similarity between them all is that they seem more interested into parlaying their coverage of social issues into celebrity, rather than actually doing anything on the ground about it, largely because "doing something" generally is not sexy or brings the headlines (a similar principle is at work in warfare, in which amateurs study tactics, which are sexy, and professionals study logistics, which are not)
Another pattern of this type is that once a left candidate DOES win, nothing said candidate is good enough. Even though there are obvious legitimate criticisms of the political and policy constraints put upon all candidates in this system, and of the socio political economic system itself, none of that is explored, it's usually simplified and distilled into "TRAITOR" "NEOLIBERAL" "SHILL". This of course does nothing to actually change the system, but it does sell books to low information voters who don't want to hear that they're the ones who need to organize, not wait for "The Revolution" to fix everything (revolutions are hard, need massive popular support, STRONG civil institutions, and a good plan after the old order is swept away). Of course, this dampens support for the left and gives initative to the right, but this plays into the narrative and gets them more attention and book/merchandise sales.
Finally, a major key element is the audience. In general, these writers tend to appeal to privileged groups who have limited experience in actually navigating oppression and tyranny, but are looking for a way to feel like they're making a difference. This of course, creates conflicts with either experienced organizers who understand that shit doesn't work, or with people of color who question the narrative, the strategy, the emphasis on purity, or all of the above. In short, a lot of pop leftist figures try to sell a glamorous revolutionary narrative to middle class college kids and hippies, this gets challenged by people who have faced real oppression, and the former lose their shit because they'd rather have their narrative than engage with the reality of how to make change (basically through persistent, long term organizing, oftentimes facing intense resistance from the establishment, building from the ground up until it goes national)
The key to all this is that these figures aren't really interested in changing society in a more progressive direction. They're more interested in making money by pretending to be interested in changing society in a more progressive direction. Michael Moore is shilling all over the place saying every Democrat is "establishment". Susan Sarandon is openly shilling for Trump. Jill Stein made a few million off heartbroken Democrats after actively helping Trump win. So on and so forth. The fact is, it's hard to sell "incremental politics" in a book or movie, and it's hard to sell "I'm farther to the left than the leftmost American party that can win but I support them because that's the pragmatic way to achieve progress". This doesn't even get into people like Greenwald and Assange who push the "America is the Great Satan" narrative and glosses over the failings of American adversaries.
All in all, Democrats and others on the left need to avoid these kinds of pied pipers because they are at best a distraction for progress, and at worst are actively working to impede it.
Unfortunately it's hard NOT to remove it from the metanarrative.
If the top guys on the Pats weren't such Trump fans it wouldn't matter, especially since New England is deep blue except for New Hampshire (only light blue), but cest la vie.
It doesn't help that Richard "Punchable Face" Spencer openly rooted for the Pats because of how "white' they were.
With that said, Brady is not only the greatest player to ever play American football, he's in the conversation for the greatest American athlete to ever play any American sport (and in the grand scheme of things, while there was probably cheating involved in his accomplishments, it's not as egregious as say, Lance Armstrong). He has more SB rings than any QB in history, and is literally a David Tyree miracle catch (or a dropped Asante Samuel pick 6) and a Wes Welker dropped pass from being 7-0 in the Super Bowl, with a 19-0 season to boot.
I think the conversation is Brady, Jordan, Tiger, Ali, Aaron, Gretzky (if we use "North American" as our definition). Lance would be in it if not for the steroids.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Washington, DC
Home country: USA
Member since: Thu Jan 28, 2016, 04:01 PM
Number of posts: 1,151
