#even though the new nazis and the liberals voted with them | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

readjthompson · 5 months ago

Text

Well, since my novelette Cancel Toby Chalmers! (copyright me, now) has been sitting around, completed, for nearly 16 months, I’ve decided to share it for free, until it’s later released as part of a Toby Chalmers collection.

Here are Chapters 8 and 9.

Chapter 8

Yet again, his grip on his dwindling optimism weakening by the moment, Toby visited his Amazon Author Page. Only self-published efforts met his gaze.

He’d released improved edits of Fleshless Fingers and all of his bizarro books, and put together another collection, Mementoes of Madness II, to showcase his short fiction. Not being particularly artistic, he’d culled his cellphone gallery for drunkenly-shot photos of landscapes, spoiled fruit, stars and roadkill, and fashioned makeshift cover designs from them. Sadly, none of his efforts had resulted in so much as a single sale.

There’d been plenty of ratings and reviews, though, both on Amazon and Goodreads, each bearing but a single star out of five. None of the reviewers had bothered to read so much as a word of his prose, it seemed. They wrote, “Don’t buy from this racist,” “Each dollar spent on Toby Chalmers’ fiction gives Hitler’s ghost a boner,” “Nazi writers, fuck off,” and similar single-sentence contributions. Many listed black authors who consumers should consider, as if Toby was actively attempting to oppose such individuals. Some of the reviewers’ names he recognized, editors and authors now united against him.

Toby had deactivated his every social media account, hoping that his detractors would find someone new to disparage. But successive searches of his name continued to summon fresh vitriol. Alleged anarchists wanted him arrested. So-called liberals were calling for his suicide.

Only black-hating racists, none of whom had the slightest bit of interest in reading his fiction, defended him. They seemed to have adopted Toby as a member of the far right, though he’d never so much as registered to vote, out of disgust with both political parties.

“Don’t do it,” Toby muttered now, even as he visited social media and searched for his name yet again. The top result, new to him, had already attained over two million views, hundreds of thousands of likes, and thousands of replies and reposts. Wow, that’s the smuggest avatar photo that I’ve ever seen, Toby thought. This dude looks like he had his own cock removed, just so he could blow himself every time he sits down to pee. Why’s he wearing a dashiki? He’s whiter than I am. Joseph McCarthy Jr., huh. Runs Transylvoria, apparently. Didn’t I send that magazine a review copy of Fleshless Fingers all those years ago? Never heard back from ’em, or read an issue of theirs, for that matter. What’s this douche have to say about me?

He read:

A CALL TO ACTION

Hello, hi, and howdy again, my beautifully diverse followers. ’Tis I, your ally in all equality efforts, your genial genius, your longtime pal-o-roony, Transylvoria Joe. By now, you must know that I’d never let a single day go by without connecting with you, my horror brethren. And boy, do I have a sermon for you now.

Remember those terrible days when the literary community eschewed censorship? Straight, cisgender, racially challenged males filled books with their rightwing ideology and profited, flaunting their collective privilege in everyone’s faces. Perpetuating white supremacy, gender inequality, heteronormativity, and even worse, gender binarism, they gave us heroes only they could relate to. Ooh, I’m shaking just thinking about it.

When those authors filled their books with hate speech, claiming that they were practicing idiomatic realism, we, as a society, actually nodded our heads and said, “Well, I guess that makes sense.” Boy, were we ever wrong.

Those straight, cisgender, racially challenged males had us all fooled, you see. They wrote bigoted characters so well because they’re bigots themselves. Those of them who became editors only published people just like them. That’s why we at Transylvoria, along with countless likeminded horror fanatics, have spent the last few years pushing those has-beens aside, so that diverse authors can finally stand up and take their well-deserved bows.

Indeed, we’ve taken great strides forward in abolishing literary inequality. But if you think that it’s time to rest on our laurels, to abandon our egalitarian efforts and let the old guard strike back, I say to you not today!

Think about it for a moment. Sure, most straight, cisgender, racially challenged, male authors have seen their books go out of print. And most right-thinking publishers will no longer consider such men for publication. The problem is, with the self-publishing tools available these days, anyone can invent a publisher on the spot and self-publish whatever they want.

This means that straight, cisgender, racially challenged, male authors can reprint their old fiction, and even print new fiction, with impunity, and steal sales away from the far more deserving diverse authors. It’s sickening, really. One Stephen King is enough!

The onus is on us, united, to balance the scales in the horror lit scene. Books by straight, cisgender, racially challenged, male authors other than Stephen King must be removed from circulation, permanently. Libraries and book retailers, both online and brick and mortar, must be urged to destroy all such books in their possession immediately and never restock them.

No longer should straight, cisgender, racially challenged, male authors be allowed to self-publish horror fiction. No longer should they post short stories to their blogs or social media accounts. Their books’ Goodreads listings should be deleted, as should all mentions of them online. In fact, these guys should never be allowed to refer to themselves as authors again.

We can erase the literary scene’s past mistakes, one straight, cisgender, racially challenged, male author at a time. For our first target, I nominate Toby Chalmers. The man unequivocally stated that he hates black people. Well, we love black people and hate Toby Chalmers.

Contact Amazon today, all of you. Tell them that you’ll boycott their company if Toby Chalmers’ books aren’t removed from publication. Start a petition. March in the street. Recruit others to our cause. Silence anyone who stands up for Toby Chalmers.

As always, Transylvoria pride forever. I platonically love each and every one of you. Air kisses all around.

“Air kisses all around,” Toby muttered. “What a piece of shit.” Can this man and his lickspittles really do it? he wondered. Can they erase every trace of my fiction, make it as if I never wrote anything?

As he read reply after reply praising Joseph McCarthy Jr. and his position, and denigrating Toby as if he was Hitler reincarnated, the notion seemed far less than impossible. All of these insane, wretched fascists masquerading as liberals, he thought, shaking his head. How did society ever devolve to this?

My books can’t just disappear. I’ll beat cancel culture, somehow. For the moment, I’d better stockpile author copies of my books while they’re still in print. Guess it’s time to spend some money on this “career” of mine. Yippee.

Chapter 9

“Hey, Shadrach, someone’s callin’ me. Why don’t you run into the store and grab us some juice boxes and pickle-flavored cashews. Here’s twenty bucks. With the leftover money, you can buy some candy or a magazine, or whatever you want.”

“I don’t hear your phone ringing.”

“It’s on silent mode.”

Suspiciously, Shadrach squinted at his least favorite person, as Joe slid his phone from his pocket and pressed it to his ear. “You’ve got Joe,” he greeted. “Oh, hey there, buddy. What’s the good word?” His free hand made a shooing motion.

Reluctantly, Shadrach emerged from the Prius. What’s this psycho up to now? he wondered. His phone screen was dark. No one was calling him.

Thus far, Joe had limited his domination games to his own private property, but there was a first time for everything, and Shadrach didn’t trust him one iota. There were fourteen vehicles in the parking lot. Would anyone protect Shadrach if Joe went on the offensive again?

He entered the supermarket and grabbed a shopping basket. Rightward, flies buzzed in the produce section. Leftward, oldsters lingered to converse with cashiers, though their groceries were already bagged. Those sonances seemed strangely subdued.

The pickle-flavored cashews and juice boxes were easy enough to find—Shadrach had accompanied his uncle on many a shopping errand—and he wasn’t in the mood to purchase anything for himself. Still, the air conditioning felt good on his skin, and he was in no hurry to return to his uncle’s side, so he wandered from aisle to aisle, avoiding the eyes of his fellow shoppers.

Suddenly, just as Shadrach strode past shelves of dry noodles, a stiff forefinger met his shoulder. “Are you gonna buy anything, nigger?” hissed a voice in his ear.

Reluctantly pivoting on his heels, the boy beheld his uncle. Joe had changed his clothes in the car. The black hat and zipped-up windbreaker he now wore were emblazoned with the word SECURITY. Coiled tubing ascended from his collar to a phony earpiece.

Blushing furiously, more embarrassed than he’d ever been, Shadrach begged, “Please don’t do this.”

“I asked you a question, boy! We’ve had a report of theft on these premises! Do you plan to pay for those groceries?!”

Other shoppers had drifted over to observe the spectacle. Shadrach couldn’t read their expressions through his sudden tears.

“I…I have twenty dollars,” he whined, pulling the bill from his pocket.

“Dirty, stinkin’, thievin’ nigger! Twenty dollars was the exact amount reported stolen! I knew by the look of you that you were no good! Put down those groceries and put your hands behind your back!”

“Oh…I’m sorry, Uncle Jojo. I’ll be good from now on. I’ll only laugh at what you say I can laugh at. You don’t have to do this to me.”

“Save it for your court date, nigger! Put down those fuckin’ groceries! Put your fuckin’ hands behind your back! Right fuckin’ now!” Joe now brandished handcuffs and grinned from ear to ear.

Supermarket employees joined the shoppers at both ends of the aisle, swelling the audience to two dozen Caucasians, all of whom crept steadily closer.

“Um, excuse me, what’s all this about?” one elderly mop-gripper queried, squinting through cat eye glasses.

“Oh, don’t worry,” said Joe, “this here’s my nephew. He was actin’ like a racist so I’m teaching him empathy for black people. He’s experiencing but a taste of what they’ve endured in this country for so long. Soon, he’ll love his fellow humans as much as I do.”

Surely, someone will stand up for me now, Shadrach thought, sniffling. They’ll call over a real security guard and get my uncle the help he needs. Maybe my mom can leave rehab early and take care of me again.

But as the grocery basket was torn from his grasp, as his arms were pinned behind his back so that his wrists could be handcuffed, as he was led from the store and shoved into the back seat of his uncle’s Prius, all Shadrach heard was a slow clap evolving into full-blown applause.

* * *

After lunch, after dinner, after tearful trembling in the bathtub until its water grew chilly, Shadrach raged his way across Joe’s guestroom, shrieking into a pillow that he held over his mouth. Grace Jones’ Vamp character bared her fangs on framed posters all around him. Shadrach wished that she’d climb into reality to make a meal of his uncle.

The room, which he’d been staying in ever since his mom entered rehab, always smelled like rotted onions and bad milk, no matter how wide he opened its window. If ever it had been vacuumed, he’d never witnessed it. Neither had the bedsheets been washed, nor the cobwebs swept from the ceiling corners, since his arrival. Shadrach wouldn’t miss the place, he decided.

He’d swiped a garbage bag from the garage, which he now filled with clothes, everything but his hated Transylvoria attire. With grim satisfaction, he kicked the window screen from its frame. He wanted to punch holes into the walls and urinate onto the carpet, but feared that his uncle would burst into the room at any minute and chain him to the bed.

“Fuck you, Uncle Joseph,” Shadrach muttered, climbing out of the window, into the night. “I’ll hate you for the rest of my life.”

#jeremy thompson #horror #horror fiction #indie author #am writing #indie #horror reads #free novelette #novelette #free story #scary story #scary stories #cancel toby chalmers #cancel culture

0 notes

disgustedorite · 1 year ago

Note

Joe Biden isn't 'misled' he's actively participating in a genocide while also denying its existence. What the fuck makes you think he, or any other democrat, would do anything to prevent a genocide here? Our only hope for liberation is organizing outside of bourgeoise political parties and forming militant organizations that can defend ourselves.

Remember that:

The prevailing propaganda in the US is "everyone in the middle east is a terrorist", and that politicians are not immune to said propaganda. Most people on the left aren't either. Biden is less sheltered than any other president we've had for a while, but he's still in the politician world which is more sheltered than it should be.

A lot of people really genuinely believe that the reports of genocide are exaggerated, a lot more than you realize, not out of malice but because of the propaganda I just mentioned and due to a lack of information being disseminated.

The vast majority of information about what's ACTUALLY HAPPENING in Gaza is exclusively circulating in extremely far left spaces, much further left than any in-office US politician you can name off the top of your head. Information simply isn't being disseminated to more left-center spaces, which is why you see so many people on the left supporting Israel and being confused and upset when people even further left start screaming at them.

Have you looked at any website that's been standing with Israel? Every single one of them has framed the Palestinian perspective as seeking a "final solution" against Jews--anyone who hears that first is gonna misguidedly shut out anything to the contrary because anyone against calling it the "final solution" is an automatic Nazi from that perspective. It's similar psychology to how so many people got locked into qanon not because they wanted to believe it, but because people going against it are framed as "supporting pedophiles".

Hamas is the face of literally all of this, especially in the media. It's not the fault of the Gazans that they're stuck with Hamas as their only chance at freedom at this point, but anyone not in the aforementioned far left spaces that actually report on it doesn't understand that.

I could be proven wrong, but it's realistic that Biden just straight up doesn't realize that people are telling the truth about it being a genocide and has, with information passed to him only though the filter of media and other politicians, and like basically everyone who isn't in far left circles, been lead to believe it to be a genocide against Israeli Jews instead, especially as the face of Gazan resistance right now is, unfortunately, Hamas. Knowingly supporting a genocide is in serious conflict with all of his other actions as president thus far, and someone needs to give him a reality check. It's a really fucking bad situation, but there's not much we can do about it at this point if protests don't get through to him. But as said in a previous post, it would also be so so much worse if Trump was in office--he'd proudly call it what it is with some stupid trumpy phrasing and support his literal buddy Benjamin Netanyahu anyway, and Gaza would just be a black mark on the coast by now with nobody left to report the number of casualties, and we might not even hear about it beyond a short "oh, Gaza was wiped off the map, aah, bad" that everyone forgets about in a day once the news suppression kicks in. And a bunch of people would be dead in the US too, we'd be in a hot nuclear war involving Russia and China, and the democracy would probably be over, but that's beside the point. I'd say that's a pretty important difference.

Meanwhile, while plenty of people are justifiably angry and saying they won't vote as a personal choice, many more who are actually calling for other people to not vote at all are social media accounts that mysteriously appeared or underwent a dramatic transformation only in the past three weeks. I spotted a former mutual who was hispanic living with their Mexican immigrant family in the US mysteriously turn into a Palestinian whose entire family except for themself lives in Gaza, whose deaths they then proceeded to liveblog one by one. Many of these blogs frequently share information sourced only from tweets and fake news sites that use overly loaded language that adds nothing to the information being shared, or even directly distracts from the facts, and serves only to make the reader angrier. Does this not sound a little bit familiar?

Everything sucks right now, but do what you can to slow down the rate at which things go downhill to give as many people as possible a fighting chance. If you don't, you become an easily sniped target in a worse world that could have been prevented.

1 note · View note

wanderingmind867 · 1 year ago

Text

I did more work on this. Here's the new ones I've got:

1921: The Liberal Party (Led by William Lyon Mackenzie King)

My Reasoning: The Liberals here win by default because the other parties are just so bad. The Conservatives violently put down a strike and led us into WW1, The Progressives/United Farmworker Parties aren't good because at least a few of their provincial wings supported sterilization and the Independent Labour Party was led by J.S. Wordsworth, another progressive who may have believed in things like Eugenics. So by default of being the only moderately left wing party that seems to have not supported eugenics, the Liberals have won my vote.

1940: The CCF/Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (Led by: J.S. Woodsworth)

My Reasoning: While J.S. Woodsworth did have some views that supported stuff like Eugenics, he was also a devout pacifist. And with WW2 just having broken out, he gets my vote. I know the Nazis are bad, but I refuse to go to combat and risk my life! It's not worth it! Conscription and War will not be a stain on my conscience! So to the CCF I shall go, because at least there their leader opposed entering into WW2 (even if most of the rest of the party though otherwise).

1979: NDP (Led by Ed Broadbent)

My Reasoning: Turns out the CBC still has the old archives of the 1979 Party Leaders debate online. So I watched the first hour of it today. And wow, watching that debate made me realize it's hard to choose a candidate. Pierre Trudeau, Joe Clark and Ed Broadbent all came off as good leaders. So we're going to have to figure this out using the process of elimination.

First off, Joe Clark seems like a good guy (he's a decent speaker and knowing that he'd go on to oppose the modern conservative party of today makes me respect him too), but he also was very wishy-washy. He never really gave too many definitive answers. Plus, Mr Broadbent really managed to nail him on all the issues.

Next, I have to choose between Pierre Trudeau and Ed Broadbent. And this is really tricky. Because they're both such good and compelling speakers. But I think I'm going to narrowly go ahead and say I'd vote for Ed Broadbent and the NDP. Because while Mr Trudeau has a lot of good answers on things like the Quebec separatism issue, his answers in regards to the Medicare Question felt a little bit lacking. And because of that one key issue, I think I have to go for Ed Broadbent and the NDP. But really, all three parties seemed pretty good (or at least all their leaders seemed pretty good).

1980: NDP (Led by Ed Broadbent)

My Reasoning: Same as above. Considering only a year passed after Clark won his minority government, the political scene can't have changed too much. So just going off of what I wrote up above, Mr Broadbent and the NDP would still get my vote.

2011: NDP (Led by Jack Layton)

My Reasoning: There's actually a good story here. I was born in 2005 and grew up when Jack Layton was leader of the NDP (he led them from 2003 to his death in 2011 of Cancer). I don't actually remember much about his platform or about his speeches anymore (since I was like 4-5 when he was party leader), but I vaguely remember really liking him. I may have even asked my parents to vote for him/for the NDP, although it's hard to remember now. Anyways, Jack Layton was a great guy and he would have made a great prime minister.

My Voting Record (Canadian Elections). Here's what I've managed to get so far:

1911: Conservative Party (Led by Robert Borden)

My reasoning: The Liberals were pushing for free trade with the US. That automatically takes points off. I don't trust the US. Why trade with an Imperialist country who more likely than not will return the favour with attacks. Let's not forget 1812! Also, screw Missouri Senator Champ Clark! He implied he wanted to annex Canada! How dare he! I hope he's rotting now! Anyways, the Conservatives are Pro-Britain and Anti-America. They share my sentiments exactly. So I'm voting Conservative!

1917: Laurier Liberals (Led by Wilfred Laurier)

My reasoning: Although I previously said I wholeheartedly support Britain (I still support them more than I support America), I also value self-preservation. The Unionists (Conservatives and Pro-Conscription Liberals) introduced proscription in 1917. And I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to risk being sent off to fight for the army. For the simple reason that I am both very pacifistic and also very, very scared of dying, I'm voting Laurier. I didn't love his plans for a free trade agreement with the US in 1911, but at least he won't send me off to die in war!

1963: Progressive Conservative Party (Led by John Diefenbaker).

My reasoning: I'm voting for him because he stood up to JFK. Diefenbaker stood up to the Americans, and I really appreciate that! Considering they once wanted to annex us, I have little love for the american politicians! And since Lester B. Pearson is so close to the americans and JFK, I can't vote for him.

1965: Progressive Conservative Party (Led by John Diefenbaker)

My reasoning: All the parties have some decent proposals, but I don't love their leaders. Lester B. Pearson is too close to America, Tommy Douglas used to be a eugenicist, the social credit party is too small and too socially conservative, etc. Only Diefenbaker was willing to stand up to America. And he opposed apartheid. So he's got my vote. I was tempted by the NDPs platform, though.

1968: Progressive Conservative Party (Led by Robert Stanfield)

My reasoning: Wikipedia said Stanfield once promised a universal basic income, but had to walk it back a little after the more right wing members of his party thought it too socialist. Still, Stanfield has my vote. I still don't love Tommy Douglas (but I like the NDP platform) and Trudeau isn't my first choice, so for Stanfield I shall vote!

1972: NDP (Led by David Lewis)

My Reasoning: Although David Lewis isn't my first choice (he's very moderate and helped convince the party to support capitalism, although at least it was only capitalism with regulations), the platform is simply too good this time. I would have gone with the PCs again, but they wanted to ban strikes in essential services. And I can't support that. And although Trudeau and the Liberals aren't bad (I like quite a few of their stances and trudeau isn't bad), the NDP still have my vote!

1974: The Liberal Party (Led by Pierre Trudeau)

My reasoning: Wikipedia sadly did not have a handy guide to the parties policies this time, so I had to download a PDF of the parties policies and skim them. There's only one main policy that really stood out to me: and that was the promise of a guaranteed annual income. Both the NDP and the Liberal party promised a guaranteed annual income (or something similar). But since the Liberal platform specifically mentioned money for those who can't work due to disabilities, they've got my vote! They spoke to one of the few issues I can say I hold a very personal stake in! I probably can't and also don't want to work, so I need that money! So it's the Liberals for me!

1979: NDP (Led by Ed Broadbent)

#canada #politics #elections #canadian politics #canadian elections #my voting record #if I was alive back then #autism #neurodivergent #adhd #asd #canadian history

5 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 1 year ago

Text

When people on this website complain about a lack of reading comprehension, you're the kind of person they're talking about.

>First thing to note, "The liberal Patriot" is a right wing blog that denies climate change so clearly @theculturedmarxist is getting his news from only the finest of sources.

And? What does that have to do with the content of the article?

>The article is part of a larger movement which tires to posit that the Democrats are the real racist party and the Republicans are actually the more racially conscious than there democratic peers.

Oh, I see. You have to attack the source, because you don't actually understand what it's saying. Don't worry, I'll explain it to you.

It's not saying that Democrats are "the REAL racist party" (even though they are). It's saying that the Democrats are taking the votes of non-white demographics for granted, and that this puts them into a dangerous electoral position. The author is recommending that the Democrats jettison their view of the white working class voters as essentially racist deplorables, because that view is based on a false understanding, and reaching out to them could put them in a better electoral position.

Which is all true.

>Now that might be weird considering that Trump had a Neo Nazi March in 2017 and an far right attempted coup in 2021, he enacted a horrific migrant policy on the border (one that Biden has barely changed incidentally), regularly praised the confederates, actively opposed the BLM, protests, has a long history of racial dissemination, and keeps associating with Alt Right Figures 9Michael Flynn, Laura Loomer, Steave Bannon, Nike Fuentes, STephen Miller)

Yeah, that's all true. But I like the part where you just gloss over the fact that this horrific racist migrant border policy of Trump's has only "barely changed" under Biden. You also don't mention how Biden's administration has been actively arming a neo-Nazi government that he helped install, has hosted neo-Nazis at the White House, had them speak at the Capitol, and whose government has been essential in their training and upkeep. And I mean, that's just aside from Biden himself, who opposed desegregation and championed the crime bill in the 90s, among other crimes. But I mean, who's counting?

>Now a lot of you might be wondering "Wait, isn't the cultured marxist a communist, why would they be reblogging a right wing thinker" and the answer is that there is a weird type of "leftist" who seem to spend a lot of there time defending far right reactionaries who hate the centrists they also hate, hence why they are so pro Putin

I reblog a lot of outlets and people that I don't necessarily agree with or like for a number of reasons. This article in particular just happens to say something I do agree with and has supplementary information to back it up. I don't really care if they're right wing or climate deniers or whatever, because none of that has any bearing on the article itself.

And furthermore, the vast majority of sources are right wing. Every bourgeois news outlet is right wing by its very nature. Every one of them, CNN, BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, whatever, they're all engaged in some form of mis- or disinformation. Even left wing outlets take positions or hold opinions that I disagree with for one reason or another. If I only used the ones that I agreed with 100%, the blog would be empty.

And like just about everything else you say about me, I'm only "pro Putin" in your empty head.

>Now regarding the idea that Biden can't win 2024, anything possible, but it strikes me as very cocky to be super confident Biden can't win, because the pattern for the last three years has been democrats not liking biden, but voting for him anyway (I can speak to myself as an example). But the CUltured Marxists wants us to believe that because the Dems didn't nominate Cornel West or Biden or something, they are doomed in 2020, which shows a very naïve view of AMerican politics.

I'm confident that Biden won't win in 2024 because of all the things that Biden has, and more importantly hasn't done. Nearly a million people dead by Covid, children still in cages, lost Roe v Wade, increased oil drilling, strikebreaking, instigating a losing war with Russia, involved in a corruption scandal with his deadbeat rapist son—the list goes on and on. There's also the fact that he's increasingly old and frail, and his vice president is an empty suit that absolutely no one has any faith in. Consider also that the White House still enforces strict covid protocols around the president, while Biden's covid policies basically ensures that everyone will eventually get it, and that eventually he's going to get it, and there's a not infinitesimal chance that it's going to kill him. I believe the thought of Kamala being president makes a lot of people justifiably uncomfortable. I suppose that's assuming he chooses to run with her again, but it's not like there's a lot of good candidates to take her place, either.

Actually, nominating Cornel West would probably be a big help to the Democrats. But that's now why I think they're going to lose. As I've repeatedly pointed out, it's because they're promising nothing and choosing to go with the "nothing will fundamentally change" candidate when everything is very obviously in desperate need of changing. And that's a recipe for disaster, because even if they do manage to eke out a victory this time, maintaining the status quo is just going to set them up for electoral disaster in the next election, because things are only going to get worse, and not doing anything to mitigate that or help people is only going to make people vote for someone, anyone else, if only out of pure spite—like what happened in 2016.

>Notice how @theculturedmarxist focuses almost entirely on 2016, and not on 2018, 2020, or most importantly 2022, three elections where democratic dramatically over performed despite having major structural disadvantages.

They "over performed" themselves into a deadlocked congress where they continue to accomplish nothing and only just manage to hang on.

>2020 though, this is where @theculturedmarxist's argument really breaks down. Because Bernie sanders was never able to get more than 25% of the votes in the primary, while Biden got about 52%. If you break down the Democrats by general progressives vs. moderate votes, moderates got 70% of the vote. Which sucks, but clearly the majority of democrats feel more comfortable with Biden's wing of the party.

This is revisionist history. As the post you linked but didn't read or understand enumerates, it's not that Biden just beat Bernie. The Democrats rigged the primary so that Biden would win. It's something Obama said that he would do if it looked like Bernie was going to get the nomination, which it did. The Sandman was the clear favorite so he and the other "party elders" cleared the field.

When Sanders briefly took the lead in February and seemed within reach of racking up an insurmountable lead, party elders panicked. “If you’re a centrist, you have 10 days,” David Rothkopf, a former Clinton official told Financial Times. “You have from now until Super Tuesday and either a bunch of people drop out and there is some move to unify around somebody. Or it’s going to be a runaway [win] for Sanders.” With days to go before Super Tuesday, party elders cleared out the “centrist lane” in a stunning display of party discipline and elite competence. Pete Buttigieg, an AstroTurf political entrepreneur known for his effortless regurgitation of platitudes, and Amy Klobuchar, a seasoned and highly competent senator from Minnesota, were prevailed upon to drop out and throw their weight behind Joe Biden. The operational maneuver was shockingly effective. Although it would be a while before Sanders would throw in the towel, Biden locked up the Democratic nomination on Super Tuesday.

>Then in 2020, Biden didn't just win, he had a blow out. Despite Trump resorting to massive voter suppression, he won the electoral vote by 306 to 232, and won the popular vote by 4.5% , the largest margin in US history, 7.5 million more votes. Clearly most Americans supported Biden.

Hey that's great and all but Hilldawg won the popular vote in 2016 too for all the good it did her. The reality is that Biden only barely won. In Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Georgia, it was neck and neck. Had the wind blown the other way the victory could have just as easily gone to Trump. And that was even with the considerable help Biden had with the media quashing the rape allegations and the laptop story.

And just like other Democrat assumptions, it's impossible to say from a simple vote what motivated it. Were most Americans for Biden, or just against Trump?

>But the biggest evidence against the "Biden is unelectable" theory is the 2022 midterm, which almost everybody predicted to be a massacre of democrat. Inflation was high, Biden's approvals numbers were down, the sitting party always losses seats in a midterm, Afghanistan was a fuck up, Covid Response not great, and 50/50 split in the Senate. And Dems...did fantastically, the best midterm performance in the modern age if you discount the post 9/11 midterm of 2002. That is why Dems are sticking with Biden, because he delivered a very impressive victory.

"Impressive victory?" The Democrats gained one senator and lost control of the House. How exactly did Biden "deliver" this "impressive victory?" And what have the Democrats done to capitalize on it now that they have a majority in the senate? Biden's whole justification for voting for him was that he was the one to "reach across the aisle" and get shit done, so why hasn't he been able to get any shit done?

>There is a reason why Dems, including Sanders, AOC and Warren, are rallying around Biden, because electorally its the better risk, especially if Trump wins the Republican Primary.

This is the conclusion your "mature and nuanced view of politics" brings you to, huh? Considering Biden's polling at basically the same numbers as Trump I don't think he's as safe a bet as you believe he is.

>A bunch of stupid bullshit.

I'm going to ignore most of the rest because it's just a bunch of nonsense you made up.

>For the Record, The Culturedmarxists predicted that Sanders would win the primary here

Actually I debunk the talking points Timothy Egan brings up in his dogshit article. It was also published on January when Bernie was the clear frontrunner until the DNC fucked him.

>Now according to TheCulturedMarxist in there post here, Biden being nominated was basically ensures Trump was going to win

That's a reposted article from another website. It says so right at the fucking beginning.

By Anis Shivani, whose recent political books include Why Did Trump Win?, Confronting American Fascism, and A Radical Human Rights Solution to the Immigration Problem. He is the author of many critically-acclaimed books of fiction, poetry, and criticism, including, most recently, A History of the Cat in Nine Chapters or Less

And like I already pointed out, he very nearly did win. And like Shivani points out in his article, Biden won in spite of how dogshit he and the Democrats are, not because of how much everyone supposedly loves them.

>They also predicts Trump is going to win here

Hm, yeah, I did. I expected Trump from 2016 to tear Biden apart like wet toilet paper, but strangely we didn't get a repeat of that performance. I wonder if cognitive impairment from covid had anything to do with it.

>And here...

I tell a liberal to shut the fuck up, which they should, and link a broken thread in the chapo subreddit.

>And here, where he says that the Dems "deserve to lose in November"

lol yeah I did, and I was right, for all the reasons I mentioned. And all the reasons the OP mentioned too, actually, considering all the shit they list that Biden was supposed to save us from has come true thanks to him.

You vote as if YOU were BLACK.

Biden's increased police funding and is currently contemplating waging war on Niger.

You vote as if YOU were DISABLED.

Biden's covid policies have let the disease run rampant, infecting tens of millions of people and inflicting them with Long Covid, leaving millions of people disabled. So, that's just great.

You vote as if YOU were a brown-skinned IMMIGRANT.

Biden railed against Trump’s immigration policies, now defends them in courts

You vote as if YOU were LGBTQ+.

I've gone over what Biden's done for LBGTQ+ and it's really not much since they have to include stuff like "gave Pete Buttigieg a job and tweeted happy birthday to all the gays on twitter once."

You vote as if YOU were the TARGET of Neo-Nazis and the KKK.

Biden and his party are currently sending billions of dollars with of weapons to Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, so great job there.

You vote as if YOU might need HEALTHCARE.

Biden ran in opposition of Medicare For All.

You vote as if YOUR CHILDREN might be killed some day in a MASS-SHOOTING.

Still happening. No doubt in spite of Biden's best efforts.

You vote as if YOU were a woman dealing with an UNPLANNED PREGNANCY or DEFECTIVE FETUS.

White House Privately Signaling It’s Moving Forward With Anti-Abortion Court Pick

Oops.

You vote as if YOU or your loved ones might someday be adversely impacted by UNMITIGATED CLIMATE CHANGE.

Thank you, Uncle Joe!

>Here he says that Trump is going to be gone and that Republicans helped Biden win 2020

Oh, more reading comprehension problems.

See, what I actually said was that Trump wasn't the source of all these violent extremists, that he himself was an opportunist capitalizing on those groups, and now that he was presumably gone, they'd start looking for someone that actually believes what they believe to lead them.

And yeah, the Republicans did work to undermine and unseat Trump, because he dominates the Republican party, and the establishment figures in the party don't like that. The Republican Party wanted him gone just as badly as the Democratic Party for a number of reasons.

>Here they seems to get cranky about dems disliking the electoral college instead of "Getting people to want to vote them" which is weird because Biden won the popular vote by the largest margin in US history.

What I'm actually saying is that Democrats should be putting their energy into practical and popular policies like universal healthcare or providing people with badly needed services instead of empty rhetoric about abolishing the electoral college, which the DNC doesn't even want. They refuse to even abolish the filibuster, which is actually entirely within their power to do. They also wouldn't need to abolish the electoral college if they gave people a reason to vote for them, you know, by providing them the things they want.

>Here They says that Trump was more proactive at stopping the Virus than Biden. Now Biden's response to covid has been pretty bad, but saying its worse than Trump is pretty comical when you remember that Trump inspired riots to try to stop shut downs.

Biden's response was to stop shutdowns, stop paying people to stay home, downplay non-medical interventions, deny aerosol transmission, tell everyone they'd be fine if they got the vaccine, force a "return to normal" and then declared the whole thing over. Four times as many people have died after Biden and "the adults in the room" took over, and thousands of people are still dying every week.

>This deeply angry post here I think is super revealing because it kinda shows where his political views have frozen, he is basically stuck in 2016 and hasn't evolved as a person since, retreating further and further away from electorilism rather than admit weakness or being wrong.

Except I'm not wrong. Democrats scapegoating Jill Stein voters because their shitty candidate couldn't win against the Pied Piper candidate her own team promoted for her to run against is extremely shitty, and they and all the rest of the "Blue No Matter Who" bunch can go and get fucked to death.

>Also I think they might have been on some Chan boards, notice the writing here "Do the world a favor and kill yourselves for fuck’s sake, you worthless, entitled weaklings."

Uh oh, looks like I'm guilty of further thoughtcrimes 😣

>This one here is very interesting, because he argues that the left in the Left in the United States is basically dead and that there is hope in communism. 4 years later we do see a much more active and powerful left, but it is a left defined by the BLM protests not from the most toxic element of the Sanders fanbase.

Communism is the only hope. BLM sputtered and died and the Democrats helped kill it, just like they did with Occupy. The actual radicals got fucking murdered and the "founders" got bought by the Ford foundation. Hope this helps.

And all the rest of your post is just make believe bullshit that I'm not going to bother with. So in conclusion

Hang all Democrats.

Joseph Stalin did absolutely nothing wrong.

Communism will win.

Democrats lately have been basking in good news. The fourth Trump indictment! Continued success for abortion rights (the defeat of the Ohio referendum)! Good news on “Bidenomics” (slowing inflation and strong job creation)!

The sentiment seems to be: we got this! How could we lose to a candidate (assuming it’s Trump) who’s under a blizzard of legal scrutiny for undermining democracy and represents a party that wants to take away women’s right to choose—especially when we, the good guys, are doing such a great job with the economy?

This “how can we lose?” attitude is uncomfortably reminiscent of Democrats’ attitude in 2016. Then too they thought they couldn’t lose. And yet they did.

Perhaps it’s time to take out an insurance policy. It may be the case that a multiply-indicted Trump is now toxic to enough voters and abortion rights such a strong motivator that even a candidate with Biden’s weaknesses will beat him easily. But it might not and that’s where the insurance policy comes in.

Consider that right now the race looks very, very close. The RealClearPolitics poll average has Biden ahead of Trump by a slender four-tenths of a percentage point. If that was Biden’s national lead on election day, he’d probably lose the presidency due to electoral college bias that favors Republicans.

In the latest Quinnipiac poll, Biden has a one-point lead over Trump consistent with the running average. Among white working-class (noncollege) voters, he’s behind by 34 points, considerably worse than he did in 2020. If Trump (or another Republican) does manage to prevail in 2024, we can be fairly sure that a pro-GOP surge among these voters will have something to do with it.

States of Change simulations show that, all else equal, a strong white working class surge in 2024 would deliver the election to the GOP. Even a small one could potentially do the trick. In an all-else-equal context, I estimate just a one-point increase in Republican support among the white working class and a concomitant one-point decrease in Democratic support (for a 2-point margin swing) would deliver Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin (and the election) to the Republicans. Make it a 2-point increase in GOP support and you can throw in Pennsylvania too.

So an insurance policy to prevent such a swing is in order.

The problem: these are very unhappy voters. In the Quinnipiac poll, white working-class voters give Biden an overall 25 percent approval rating versus 70 percent disapproval and 72 percent have an unfavorable opinion of him. On handling the economy, Biden’s rating is even worse—24 percent approval and 73 percent disapproval. Just 20 percent say the economy is excellent or good, compared to 79 percent who say it is not so good or poor. By 63 to 16 percent, these voters believe the economy is getting worse not better. Evidently they haven’t yet heard the good news about Bidenomics.

The temptation among Democrats is to ascribe the stubborn resistance of these voters to Democratic appeals and openness to those of Trump and right populists to misinformation from Fox News and the like and, worse, to the fundamentally racist, reactionary nature of this voter group. The roots of this view go back to the aftermath of the 2016 election.

As analysts sifted through the wreckage of Democratic performance in 2016 trying to understand where all the Trump voting had come from, some themes began to emerge. One was geographical. Across county-level studies, it was clear that low educational levels among whites was a very robust predictor of shifts toward Trump. These studies also indicated that counties that swung toward Trump tended to be dependent on low-skill jobs, relatively poor performers on a range of economic measures and had local economies particularly vulnerable to automation and offshoring. Finally, there was strong evidence that Trump-swinging counties tended to be literally “sick” in the sense that their inhabitants had relatively poor physical health and high mortality due to alcoholism, drug abuse, and suicide.

The picture was more complicated when it came to individual level characteristics related to Trump voting, especially Obama-Trump voting. There were a number of correlates with Trump voting. They included some aspects of economic populism—opposition to cutting Social Security and Medicare, suspicion of free trade and trade agreements, taxing the rich—as well as traditional populist attitudes like anti-elitism and mistrust of experts. But the star of the show, so to speak, was a variable labelled “racial resentment” by political scientists, which many studies showed bore a strengthened relationship to Republican presidential voting in 2016.

This variable is a scale created from questions like: “Irish, Italian, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without any special favors.” The variable is widely and uncritically employed by political scientists to indicate racial animus despite the obvious problem that statements such as these correspond closely to a generic conservative view of avenues to social mobility. And indeed political scientists Riley Carney and Ryan Enos have shown that responses to questions like these change very little if you substitute “Nepalese” or “Lithuanians” for blacks. That implies the questions that make up the scale tap views that are not at all specific to blacks. Carney and Enos term these views “just world belief” which sounds quite a bit different from racial resentment.

But in the aftermath of the Trump election, researchers continued to use the same scale with the same name and the same interpretation with no caveats. The strong relationship of the scale to Trump voting was proof, they argued, that Trump support, including vote-switching from Obama to Trump, was simply a matter of activating underlying racism and xenophobia. Imagine though how these studies might have landed like if they had tied Trump support to activating just world belief, which is an eminently reasonable interpretation of their star variable, instead of racial resentment. The lack of even a hint of interest in exploring this alternative interpretation strongly suggests that the researchers’ own political beliefs were playing a strong role in how they chose to pursue and present their studies.

In short, they went looking for racism—and they found it.

Other studies played variations on this theme, adding variables around immigration and even trade to the mix, where negative views were presumed to show “status threat” or some other euphemism for racism and xenophobia. As sociologist Stephen Morgan has noted in a series of papers, this amounts to a labeling exercise where issues that have a clear economic component are stripped of that component and reduced to simple indicators of unenlightened social attitudes. Again, it seems clear that researchers’ priors and political beliefs were heavily influencing both their analytical approach and their interpretation of results.

And there is an even deeper problem with the conventional view. Start with a fact that was glossed over or ignored by most studies: trends in so-called racial resentment went in the “wrong” direction between the 2012 and 2016 election. That is, fewer whites had high levels of racial resentment in 2016 than 2012. This make racial resentment an odd candidate to explain the shift of white voters toward Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

Political scientists Justin Grimmer and William Marble investigated this conundrum intensively by looking directly at whether an indicator like racial resentment really could explain, or account for, the shift of millions of white votes toward Trump. The studies that gave pride of place to racial resentment as an explanation for Trump’s victory did no such accounting; they simply showed a stronger relationship between this variable and Republican voting in 2016 and thought they’d provided a complete explanation.

They had not. When you look at the actual population of voters and how racial resentment was distributed in 2016, as Grimmer and Marble did, it turns out that the racial resentment explanation simply does not fit what really happened in terms of voter shifts. A rigorous accounting of vote shifts toward Trump shows instead that they were primarily among whites, especially low education whites, with moderate views on race and immigration, not whites with high levels of racial resentment. In fact, Trump actually netted fewer votes among whites with high levels of racial resentment than Mitt Romney did in 2012.

Grimmer and Marble did a followup study with Cole Tanigawa-Lau that included data from the 2020 election. The study was covered in a New York Times article by Thomas Edsall. In the article, Grimmer described the significance of their findings:

Our findings provide an important correction to a popular narrative about how Trump won office. Hillary Clinton argued that Trump supporters could be placed in a “basket of deplorables.” And election-night pundits and even some academics have claimed that Trump’s victory was the result of appealing to white Americans’ racist and xenophobic attitudes. We show this conventional wisdom is (at best) incomplete. Trump’s supporters were less xenophobic than prior Republican candidates’ [supporters], less sexist, had lower animus to minority groups, and lower levels of racial resentment. Far from deplorables, Trump voters were, on average, more tolerant and understanding than voters for prior Republican candidates… [The data] point to two important and undeniable facts. First, analyses focused on vote choice alone cannot tell us where candidates receive support. We must know the size of groups and who turns out to vote. And we cannot confuse candidates’ rhetoric with the voters who support them, because voters might support the candidate despite the rhetoric, not because of it.

So much for the racial resentment explanation of Trump’s victory. Not only is racial resentment a misnamed variable that does not mean what people think it means, it literally cannot account for the actual shifts that occurred in the 2016 election. Clearly a much more complex explanation for Trump’s victory was—or should have been—in order, integrating negative views on immigration, trade and liberal elites with a sense of unfairness rooted in just world belief. That would have helped Democrats understand why voters in Trump-shifting counties, whose ways of life were being torn asunder by economic and social change, were so attracted to Trump’s appeals.

Such understanding was nowhere to be found, however, in Democratic ranks. The racism-and-xenophobia interpretation quickly became dominant, partly because it was in many ways simply a continuation of the approach Clinton had taken during her campaign and that most Democrats accepted. Indeed, it became so dominant that simply to question the interpretation reliably opened the questioner to accusations that he or she did not take the problem of racism seriously enough.

We are still living in that world. Scratch a Democrat today and you will find lurking not far beneath the surface—if beneath the surface at all—a view of white working-class voters and their populist, pro-Trump leanings as reflecting these voters’ unyielding racism and xenophobia.

This is neither substantively justified nor politically productive. Democrats desperately need that insurance policy for 2024 and getting rid of these attitudes toward 40 percent of the electorate (much more in key states!) should be part of it. Think of it as a down payment on the “de-Brahminization” of the Democratic Party. This attitude adjustment might irritate some of their activist supporters, but considering the stakes, that seems like a small price to pay for a potentially vital insurance policy.

24 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 4 years ago

Link

Florida has just become the first state in the Union to mandate that high school students learn about the crimes of communism. The subject is indeed very important, and too little known. The problem is that the new legislation, like other recent Florida measures, itself recalls certain evils of communism.

As of this coming school year, high school students who wish to graduate from a Florida school must pass a class in U.S. government that includes "comparative discussion of political ideologies, such as communism and totalitarianism, that conflict with the principles of freedom and democracy essential to the founding principles of the United States."

Any high school teacher is going to sigh at the awkward circularity of the "principles essential to the principles" formulation. As Orwell tried to remind us in "Politics and the English Language," though, vague formulations demand our critical attention. This weird phrasing serves a sinister purpose, one that becomes clear later in the law. The point is that the United States is to be defined as free and democratic, regardless of what Americans or their legislators actually do. American is free and democratic because of a miraculous investiture from the past. Complacency is therefore patriotic, and criticism is not.

The law presents "totalitarianism" as an ideology. Totalitarianism is not an ideology, so Florida teachers are henceforth legally required to teach nonsense. To be sure, one can find historical figures who referred to themselves as "totalitarian" in a positive sense, but in general the term has been used as analysis and critique. In use for about a century now, "totalitarianism" has generally been used as a category that brings together regimes with very different ideologies, drawing attention to underlying similarities.

As such, totalitarianism can also be a tool for self-critique, since it draws attention to political temptations that make different systems possible. The most important book about totalitarianism, by Hannah Arendt, presents Nazism and Stalinism as possibilities within modern politics. When in Origins of Totalitarianism Arendt wrote about conspiracy theories, she was writing not only about Nazi and Soviet practices, but also about a human failing. When she wrote about narratives where we are always right and they are always wrong, where we are always innocent and they are always guilty, she was describing a universal risk. When she wrote of people who were simultaneously gullible and cynical, for whom “everything was possible and nothing was true,” she got uncomfortably close to contemporary American reality.

By defining totalitarianism as a foreign ideology to be contrasted with American principles, Florida legislators have denied students not just the knowledge of what the term actually means, but also the possibility to appeal to a rich body of thought that might help them to avoid risks to freedom and democracy.

Unlike totalitarianism, communism is an ideology. Its ideological character is visible in its approach to the past: communists transformed history, an open search for fact and endless discussion of interpretation, into History, an official story in which one's own country was the center of world liberation regardless of what its leaders did. The party was always right, even if what the party said and did was unpredictable and self-contradictory. The most important communist party still in power, the Chinese, takes this line today. To question the revolution or the inevitability of the system is to fall prey to "historical nihilism." In April 2018, a Chinese memory law accordingly made it a crime to question the heroism of past leaders. What we have is good and right because we inherited it from glorious dead revolutionaries, and we must not question what the government tells us about our glorious dead revolutionaries.

We have our own official story of revolution. The Florida board of education has recently forbidden teachers from defining American history "as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence." That narrow formulation rules out most of reality but crams in a good dose of mysticism. Nothing is ever entirely new, and nations arise from many sources aside from principles. The board of education’s claim is political rather than historical: Everything good comes from the past, and we must not question what the government tells us about its righteousness. If there is only one story, and you have to tell it, that is not history but History. The point is not that the American Revolution is the same thing as the Chinese Revolution. The point is that we are treating it the same way, describing it in dogmatic terms that we enforce in memory law. And that is deeply worrying.

The same spirit is in evidence in that Florida communist law. Deep in the past, it instructs us, is where we find freedom and democracy. Freedom is not something to be struggled for by individuals now, but magically "inherited from prior generations." That phrase should give pause to anyone who cares about freedom. If you seriously think that freedom is something that you can inherit, like a sofa or a stamp collection, you are not going to be free for long.

In the law's logic, democracy is not actually allowing people to vote, but some silent tradition that somehow exists whether or not real Americans can vote in reality. Despite what actually happened between the eighteenth century and now (slavery, let's say, or voter suppression), we must close our minds to everything but those mythical "principles essential to the principles." The facts give way to an underlying logic, impossible to articulate, that demonstrates that my country is better.

The Florida communism law requires that someone (it is hard, given the awkward phrasing, to say who) must "curate oral history resources." The curation will involve the selection "first-person accounts of victims of other nations' governing philosophies who can compare those philosophies with those of the United States." There is something humiliating about turning real people into poster children for American exceptionalism. Refugees from other countries past and present have individual and complex stories, which cannot usually be reduced to tales of American superiority. Edith P., a Holocaust survivor, speaks of waiting for hours every day in front of the American embassy, which denied her family a visa. American schoolchildren read about Anne Frank, but no one tells them that her father applied for an American visa. Leon Bass was an African American soldier who saw a German concentration camp. He had something comparative to say about "governing philosophies," but it would not survive curation.

America today is not an especially free country. Our own non-governmental organization Freedom House, relying on our own preferred notions of freedom (civil and political rights) ranks us in fifty-eighth place. In other words, it would theoretically be possible (and it would certainly be valuable) for the Florida board of education to solicit testimonies from people from fifty-seven other countries where people live more freely than here, who could explain why they have not moved to the United States. They could compare their countries' "governing philosophies" with that of the United States (favorably, unfavorably, who knows: they are free people). But we know that this will not happen. Such an application of the Florida communism law is unthinkable, because the Florida communism law is not about freedom. It is about repeating that America is the best country in the world.

Self-absorption is not anti-communism. Anti-communism would entail listening to history rather than History, and educating individuals who can make up their own minds. You don't get freedom from the flock.

Another familiar communist trick can be found in a recent directive by the Florida board of education. The trick has to do with leveraging victory in the Second World War. Beginning in the late 1960s, a certain version of the Second World War became an important part of communist ideology. In the Soviet Union, and also in today's Russia, any wrong done by the system was explained away by the fact that the Red Army had defeated the Germans. The fact that Nazis were evil made the Soviets good. The fact of having resisted the Nazis made one's own system unassailable. This communist technique has now, uncannily, resurfaced in official Florida pedagogy.

In the recent school board directive, we learn that "examples of theories that distort historical events and are inconsistent with State Board approved standards include the denial or minimization of the Holocaust, and the teaching of Critical Race Theory, meaning the theory that racism is not merely the product of prejudice, but that racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons." This repeats the Soviet (and Russian) logic. We don't deny German crimes, and therefore we are innocent of any crimes ourselves. Indeed, anyone who suggests that we look at our own history: well, they are like Holocaust deniers!

Another sad resemblance concerns voting. Freedom involves educating people about the past as it was so that they can make up their own minds about what the future should be. Democracy involves giving people the vote in the meantime. The Soviet Union held elections, but they were ritualistic and fake. When Soviet power extended across eastern Europe after the Second World War, local communist parties rigged elections. Thus authentic anti-communists would make sure that their own elections were not rigged, and that all citizens could take part. But the Florida communism law was passed in circumstances that suggest a lively interest in making voting more difficult. In 2019, the Florida legislature enacted pay-to-vote legislation that effectively disenfranchised people that Floridians, in a referendum, had voted to enfranchise the year before. The Florida communism law came into effect this 1 July, hard on the heels of a new Florida voter suppression law.

I have spent decades teaching and writing about communism, and I certainly think that young people should know about communist systems and their policies of mass killing. But declarations of superiority do not amount to a pedagogy, nor to an anti-communism worthy of the name. The content of the Florida communism law, and the Florida voter suppression law, and the board of education directive on race, do not suggest that Florida lawmakers and administrators have learned much about what was wrong with communism.

These measures reveal American weaknesses that make American tyranny more likely.

* * * * *

When I went to High School in Florida [many decades ago] all Seniors had to take a class called “Americanism vs Communism.” As I recall, most students slept through the class. I thought that it was insulting propaganda - using an inadequate text that was filled with poorly written boilerplate and boring poorly made films. If the right wing wants to inflict propaganda on teenagers it should invest in decent writers and film makers. They are very poor in the literacy department. I was 16 at the time and unsophisticated but I could still tell that what i was being taught was a waste of my time.

#political #articles #Timothy Snyder #history #communism #Florida

16 notes · View notes

somethingusefulfromflorida · 4 years ago

Text

If John F. Kennedy hadn't been assassinated, would he have gotten us involved in Vietnam like Johnson did?

The United States didn't commit troops until early 1965 following the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in August 1964. The North Vietnamese fired on an American ship, which Congress used as justification for war. Would Kennedy's foreign policy decision be significantly different from Johnson's?

Kennedy's critics derided him as a communist (or at the very least soft of communism), but following the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and multiple failed attempts to assassinate Fidel, I'd say he was decidedly anti-communist. Hell, he was SHOT by a communist! Do people think Lee Harvey Oswald killed him because they agreed too much? He wouldn't just sit back and let the North Vietnamese get away with their attack, but I don't think he would commit troops halfway across the world when he refused to commit them just 90 miles away to Cuba. His father was a notorious Nazi appeaser, and his older brother a full out Nazi sympathizer, both of whom opposed US Involvement in World War II; with the stalemate in Korea so fresh in people's minds, would Kennedy want to start another war so soon? JFK wasn't a Nazi like the elder Kennedys, and he certainly wasn't a pacifist either, but I don't know if he would.

Kennedy was young and inexperienced, while Johnson was a mover and shaker; whatever LBJ wanted to do, it got done. As former Senate Majority Leader, he was able to get the entire Democratic Party in line behind him, even when the southern faction opposed the Civil Rights Act and the the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Kennedy couldn't throw his weight around like that, so partisan infighting would be much stronger had he finished his term, even more so if he was re-elected. Johnson won 1964 in a landslide, 60-40 against segregationist and father of modern conservatism Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was guaranteed to lose because of the passage of the Civil Rights Act, but would Kennedy have gotten it through Congress against internal opposition? If he did, would it still be a landslide, or would southern moderates who voted for Johnson have passed him up in favor of Goldwater? Goldwater was the first Republican to win the Deep South since reconstruction; Johnson dominated his home state of Texas, but it has gone red every election since. Goldwater was Ronald Reagan's mentor, so his presidency would have been the worst parts of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s combined. Can you imagine how much worse off we would be if the country started abandoning FDR's New Deal even earlier? With no Great Society and no war on poverty, we would probably be thrown into a deep depression; Goldwater would go down as Hoover 2.0, though America's rightward social shift would occur much earlier. No Johnson means no Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court (a minor positive consequence of this is that there would be no Clarence Thomas either. George H.W. Bush nominated Thomas to replace Marshall because they were both black, a sick joke to replace a super liberal justice with the most conservative man to ever sit on the court. The Republicans did the same thing in 2020, replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett because they were both women)

Kennedy probably would have won in 1964, but it would have been really close. The 1968 Democratic race would be between the moderate Johnson and the more liberal Bobby Kennedy, JFK's baby brother and Attorney General. Johnson could win, Bobby couldn't. Johnson wouldn't be weighed down by his war crimes in Vietnam, but Bobby would be endlessly compared to his brother who very likely would not be popular going into 68. He had decent approval up until he was assassinated, but nobody's second term is ever as productive or prosperous as their first.

#alternate history #jfk #john f kennedy #Kennedy #Vietnam #the vietnam war #vietnam war #gulf of tonkin #1964

8 notes · View notes

corinthbayrpg · 3 years ago

Photo

NAME. Emma Darlington AGE & BIRTH DATE. 376 & September 3rd, 1645 GENDER & PRONOUNS. Female & She/Her SPECIES. Vampire OCCUPATION. Singer at Ambrosia FACE CLAIM. Olivia Holt

BIOGRAPHY

( tw: death, blood, violence, nazis ) In a small cottage in the English countryside, a young girl came wailing into the world. Colicky, fidgety, and desperate for her parent’s attention; Emma Haywood was well-loved and adored by both her mother and father. Her father was a physician, not in study but in practice. He was known for splinting broken bones and using tonics and salves to stave off infection, while her mother was an artist. Creative and carefree, Marie was a force of nature. Emma’s earliest memories came of her father’s distance, it was around when she was two or three that he grew apart from his family. At least, that was how it seemed. He would never hold his daughter, or coddle her, nor did he show his wife any physical attention that Emma could see. To her, that was simply the norm. Where her father lacked, her mother picked up. Marie reminded Emma daily of her father’s love for them, of how he worked hard for them, and how he had demons that needed to be contended with.

It was a few months after Emma’s seventh birthday that her mother fell terribly ill, it was not long after that she passed on. Her father, Leighton, was a mess and clearly unfit to raise a young girl properly. She was passed off to a neighboring family, close friends who had a son only two years Emma’s junior. They had grown up together already, and at the very least Emma would have someone who was like a brother to her. For a time she kept expecting her father to come back, like it was a visit to the neighbors like any other. Every night in secret she would light a candle and leave it in her window so that her father might see it and find his way through the dark to her. In the morning Emma would find the candle burned down to the wick, a pool of deflated wax over the sill that she found she had something in common with. It too had learned to pour itself into a new shape, and so should she.

Days turned to weeks turned to years and Emma’s father never returned, but by now she had a new family. People who played with her, a brother who loved her, and more and more the sting of her mother’s death and her father’s abandonment became but a distant memory. There were more happy Christmases than sad, and when times were hard there was an ample supply of love between the four of them to keep them afloat.

Much like her mother, Emma was naturally creative and had a talent and ear for music that others in the village lacked. It was for her fifth Christmas with her new family that they revealed that they’d scrimped and saved to procure her a lute. It was nothing fancy, but to Emma it was the entire world. She played it day in and day out, not well, but she learned. They had no formal sheet music, so Emma would make up her own tunes - she’d mimic the sound of the river, or the whistle of the baker, and the hum of the church choir.

Years passed and Emma grew older and proved herself a formidable young woman, there was an expectation that she would have to marry, but at every turn she deflected the advances of the locals. She was not without her girlhood crushes and romances, but the thought of settling down as her mother had, of having a daughter of her own. It didn’t sit well with her when she still had so many dreams of the outside world, her adopted mother would tell her to get her head out of the clouds. She told Emma that she was living in a fantasy world and that someday she’d need a man to take care of her. Like the rolling hills of the countryside, Emma could see all the years of her life stretched out before here. She’d marry the baker’s son, or maybe the blacksmith’s and she’d bare for them a batch of cherry-cheeked children. Perhaps she would continue to play the lute, but most likely she would become too old and too tired, then Emma would simply pass on. Perhaps of sickness like her mother, or perhaps she would grow old and her children would care for her like the fisherman’s mother.

Emma saw all the years of her life before her and thought of her father, he had left, and despite all the whisperings that the locals made of him at least he was free. Emma convinced her brother Sterling to leave with her, to move to use what money they had scrimped and saved and move to London so they could have a shot at a real future. Emma was nineteen at the time, a woman grown, and Sterling was a man. They made their choice together and despite their parent’s wishes slipped out and made for the big city.

In London Emma found work at a pub, she played her lute and sang for the patrons and earned a few tidy coins as she did. Their life was meager, but it was theirs. Together Sterling and Emma found a place together and for a few years everything was peaceful and seemed to be as it should. It was late one evening when Emma was mugged on her way home from work, they wanted the money she’d earned and she refused to give it up. Bleeding and weak in the street, a shadow swept over her, the person fed her his blood but not in time to save her from death’s embrace. Emma died with the vampire’s blood in her system and awoke later that night as one of the undead.

Bloodlust was not something the young vampire could control, but people disappeared everyday in the bustling city. Emma could not walk in the light of day, but her work at the tavern only brought her out at night. Sterling was the only one who knew her truth, and even he needed to keep his distance because she simply couldn’t control herself. Years passed and gradually Emma got a hold of her new found condition, but she noticed that Sterling was still growing old while she remained the same. Emma had already been abandoned twice in her life and the thought of spending any amount of eternity without her brother was painful. It took some convincing, but after her own experience she knew that she could turn another if she tried.

Sterling’s transformation was not without consequences, Emma killed more liberally now as she took some enjoyment in her newfound power. She and her brother had a terrible falling out because he grew to resent what she had convinced him to do. Sterling left, and he was the third person to abandon her. Angry and resentful, Emma took her anger out on the world and clung to the first person she met who could even remotely relate to what she was going through. This came in the form of a newly-turned vampire named Jamie Price. Emma had grown up with nothing and watching high society types bend to the will of her compulsion was endlessly enjoyable once she learned how to exercise it properly. There was a part of her that might have loved him, but he was as reckless and violent as he was sweet and charming. It made for an intoxicating combination and the two of them flamed out just as quickly as they had begun.

For over a century Emma terrorized London and the neighboring countryside and for this she earned the ire of a coven who called upon a fury to enact vengeance. She’d have died if another vampire did not save her life, Deucalion protected her and taught her what she needed to not only be a vampire, but to survive as one. She procured a daylight ring and for the first time in over a hundred years Emma stepped out into the light of day once again. A feat that she’d long given up hope for. She was powerful and she was sated, it would have been her wish to travel with Cal for longer but it was not his nature and she was not his progeny. A term she only came to learn while under his care.

No longer the ripper she’d once been, Emma began to ponder what more there could be for her. The world was continuously changing but what she’d never really experienced was true love - nor did she ever have the best example for it either. Her adopted parents had loved one another, but somehow she still wanted more. She fell for men and women alike, and there was one man in particular who captured her interests though she soon found that she was not the only one who shared his bed. Emma confronted this other woman and made a lifelong friend out of yet another vampire named Harlow. Unlike Sterling, or Jamie, or even Cal there was nothing that Harlow wished to change about her and nothing that Emma would change about the other. The philandering man happened to have a wife, and he paid for his insolence dearly.

Though they were not always together, Emma was a natural wanderer and kept in touch with those she’d come to know. Jamie was difficult to peg down and their history was... Complicated, but Cal was easy to find, and Harlow perhaps the easiest. They continued to keep in touch via letters with Emma keeping a home in London where she’d have all of her post sent to. The songbird would travel now and again, extending her exploration of the world a little more each time. France, Sweden, Ireland, Spain, and eventually Germany. The more the world turned the more she knew how women were treated as second class citizens. She’d known several men in her extended lifetime and had never met a single one that was her equal, and yet, socially and politically they held all the power. Men of science claimed that a woman’s brain was smaller than a man’s, but the men she’d known didn’t seem to use it often if at all.

The right to vote was hard won, but the more Emma found herself taking to the streets, the more alive she felt. Immortal and young forever, she was easily dismissed but she had a voice and a right to be heard. She was in Munich studying political science when a friend of hers recruited her into The White Rose; this non-violent, intellectual-resistance group created an anonymous leaflet that actively spoke out against and opposed the nazi regime. Emma’s friend Sophie and her brother were caught distributing these leaflets and as a result were executed. She watched on as the crowd cheered, and as her friend said her final piece. Galvanized, it was clear that the world was capable of innumerable cruelties and she was not free of it. Words were not enough, so she enlisted as an army nurse after she escaped Germany. Not able to fight on the frontlines, Emma instead opted to tend to the soldiers that had been wounded. She saved all those that she could, and provided comfort to those that she could not.

It was here that she fell in love once more, and here that Emma decided to follow the young soldier to the United States. Despite the fact that he was human, she told him everything. Her history, her family, and of course that she was a vampire. He proposed. She asked him to spend eternity with her, but he was a simple boy from the South and wanted no part of immortality. Emma’s lesser self wanted to convince him to change his mind, but after what happened with Sterling she knew that she couldn’t, and if she did then he would resent her. So, instead she settled down: despite the fact that she promised she never would. The two got married, adopted a couple of children, and Emma watched as they grew old. Her husband passed away, and then her daughter was mistaken for her sister, then her mother, grandmother. Emma’s family grew and they all took after her in some form, they marched for civil liberties, they cared for friends and loved ones during the AIDS crisis, some were present at Stonewall. The world moved on, and Emma had no choice but to move with it - she thought of Sophie who died for a cause, and her friend’s last words haunted her: What does my death matter, if through us, thousands of people are awakened and stirred to action?

Over the years Emma put some distance between herself and the family she’d come to create. She was a vampire, and they were better off not knowing the truth of the supernatural world. Though time dragged on, Emma always kept in touch with the family she’d made for herself along the way: Cal, Harlow, and the others who had known her at her worst.

With the sundering of the veil, she died. And in the river Styx she had nothing but time to reflect in absolute isolation. When Emma was brought back into this world she wanted to find the source of this, and the reason for her death. She opted to follow Harlow to Corinth Bay, where it was rumoured to be the source of all magic, and there she got a job as a musician working at Evie’s latest: Ambrosia. There was another reason for her trip though, a face she saw in the river that was just out of reach, and out of range of her voice. This river was a place for the souls of vampires to be trapped for eternity - so then why did she see her father there too?

PERSONALITY

+ charming, creative, thoughtful - gullible, single-minded, prim

PLAYED BY SHANE. EST. He/Him.

#female #taken #vampire #emma darlington #olivia holt

5 notes · View notes

evilelitest2 · 4 years ago

Note

What is the dirtbag left? People keep talking about it but I have no clue what it is

Oh this answer is gonna suck. Good question as always though.

Ok before we can get into the dirtbag left, I want to talk about the major factions of leftist in the United States, and I am discounting Moderates/Centrist/Blue Dog Democrat's, I am specifically focused on people who support actual left wing policies. Roughly speaking they can be broken up into the following groups though each group is a lot more complicated than I am implying here

The first and most dynamic faction are the progressives, people who are focused on the rights of marginalized people. Sometimes they are called “identity Politics” They are further subdivided into a bunch of specific interest groups, but their main unifying argument is “society is specifically persecuting towards certain groups and we need to address that”

Civil Rights, who focus on the rights of African Americans

Feminists who focus on the rights of women

The Queer Community, who are focused on the rights of Gender and Sexual Minorities (Gay people, Trans people, Non Binary people, Bi people, intersex, asexual ect

This group is really divided within itself but lets not get sidetracked

Groups focusing on the rights of Latin Americans, both citizens and immigrants

Groups focusing on the rights of Muslims/Middle Easterners

Groups focusing on the rights of Jews/Combating antisemitism

Groups focusing on the rights of Asian Americans

And finally groups focusing on the rights of the disabled

The next major group is the labor movement, who focus on the rights of workers, focusing on things like Unions, increasing the minimum wage, addressing the wealth gap and very New Deal FDR policies, and tend to be anticapitalistic or at least Social Democrat.

Environmentalists, who want the world to not die

Anti War advocates

Pro Education/Pro Science anti Fundamentalists' people who just want good goverment.

And some post modernists thrown in because why not?

The two main groups that make up the left are the first two, the issues of Identity Politics and Class, and there is a LONG history of these two groups having trouble le working together. One of the major issue is that a lot of poor whites would happily welcome a lot of leftist social policies, but vote conservative if they believes those policies will help black people, even if it hurts their own best interest. I mean take the New Deal, which was among the greatest economic period of US history and was popularly supported by most Americans. However a lot of poor whites supported it because Latinos and Blacks were not allowed access to most of its benefits. ANd once the Democratic Party started to pursue desegregation and women’s rights, these poor whites abandoned the party which gave them a future and voted for policies that hurt their own best interest because of their extreme bigotry. Which is the most frustrating part of American History.

And among a lot of Democrats (mostly centrist) there is this idea that the best way to win elections is to stab marginalized communities in the back in order to win Republican voters. When Bill Clinton won in 1992, he did so in large part by abandoning a lot of leftist principles, he embraced Third Way style Liberalism and deregulation (which led to the 2008 crash thanks Clinton) but he also happily supported Right wing ideas about trying to keep crazy radicals minorities from advancing too far in politics. Basically try to rebrand the Democrats as “we aren’t as crazy as the Republicans, but we ditched all of that lame uncool parts of politics that makes your family uncomfortable”.

So the Dirtbag Left (there term not mine) was like “Hey could we do this...but for communism?” And like most bad things, its origin is with Nazis.

The Dirtbag Leftist are Marxists who think the best way to win Trump voters over to the left is to combine Socialist style economic/welfare policies with conservative styles attacks on “Free Speech” and “Identity Politics.” The “nicer” version of these guys basically say “ok we win them in with the economic policies and once we implement that, we can work on the other issues”. The cruelr version of that basically want a socialist state...for white straight men and nobody else.

This happened because some communists were looking at how the Alt-Right was radicalizing apolitical young men and were like “wait we can do that too”

See if you have ever had the misfortune of being in Nazi/Red Pill/Gamergate style spaces you will notice that they actually share a lot of the left’s complains about the status que. They dislike both parties, they don’t like capitalism, and they think our current consumerist way of life is souless drudgery. So some communists were like “What if we found the exact same demographic as these guys but tried to turn them to communism instead of Fascism?” Which sounds like a good idea but here is the problem

The type of people who become Nazis had to already be bigoted anti intellectuals in the first place. All you have done is given some of them Marxist Rhetoric rather than Nazi Rhetoric, they are the exact same toxic people. And in trying to cater to them, you have allowed them to infiltrate's your movement.

The other quality of the Dirtbag Left is that they think that the Centrist Democrats (Clinton, Obama, Biden ect) are a greater threat than the conservatives, and that if the Far Right and the Far Left can team up to destroy the center, the radicals can work out their issues. Which has never worked ever in human history but they keep trying.

Initially the DIrtbag Left was basically vulgar leftists who wanted to down play the issues that trigger conservatives (Abortion, minority rights, feminism, being nice to people) in order to get them to support their social/economic policies, but it quickly became co-opted by the Alt Right themselves, and now they are basically just advocates of a Herrenvolk style social state. Or really...they are what would happen if the Nazis actually tried to combine Nationalism with Socialism.

And while they aren’t a large group, like the Alt-Right they are really really prominent online and are constantly engaged in wide spread harassments campaigns that are basically find/replace Gamergate harassments campaigns. They attached themselves pretty hard to Bernie's Sanders campaign and did a really good job in ruining his chances in both primaries, and then attached themselves to Tulsi Gabbard’s fucking toxic campaign after that. At this point they are basically just Alt Rightists with a socialist brand reskin. Sometimes called the Red Brown Alliance

#ask EvilElitest #dirtbag left #Leftism #Marxism #Communism #Alt RIght #Gamergate #chapo trap house #Herrenvolk #National Socialism #The Red Brown Alliance

29 notes · View notes

iteratedextras · 4 years ago

Text

The Reason We’re Having This Discourse

1.) During the past 50 years, the Left and the Liberals have, broadly, not found interventions capable of fully closing racial disparities.

Cognitive outcomes in particular have been highly resistant to interventions; things like school integration or the Perry Preschool Project have an effect, but in Perry Preschool’s case for instance, the return-on-investment is overwhelmingly coming from a reduction in crime. ...which is good, and makes for a worthwhile use of society’s resources, but isn’t the same thing as finally solving the country’s race problems and making every group have equal outcomes.

The demonstration of a 90% effective intervention would blow Charlie and Steve completely out of the water. Almost no one would ever listen to them again - they’d be like someone shouting down the Wright Brothers after the Brothers live-demonstrated a heavier-than-air aircraft.

There are serious questions about what thought-to-be-causal factors are actually just correlational, whether that’s the study of Swedish lottery winners not seeing much of a change in the grades of their children, or whether that’s impoverished asian immigrant students dominating test-in high schools (which is then described as “white supremacist.”) The overperformance of Nigerian immigrants (and, I heard recently, their children) suggests a ceiling to present pure skintone/phenotype discrimination.

By itself, the lack of effective interventions is not something the typical person needs to care about much - they can just vote for liberal or left-leaning politicians who will fund research in order to find interventions that are effective.

If an effective intervention comes up, then they can simply support that intervention politically.

However...

2.) Despite the situation being in this vulnerable position, the Progressive Left will not shut the fuck up about race.

Whether it’s calling Google too asian, or education officials sending home culty racial pseudoscience to parents calling on them to ‘abolish whiteness’, or training educational officials with the batshit idea that ‘individualism’ is ‘white supremacist’ (even though individualism as moral firewall also protects minorities), or putting measures to overturn previous prohibitions against formal systematic racial discrimination on the ballot...

The Progressive Left love race. They can’t stop thinking about it. They can’t stop talking about it. They can’t get enough of it, and they want to create new systems of formal discrimination on that basis (similar to existing discrimination against asians in US university admissions), and explicitly reject the previous liberal colorblindness philosophy.

The routine assertion of a ‘correct’ demographic breakdown for every organization, every hobby, and every field of inquiry, on the basis of asserted material fact and not on the basis of a general appeal to racial harmony, is literally and not figuratively racially scientific.

Only those who are agnostic on the matter of material fact, or who are not fully committed to some particular breakdown, have the standing to assert that attempting to study the “natural” rate of membership by demographic in an organization, hobby, field of inquiry, et cetera should be prohibited.

This excludes an enormous and very loud chunk of the present ‘Progressive’ movement as it currently exists.

“But we have to talk about race! People are suffering based on race!”

The NAACP and similar organizations existed prior to the new view that all “white” people should be told to meditate on their “whiteness,” a process that creates mutual knowledge of white identity and mutual knowledge of “white” as a potential axis of vulnerability - a risk for creating a preference cascade towards overt (rather than risky and noisy potential implicit) political organization on the basis of white identity.

The “whiteness” theory has had to be crudely patched repeatedly, first with “white-adjacent,” and then “multiracial whiteness.” It breaks down the moment it has contact with any race other than the two it was originally made to cover, and the diversity trainings are not scientific and don’t work, the subconscious bias findings do not support the arguments for mass subconscious bias and don’t even correlate well with racist behavior, and white privilege theory makes white liberals more classist.

Many leaked documents match the general direction of the Smithsonian infographic that was pulled, which argued that “objective, rational linear thinking” was “white culture.”

That people would be hostile to this sort of thinking is both justifiable and expected. This doesn’t even get into the point that power is not held by races as monolithic blobs, so smacking around some random construction worker to get back at a CEO doesn’t make much sense.

“Minorities are suffering!” was routinely made as an argument from the year 2000 to the year 2014. It was not some magical new idea that emerged in 2014 - ‘let’s overcome our racist legacy’ was a point in favor of the election of Barack Obama in 2008.

And to better calibrate the risk associated with not putting Charlie and Steve on a pike, the infamous movie Idiocracy aired in 2006, two years before Obama’s election. At that time, the United States government legitimized itself based on having overcome Nazi Germany and their dastardly plans for racial/ethnic mass murder.

#politics #antisemitism discourse cw #antisemitism cw

11 notes · View notes

enchantedbyhiddles · 4 years ago

Text

Six weeks until the general election in Germany and I have no idea who to vote for.

TLDR: I don’t know who to vote for. I won’t vote for racists, anti-feminists or homophobes. So CDU, AFD and FDP are totally out of question. The other parties are options, because I love their values and programs, but I’m disappointed by how they govern and/or how they deal with problematic persons and ideologies amongst them. Most likely I’ll vote for SPD or Grüne, but not sure which of them.

CDU: Totally out of question. They are right-wing. They are homophobes, they won’t help the socially disadvantaged. They are anti-feminist. They don’t fight against climate-change.

AFD: The only party even worse than the CDU.

FDP: Also out of question. I like liberal parties, I hate economically-libertarian parties. Beside that their party-leader is a sexist asshole and that’s also party-politics.

Die Linke: Could be an option: big problem though for me is that I think they are unrealistic in their goals. It’s like they have great ideas, but they would also be our downfall, because they haven’t really thought that through. I’m also sceptical of them because they aren’t always willing to compromise. To a degree that’s great, in a coalition government though it might become problematic. I’m open to have them in a government to have an option that proposes more left-wing ideas, when they are a bit toned down by other parties.

And now the two parties that I usually vote for and why I like them and why I have problems with them.

Grüne and SPD basically have the same values and the same goals. Their party-programs are super similar as well.

They are for a change in climate politics, they are for helping marginalized groups, they favour (financial) aids for the disadvantaged and more taxes for the rich.

The SPD had always had feminism as part of their party-goals (so yes, since the early 20th century. They were the only ones who wanted a right for females to vote in 1918, they were the ones to demand that our Grundgesetz says “Men and Women have equal rights.” in 1949, they wanted to legalise abortions since the 1920th. Etc. etc. They wanted high-speed data-cables in all of Germany before the internet even existed in 1982. Basically they always had pretty forward ideas for an anti-racist, pro-feminist, pro-science, pro-equality Germany, where everyone has the same chances. They also fight against climate change since the 1970th, so before the Green Party even existed. Together with the Green Party they decided to end atomic energy and coal energy in Germany (that was before the CDU decided to take that back a few years later). Basically the SPD is all I ever wanted from a party. I share their values and views. Of course there are minor problems, where I disagree with them on issues. BUT the huge issue is that: they do want all this beneficial changes for more than 150 years and they did achieve a lot. BUT it’s not enough. I’m really disappointed in the last years, where they decided again and again to govern together with the CDU. Yes, they still managed to get minimum wage and prevented the worst harm, but they also allowed that conservative values got cemented for another few years. I really, really, really want them and the Green Party, probably together with the Left Party to govern together. That’s our best option, in my opinion. BUT I can’t give them my vote if in the end we get another four years of a CDU-government. They have a long-standing history of “We want change for the better, but please, don’t be too drastic and racial all at once.”

Green Party: I know that many younger people think they are the best and all we need to do is fight against climate change and they are the only ones to do that. They are not the only ones. Again, they share most values with the SPD. Don’t forget that they are also willing to govern and give up their values for that. Four years ago they decided to be in a coalition with the CDU and the FDP. The resulting plans were far less climate-positive, or socially benefitial than what the SPD got in the end. They benefit a lot from the fact that they do not govern right now. If you want to see how climate friendly a Green Party is, when they do govern, you just have to look to Baden-Württemberg and their huge benefits for the car industry. I also have a problem with them, because parts of them are actually blind-sided ideologists and anti-science. What? The Green Party anti-science? Yes. Parts of them are still this new-age followers (which by the way is rooted and linked to Nazi-ideologies. Iek.). Their alternative medicine and alternative learning methods are racist and anti-science. They still can’t bring themselves to denounce homeopathy and similar methods and it is still part of their party-programme. Also this popular “against chemicals and genes” and such. That’s pure anti-science. As a scientist myself part of me is dying whenever I read and here something like that. I love the Green Party. I love how outspoken they are for minorities and that they constantly speak about it and bring on a social change. BUT, I hate how they can’t speak out against those in their midst that follow racist ideologies that are disguised as “alternative” to scientific facts. So yeah, they benefit from the fact, that they haven’t disappointed in the last years, because they do not govern. I don’t trust how much they do want to govern though and how much they would give up to do so.

#wtf germany

2 notes · View notes

xsensualxcranjuicex · 5 years ago

Text

An Examination of Political Cartoons in the Time of Covid

This is a cartoon by artist Clay Jones, who runs a blog for showcasing his cartoons called Tales from the Trumpster Fire. This piece specifically looks to target the racial targeting involved in the collection of censuses and Jared Kushner’s overseeing of the secret coronavirus task force. There aren’t a ton of symbols in here, but we can point both to the Nazi armband on the census taker and the SS insignia on his hat as a representation for the artist’s belief that these practices are racist and totalitarian and comparable to certain nazi practices. We also have the dress shirt and tie on the father, which is meant to symbolize that he is a hard working man. This is meant to emphasize the injustice of the family being ignored and looked over by the man looking to take census information from only white people. Things are labeled for clarity, such as the word Jared on Jared Kushner’s body. His head is already exaggeratedly long with the long outward ears and big lips for which he famously has. I believe the labeling of Kushner is to let people know who it is despite the fact they’ve already done a caricature of him, only because he isn’t yet a household name, so some folks might not recognize him on appearance alone. Here, there isn’t so much an analogy, as much as there is a heavy exaggeration of what is actually happening. Jared Kushner isn’t involved in actually going door to door and ignoring the censuses of black citizens, but that is what him and his organization are doing in a metaphorical sense. They’re not literally hollering out for only white voters to complete the census, it’s just that they’re ignoring and not putting the same sort of emphasis on collecting black votes. The cartoonist is saying that this is obviously a bad thing and thinks it resembles nazi-like fascist. Even though I agree, I don’t really find this piece that persuasive, as it is both very basic, and the view it argues against isn’t one I can see many people agreeing with in the first place. There aren’t a ton of people who believe censuses of white people are more important, because most average people would see that as a cartoonishly evil view to hold. However, I can imagine that some diehard Trump supporters who view immigrants as evil outsiders, and think white is the national race of America, would take issue with the comic. I definitely don’t think those people would be persuaded, though.

by artist Tornoe for The Inquirer

Symbols: Face mask, Phillies Jersey, Foam Finger. The face mask represents coronavirus prevention measures, the Phillies jersey and foam finger represent sports fandom.

Exaggeration: No noticeable exaggeration, other than there only being one fan in the empty stadium. Either the event wouldn’t allow an audience, or there would be more people at this event. Also it is exaggerated here that the man would have no problem going out in public to watch the sport, but he’s not willing to accept a hot dog from a worker who potentially has the virus.

Labeling: Very limited use of labeling here, besides the Hot Dog vessel, which would be labeled in real life, as well as the jersey.

Analogy: Not really any analogy here, it is more poking fun of the current situation by presenting us an absurd hypothetical scenario.

Irony: I think the irony here is that the fan is so devoted that he made his way out to the sporting event during quarantine and he’s so loyal to his team, but he’s still cautious about the guy serving hot dogs. I think it could also be joking about how unsanitary the hot dogs are known for being.

This cartoon is about the closing off of sporting events to audiences and the fans who are heartbroken by it. I don’t think the cartoonist feels any particular way about it, except for that it’s ridiculous how devoted sports fans are for their teams. I see this as a cartoon that’s more trying to find humor in a political situation than try to take down a specific figure or issue.

by artist Loujie for Cagle Cartoons

Symbols: Steak, Statue of Liberty, Coronavirus Cells, Fat guy, Torch, Tablet from the Statue.

The steak is a symbol of wealth, as well as the “fat cat” representing greed and wealth. The coronavirus cells represent the pandemic, and calamity affecting the people outside the window. The statue of liberty in this case representing America, as well as her torch representing freedom and democracy, and the tablet representing the Fourth of July and the declaration of independence, which the fat cat is eating his steak on. Red wine on the table also represents luxury.

Exaggerations: The fat guy is exaggerated in his rotundity and the poor people outside are exaggerated in their panic pounding at the window. The statue of liberty is also scaled down to be able to fit into the room, which is the opposite of exaggeration.

Labeling: The Rich, The Poor.

Analogy: America bailing out the rich and doing little for the poor is like our values bending over to serve the rich. They’re luxuriating while the average person is suffering.

Irony: The rich are comfortable and profiting more than others, while the poor are left to get sick and suffer below. It’s ironic because America wasn’t founded on those values, but Lady Liberty is bowing to the whims of the elite.

The artist is clearly saying it’s wrong that this is happening as the average Americans build the backbone of the country. He thinks income inequality is out of control and the wealthy are controlling America to benefit them. People who disagree with them would be rich people or the poor people who worship the rich and want to become part of that class. Not a very convincing piece, more just solidifies what people already know about the upper class.

by artist Steve Benson for Creator’s Syndicate

Symbols: Death, Grave Stone, Covid Face Masks

Exaggerations: Not everyone is going to die so the right side is a bit of an exaggeration, but the death representing America reopening represents the massive casualties that can occur from reopening early amidst the second wave of covid-19.

Labeling: “First wave: America Shuts Down” “Second Wave: America Re-Opens

Analogy: Opening up businesses early is like inviting death into the country.

Irony: By trying to save our economy, we’d be killing our people, and thus doing devastating irreversible damage to the economy.

The artist is concerned about America Reopening early and believes we will suffer many casualties because of this. Opponents of this message would be conspiracy theorists, conservatives, and business owners afraid of losing profits or going out of business. I find it fairly convincing as political cartoons go, but I don’t think it’s really gonna sway anyone.

by artist Tom Stiglich for MediaNews Group

Symbols: Foxes, Feathers, Joe Biden Campaign Pin, Chickens, Chicken Coop.

Exaggerations: The New York Times, DMC, and Joe Biden have been anthropomorphized into foxes. Joe Biden is shown to be murdering chickens, which is not what he actually has done.

Labeling: New York Times, Democratic National Committee, Biden.

Analogy: The New York Times and DMC are in cahoots with Joe Biden aka fellow foxes, so them saying they’ll investigate him fairly, is like foxes saying they’ll investigate a chicken murder perpetrated by a fellow fox fairly.

Irony: They all committed the crime and are covering it up together.

This cartoonist is untrustworthy of Joe Biden and the people who claim to be investigating his claims of wrongdoing. People who disagree with this would be staunch liberals, or people who like Joe Biden. For me it is fairly persuasive, because even though I am a liberal, I am wary of trusting Joe Biden, or the New York Times, or the Democratic National Committee. I think it’s a cartoon that reaches both sides of the aisle because Joe Biden is a terrible candidate, and even us liberals who are voting for him are really not happy with him as an option. I do appreciate that during a time of corona-virus, this is one of the few up to date cartoons that chooses to tackle another topic, and I applaud it’s originality while still being timely.

#cartoons #political cartoons #analysis #information #visual communication #history #coronavid19 #covid2020 #democrats #republican #memes #humor #symbolism #class #schoolwork

50 notes · View notes