[Media Analysis]
The Conversation-Industrial Complex
Making sense of Leftist infighting, Controlled Opposition and the signs that differentiate between bad faith actors and those we just disagree with politically.
By Reverend Aaron
Co-Founder Punks For Progress
1-12-21
There has clearly been a mass exodus from traditional media sources. Masses of people have pivoted from their once flock-ish devotion to the voices emanating from their TV’s – the Walter Cronkites and Edward R Murrows that have subsequently been swept away by corporate conglomerates hawking soundbites as news whilst encouraging an internalization by their viewers of those same soundbites as a “world-view”; an ideology; a deeply held, yet devoid of substance, vociferously and passionately defended “opinion”.
While an actually effective de-evolution in the notions of journalism and the watchdogging of power, while an incredible generator of vast fortunes for a small handful of people, this mechanism of Bourgeois apologetic propaganda’s once nearly all-encompassing power and influence is waning, considerably. People just aren’t watching cable like they used to.
There’s Youtube now. There’s Twitch. There’s tik-tok, twitter, facebook and Instagram. The information universe is wide open and there is room for both previously inconceivable forms of the free exchange of crucially important facts and information, as well as vast and wide-open spaces screaming to be inhabited by the foulest and most self-serving characters of nefarious disposition. Make no mistake, these characters of low standard and integrity, these scheming seekers of the quick accumulation of wealth, these “bad faith actors” are already working tirelessly to fill those spaces, and they have indeed filled a number of them already. Scum and villainy of the worst sort that have set themselves about the overt task of piss-marking their claim on territory within the grift, to carve out their self-serving and deceivingly “unique and politically edgy”… “brand” within the sphere of this burgeoning Conversation-Industrial Complex.
Co-Founder Punks For Progress
1-12-21
There has clearly been a mass exodus from traditional media sources. Masses of people have pivoted from their once flock-ish devotion to the voices emanating from their TV’s – the Walter Cronkites and Edward R Murrows that have subsequently been swept away by corporate conglomerates hawking soundbites as news whilst encouraging an internalization by their viewers of those same soundbites as a “world-view”; an ideology; a deeply held, yet devoid of substance, vociferously and passionately defended “opinion”.
While an actually effective de-evolution in the notions of journalism and the watchdogging of power, while an incredible generator of vast fortunes for a small handful of people, this mechanism of Bourgeois apologetic propaganda’s once nearly all-encompassing power and influence is waning, considerably. People just aren’t watching cable like they used to.
There’s Youtube now. There’s Twitch. There’s tik-tok, twitter, facebook and Instagram. The information universe is wide open and there is room for both previously inconceivable forms of the free exchange of crucially important facts and information, as well as vast and wide-open spaces screaming to be inhabited by the foulest and most self-serving characters of nefarious disposition. Make no mistake, these characters of low standard and integrity, these scheming seekers of the quick accumulation of wealth, these “bad faith actors” are already working tirelessly to fill those spaces, and they have indeed filled a number of them already. Scum and villainy of the worst sort that have set themselves about the overt task of piss-marking their claim on territory within the grift, to carve out their self-serving and deceivingly “unique and politically edgy”… “brand” within the sphere of this burgeoning Conversation-Industrial Complex.
Material Deconstruction of the Amorphous Organizational Structure of the Conversation-Industrial Complex (Convo-IndCom)
Are there distinct differences to spot which can facilitate our ability to filter out the cynically nefarious from the il-advised or less-than-studied; the correct but greedy from the occasionally incorrect but righteously intended; or, those that have aligned with the very same Capitalist-Imperialist status quo elements that once perverted our earliest mechanisms of journalism from those that are just too naïve and lost in their own personal greed and self-delusions to spot that Op? I believe there are, but to do so properly it’s important to understand the Convo-IndCom as presently encompassing essentially the entire above-described spectrum and more.
That’s not to say that every actor within the Convo-IndCom comes il-intended, only that for good or il, the Convo-IndCom is now the field within which we both disseminate and receive our daily doses of information. But there are a few specific points of focus that I have stumbled across that I feel can be very useful as a starting point filter for spotting various players’ positions and intentions within that spectrum.
That’s not to say that every actor within the Convo-IndCom comes il-intended, only that for good or il, the Convo-IndCom is now the field within which we both disseminate and receive our daily doses of information. But there are a few specific points of focus that I have stumbled across that I feel can be very useful as a starting point filter for spotting various players’ positions and intentions within that spectrum.
Five Points of Focus on the Conversation-Industrial Complex
1] Nothing from Me
This point of focus, like most on this list, cannot be viewed as stand-alone evidence of il-intent, but only when found co-existing with a number of the other components of the list, can we then consider assigning accusations of nefariousness. But I feel it makes for a proper starting point when one purposefully sets about the task of attempting to determine who is or isn’t a bad actor within the Convo-IndCom. And it’s simply this: Does what they are espousing require anything of them speaking, or those they are speaking to, other than to hold a specifically stern position or opinion on an issue that they, and the listener, ultimately have no control or power over affecting the outcome of?
For example, an opinion on whether the members of the House of Representatives should vote a certain way or another on some bill or motion. Again, this type of advocation alone shouldn’t necessarily be viewed with deep suspicion, as it can be argued, in some of the more prominent reformist circles, that applying populace pressure on the members of Congress can sway their official choices. I should point out that I personally find this notion dubious at best, especially when one considers the populace popularity exemplified by boisterous advocations in literally every public space for Medicare4All, that is utterly un-reflected in Congress.
One would benefit here to consider the Constitutional frame-work that determines the legal and official way with which these processes are administered, and the Constitution requires simply this: We vote for people who can then go and vote any god-damned way they choose – or, far more commonly, the way with which lobbyists, special interests and Capitalist ruling class bosses pay them to vote.
I suppose my concern with this otherwise benign type of advocation, is the manner with which its advocated. I have no problem whatsoever with, and even appreciate, coverage that describes the important specifics of a bill or motion in Congress, the various elements that contribute to or stand to benefit from that bill or motion, and the way with which support among members of Congress is divided, all of which should ultimately draw the listener to some sort of obvious informed conclusion or another.
This is ultimately the exact type of information the institution of journalism should be providing for us. But the act of then taking the extra step of demanding that the listener then internalizes some specifically asserted position based on that information, is when alarm should then possibly be more indulged. Increased alarm should also probably become more justified if that voice then asserts that the mere act of embracing that position or opinion is indicative of “action” of some kind. “Action” that more often than not amounts to little more than “spread that hashtag”. Spreading a hashtag can indeed be helpful, but “action” it is not. Action happens in the streets. Action requires effort and sacrifice.
But, the nefariousness of these benign advocations increases exponentially when elements of the Convo-IndCom then assert that if one were not to embrace their position, as well as the assertion that holding that opinion denotes “action”, well, then that person should then be seen as not only lacking seriousness about positive action, but that they are then an actual (sic) stumbling block to it. At this point it becomes increasingly easy for the worst among us to then Bad-jacket their detractors as somehow being “covert agents” of some kind, overtly trying to block any positive effort. The creation of dangerous fevered dividing lines based on little more than opinions.
This then makes it incredibly easy for people on the listening end to take sides and then argue incessantly on social-media for days, sometimes even weeks, over “their” opinions (the ones they received from some face in front of a microphone). All this also conveniently assuring that the new videos can keep being made, one after the other, including all the response videos to all the other response videos, (while the patreon dollars just keep flowing and flowing in any and all directions), all based on something that involves little more than angry and passionate disagreements on affectless handed-to-them opinions.
If one determines that the heads they listen to routinely assert positions that require nothing of them, or you, in any tangible sense, it becomes crucial to then look at the wake of their assertions. Did it engender stimulating and forward moving dialogue that ultimately empowers all those who partook in that process? Like good faith conversation and political analysis generally should? Or, did it just barf-up a toxic and divisive dumpster fire on anyone and everyone from literally every recess of the social media sphere that it could find?
Which brings us to…
2] Dumpster Fire Mining
This one seems almost self-explanatory, but the gist is this: Does the talking head appear to routinely scroll through various social media feeds and trending notifications for the stinkiest most brightly burning dumpster fire to swill-up a hot take on? Do they mine the on-line discourse for what is generating the most division and do they always and without exception race to have the earliest possible video up on that topic? If so, that doesn’t necessarily make them evil or someone who should be viewed with suspicion, but why would anyone want to take political advice or internalize information from a dumpster fire miner? Well, someone who just wants the thrill of drama that division often provides, I suppose. Which is fine, I guess, but not necessarily for any person who is actually serious about accumulating the verifiable and factual knowledge necessary for putting forth their own best, most well-informed, personal participatory effort possible.
With that said, and aside from the random honestly self-described shitposter, when you begin to view various talking heads through this 5-point focus lens, you will see that the most nefarious of actors, without exception, are always notorious dumpster fire miners.
3] Sheepdogs Toward State Remedies
Now, before I describe this particular point of focus with any detail, indulge me while I speak directly to my proper and very righteous Communist and Anarchist comrades directly. Sorry Progressives, but this parts for ma peeps:
{Sup, Revolutionaries. Alright, look, I know. I have also read the Malatesta dialogue “Vote What For?”.
And, yes, I have also read Lenin’s What is to be Done. And, I do deeply and fundamentally understand that true Anti-Capitalist Revolutionary Leftist projects don’t involve participation in Bourgeois electoral processes, and I am also well aware that, with rare exception, the vast majority of talking heads out there are commenting on, and encouraging participation in, Bourgeois electoral processes.
But, with that said, I tend to be a little less dismissive or even suspicious of Progressives who advocate for such participation, than some of you otherwise astute and well-justified historically in their conclusion comrades may tend to be. ‘Cos, Librals gon libral, comrades. We know this. What I take issue with are the heads out here vehemently claiming to be “Socialists” and “Marxists”, when every time they click on the mic and cams it’s to advocate for some form of beg-the-bourgeois-for-scraps policy position.
And, with that said, I don’t disrespect the Progressive project outright for indulging the begging for scraps. Because, occasionally, the best intended and most focused and committed among them, actually do get some of those scraps for us. And, sometimes, those scraps make life easier for other people. Sometimes, sometimes what Progressives successfully beg the bosses for, eases the suffering of some. I don’t have room to vociferously discredit that kind of effort.
Alright, Revolutionaries, thanks for taking the time and I hope you feel that.}
Hey, Progressives, were back!
So, what is the relevance and meaning of sheepdogging toward state remedies? It’s simply this: it’s a method of channeling grassroots, sometimes even revolutionary, fervor and upswell into support of Congressional action, ultimately suspending those previous crucially important groundswell efforts. That is to say, never has ceasing grassroots organizing efforts prior to success… been successful in obtaining grassroots goals. Therefore, I am wary of any head that asserts that “…the work is done. It’s now up to the elected officials to take it from here...” At the very least, at the very, very least, make sure you secure the win, then you can suspend those grassroots efforts, if you so choose to participate in such processes.
Demanding action from elected officials is not the same as suspending efforts and expecting some kind of result. I personally wont trust or continue listening to anyone who would advocate for suspension of grassroots organizing in exchange for some hope in elected officials not otherwise Constitutionally bound to realize such hopes.
4] Obsessed with Size
This one just grosses me out in general. First, let me make clear that every person with a platform wants to grow that platform and they care about follower numbers. That’s fine. That’s normal. That’s not what grosses me out. It’s the people who define themselves by their numbers that I find repulsive.
I am instantly suspicious of anyone who says something like, “I won’t even respond unless they have (insert number) of subs/followers.” Fuck you, if you say anything even similar to that kind of Solidarity devoid dogshit. Seriously. I am also baffled by anyone who thinks that the person with the most subs is then, ipso dipso, the most “knowledgeable” and “trustworthy” - who thinks being “ratio’d” is somehow a proper determiner of validity.
A large platform, should, in all actuality, be considered a difficult and even tireless, often thankless, responsibility. With that said, even a good faith actor is in fact incapable of being responsible for every senseless person who listens to them and then misinterprets their words as advocations for some further senseless action. But a good faith actor with a large platform understands that they have that potential effect and will be at the very least careful and mindful of such a large responsibility.
And, more importantly for the purposes of this study, a large following should never be viewed as proof of accuracy or expertise. If you ever see someone with a large platform who doesn’t clearly go to great lengths to be exhaustively, even annoyingly, tediously accurate, but rests instead on numbers – that makes excuses like “I can’t control everyone who listens to me”, if/when their listeners are found to routinely engage in toxic or even just otherwise glaringly ignorant behaviors - you might just be listening to one of the lower sludge globules that collect on the often-prosperous bottom end of the Convo-IndCom.
5] Ignores or Attacks Critique: The Expert Complex
This is the big one. This one is stand-alone red flags all around, up, down, backwards, forwards, sideways and straight. No getting around it, if you match this focus point, you at best suck at this, and at worst are likely an actual extension of the Gladio tradition.
But, with that said, I tend to be a little less dismissive or even suspicious of Progressives who advocate for such participation, than some of you otherwise astute and well-justified historically in their conclusion comrades may tend to be. ‘Cos, Librals gon libral, comrades. We know this. What I take issue with are the heads out here vehemently claiming to be “Socialists” and “Marxists”, when every time they click on the mic and cams it’s to advocate for some form of beg-the-bourgeois-for-scraps policy position.
And, with that said, I don’t disrespect the Progressive project outright for indulging the begging for scraps. Because, occasionally, the best intended and most focused and committed among them, actually do get some of those scraps for us. And, sometimes, those scraps make life easier for other people. Sometimes, sometimes what Progressives successfully beg the bosses for, eases the suffering of some. I don’t have room to vociferously discredit that kind of effort.
Alright, Revolutionaries, thanks for taking the time and I hope you feel that.}
Hey, Progressives, were back!
So, what is the relevance and meaning of sheepdogging toward state remedies? It’s simply this: it’s a method of channeling grassroots, sometimes even revolutionary, fervor and upswell into support of Congressional action, ultimately suspending those previous crucially important groundswell efforts. That is to say, never has ceasing grassroots organizing efforts prior to success… been successful in obtaining grassroots goals. Therefore, I am wary of any head that asserts that “…the work is done. It’s now up to the elected officials to take it from here...” At the very least, at the very, very least, make sure you secure the win, then you can suspend those grassroots efforts, if you so choose to participate in such processes.
Demanding action from elected officials is not the same as suspending efforts and expecting some kind of result. I personally wont trust or continue listening to anyone who would advocate for suspension of grassroots organizing in exchange for some hope in elected officials not otherwise Constitutionally bound to realize such hopes.
4] Obsessed with Size
This one just grosses me out in general. First, let me make clear that every person with a platform wants to grow that platform and they care about follower numbers. That’s fine. That’s normal. That’s not what grosses me out. It’s the people who define themselves by their numbers that I find repulsive.
I am instantly suspicious of anyone who says something like, “I won’t even respond unless they have (insert number) of subs/followers.” Fuck you, if you say anything even similar to that kind of Solidarity devoid dogshit. Seriously. I am also baffled by anyone who thinks that the person with the most subs is then, ipso dipso, the most “knowledgeable” and “trustworthy” - who thinks being “ratio’d” is somehow a proper determiner of validity.
A large platform, should, in all actuality, be considered a difficult and even tireless, often thankless, responsibility. With that said, even a good faith actor is in fact incapable of being responsible for every senseless person who listens to them and then misinterprets their words as advocations for some further senseless action. But a good faith actor with a large platform understands that they have that potential effect and will be at the very least careful and mindful of such a large responsibility.
And, more importantly for the purposes of this study, a large following should never be viewed as proof of accuracy or expertise. If you ever see someone with a large platform who doesn’t clearly go to great lengths to be exhaustively, even annoyingly, tediously accurate, but rests instead on numbers – that makes excuses like “I can’t control everyone who listens to me”, if/when their listeners are found to routinely engage in toxic or even just otherwise glaringly ignorant behaviors - you might just be listening to one of the lower sludge globules that collect on the often-prosperous bottom end of the Convo-IndCom.
5] Ignores or Attacks Critique: The Expert Complex
This is the big one. This one is stand-alone red flags all around, up, down, backwards, forwards, sideways and straight. No getting around it, if you match this focus point, you at best suck at this, and at worst are likely an actual extension of the Gladio tradition.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeHranOuhdlVI7wq3fAR6cofIl35BzCbT
If you meet this description, I personally begin to entertain the idea that you might be engaged in some kind of shadowy modern manifestation of CoIntelPro.
If you meet this description, I personally begin to entertain the idea that you might be engaged in some kind of shadowy modern manifestation of CoIntelPro.
First and foremost, if you ignore any critique of your assertions, you have no business whatsoever in assuming to be capable of informing others in any effective way. At the very root of all proper Leftist projects are the notions of community accountability. Any Leftist that wants to be a positive contributor to the larger project must be, not just accepting, but even inviting of critique from one’s own community. In concert with Solidarity, Introspection is the Left’s greatest asset, it should be perpetually indulged and facilitated by good faith critique from other properly invested comrades.
Now look, clearly, just being lazy and incapable of hearing critique doesn’t make someone a bad faith actor, let alone CoIntelPro. But it does mean that no serious Leftist should ever take them seriously. But, when they make the next step, and they start accusing those that offer the critique; when they start attacking their honest detractors; when they start making wild accusations against their detractors; when they start accusing their detractors of being the epitome of all that the Left should and does despise, I take five steps back and words like “who the fuck you think you bein, jack” start to roll out my mouth. Then I start asking questions like, “wait a minute, you a cop?”.
Is that harsh? Maybe so. In most cases the above-described behaviors are just manifestations of what I call the “Expert Complex”, but at the worst end of it is that which should indeed be suspected of the foulest form of human existence: The Pig. I’ll return to the infiltrating strong-armed scum of the Bourgeois class, but for now let’s talk about that “Expert Complex”.
See, it’s my assertion that there are among the less nefarious yet still integrity deficient elements of the Convo-IndCom, ones who are no doubt better-informed than those who just can’t handle critique by dint of their own lack of study; ones who position themselves as being really, really knowledgeable on something; an “expert”, if you will. Now, I have no problem whatsoever with the voice of experts, in fact I often appreciate them most. But, the issue becomes, are they in fact experts? If they can’t take critique, if they lash out irrationally in response to critique, how confident can they really be in their own supposed expertise? And, here’s where it starts to cross over into outright grifting: they have realized that if they are seen as not being correct, if supposedly lesser plebs than themselves can dismantle their narrative so handily, are they in fact experts at all? And, behold! Their “brand” is now in jeopardy. Which means that their livelihood is now in jeopardy. Oh, out come the ad hominems; Out come the strawmans; Out come the wolves of the Convo-IndCom grift.
But still, even that doesn’t compare to just how foul and unbelievably disgusting it can really get if the grift is actually about sewing divisions on purpose. But, either way, accusing your detractors of being covert state actors or secretly making moves to disrupt the efforts of leftists, regardless of intent, is among the foulest moves one can make against another Leftist.
See, there’s an awful history behind that type of activity, in fact there’s an actual word for that type of harsh and toxic response, I dropped it earlier above. It’s called “Bad-jacketing”:
Now look, clearly, just being lazy and incapable of hearing critique doesn’t make someone a bad faith actor, let alone CoIntelPro. But it does mean that no serious Leftist should ever take them seriously. But, when they make the next step, and they start accusing those that offer the critique; when they start attacking their honest detractors; when they start making wild accusations against their detractors; when they start accusing their detractors of being the epitome of all that the Left should and does despise, I take five steps back and words like “who the fuck you think you bein, jack” start to roll out my mouth. Then I start asking questions like, “wait a minute, you a cop?”.
Is that harsh? Maybe so. In most cases the above-described behaviors are just manifestations of what I call the “Expert Complex”, but at the worst end of it is that which should indeed be suspected of the foulest form of human existence: The Pig. I’ll return to the infiltrating strong-armed scum of the Bourgeois class, but for now let’s talk about that “Expert Complex”.
See, it’s my assertion that there are among the less nefarious yet still integrity deficient elements of the Convo-IndCom, ones who are no doubt better-informed than those who just can’t handle critique by dint of their own lack of study; ones who position themselves as being really, really knowledgeable on something; an “expert”, if you will. Now, I have no problem whatsoever with the voice of experts, in fact I often appreciate them most. But, the issue becomes, are they in fact experts? If they can’t take critique, if they lash out irrationally in response to critique, how confident can they really be in their own supposed expertise? And, here’s where it starts to cross over into outright grifting: they have realized that if they are seen as not being correct, if supposedly lesser plebs than themselves can dismantle their narrative so handily, are they in fact experts at all? And, behold! Their “brand” is now in jeopardy. Which means that their livelihood is now in jeopardy. Oh, out come the ad hominems; Out come the strawmans; Out come the wolves of the Convo-IndCom grift.
But still, even that doesn’t compare to just how foul and unbelievably disgusting it can really get if the grift is actually about sewing divisions on purpose. But, either way, accusing your detractors of being covert state actors or secretly making moves to disrupt the efforts of leftists, regardless of intent, is among the foulest moves one can make against another Leftist.
See, there’s an awful history behind that type of activity, in fact there’s an actual word for that type of harsh and toxic response, I dropped it earlier above. It’s called “Bad-jacketing”:
Bad-jacketing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bad-jacketing is "the practice of creating suspicion—through the spreading of rumors, manufacture of evidence, etc.—that bona fide organizational members, usually in key positions, are FBI/police informers, guilty of such offenses as skimming organization funds."[1] Scholar Mark Anthony Neal writes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under J. Edgar Hoover used the technique against the Black Panther Party and other Black Power organizations as part of its COINTELPRO operations.[1] Neal writes that this technique was effective in isolating key individuals, forcing them out of the organization, and that its effectiveness was enhanced by the tendency of Black Power activists to divide among "rigid racial, ideological, and increasingly gendered" lines.[1]
Jo Durden-Smith claims that this technique was used by U.S. prison guards to undermine targeted prisoners and thus make them vulnerable to manipulation.[2]
Snitch-jacketing is a form of bad-jacketing that specifically aims to present the target as an informer.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bad-jacketing is "the practice of creating suspicion—through the spreading of rumors, manufacture of evidence, etc.—that bona fide organizational members, usually in key positions, are FBI/police informers, guilty of such offenses as skimming organization funds."[1] Scholar Mark Anthony Neal writes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under J. Edgar Hoover used the technique against the Black Panther Party and other Black Power organizations as part of its COINTELPRO operations.[1] Neal writes that this technique was effective in isolating key individuals, forcing them out of the organization, and that its effectiveness was enhanced by the tendency of Black Power activists to divide among "rigid racial, ideological, and increasingly gendered" lines.[1]
Jo Durden-Smith claims that this technique was used by U.S. prison guards to undermine targeted prisoners and thus make them vulnerable to manipulation.[2]
Snitch-jacketing is a form of bad-jacketing that specifically aims to present the target as an informer.
Now, again, clearly, accusing your detractors of being, say: “agents of Imperialism”, or “committed to destroying any hopes for M4A”, isn’t exactly the same thing as accusing them of being police/FBI infiltrators or even snitches. But, when one considers the fact that such lesser accusations can still result in deep feelings of resentment in those that might hear and internalize those accusations; those that might be inclined to do violence to the person they have been convinced to think is destroying their hopes for medical care, is it then really that much of a stretch to compare that to bad-jacketing? The purpose of bad-jacketing was to sew deep divisions between various members of the Black Panthers, as well as between other Leftist organizing groups or various Leftist Party members. I seem to hear echoes, is all I’m saying.
A talking head is also not the actual FBI or Police, which were the institutions that were responsible for the horrifyingly destructive and deadly practice of bad-jacketing. So, the talking head may not necessarily have the full width and breadth of state power behind their accusations, but, if even to a lesser extent, can we not argue that the end result is the same? Divisions and furious infighting among otherwise allied peoples with a potentiality for violence.
I should also add that bad-jacketing has a disgusting older uncle called “Scapegoating”, sometimes called “demagoguery”. All members of this family facilitate divisions, garner passionate expressions of unquenched frustration, and have the overwhelming potential for the fomentation of acts of real violence.
But here’s the distinction that makes this so heinous, so egregious: all these above-described potentialities of practicing forms of bad-jacketing, of scapegoating and demagoguery, it’s all worker on worker, fam. None of it is some manifestation of fervor directed at power. It’s the proletariat eating itself. This doesn’t happen organically. These types of divisions are not intrinsic to or engrained in any kind of leftist intent or methodology. This is and always is… done to Leftists. Either by people too thin-skinned to hear sound critique, or more frighteningly, by people whose purpose is to create that precise type of chaos and infighting we see manifesting right now all over left twitter and beyond.
In Conclusion
I leave this 5-points of focus description with a question for Progressives: Ya’ll got 10 or 12 real Progressives elected. You don’t think the ruling class noticed? You think they didn’t instantly set about the task of employing age-old tactics of controlled opposition and paid agents of division in response? Really? Talking heads at the Turks created that Justice Democrats thing that essentially led to the so-called Squad, yo. Now, that’s not to say that I necessarily believe that that Squad has the power, or even the actual potential power, to realize the actual leftist goals of ending Capitalism and emancipating the masses form their bonds of servitude, or that they are some actual immense threat to that status quo power. But… you clearly got its attention. That’s all it takes for them to lash out in response with literally every destructive and devastating mechanism at their disposal.
Did you think it was all about fights in or against Congress? Nah, they came for you, Progressives. You would do well to be more a-tuned to their historic methodologies and deplorable traditions from here on out. I hope this seemingly paranoid essay facilitates that process. Genuinely.
Cheers!
No comments:
Post a Comment