Tulsi and Kyle Open a Can o' Worms

The Gabbard Trump endorsement forces Kulinski to tackle the "Progressive-Libertarian Alliance" problem, and so it's time to fully air it out. And problematic Greenwald spins up the Zuck.

Let’s call this piece part two of what I started with my last piece The Election Goes Nuts on the RFK withdrawal and endorsement of Trump, which I said, among other things, converted the election into a contest between normies and conspiracy theorists. Gabbard’s following endorsement does something else though - it opens up what Kyle Kulinski in his clip refers to as the Sanders-to-Trump pipeline, or what I might rather call the progressive-to-oppositionalist transition.

This is part of or an evolution of what I have been referring to as the Progressive-Libertarian Alliance for at least a couple years now, a kind of alliance sought by ex-Berniecrat post-progressives much more than libertarians, who are actually the more ideology-driven group. Join us if you want, but we ain’t joining you, because we believe what we believe, and it’s not what you’ve believed. But if you’re not still shitting on us and instead are saying we’re right about stuff, well, welcome aboard. Sort of.

The flaw in this framework is that what these post-progressives want is someone, anyone to give them a home now that they have left or felt pushed out of the more leftist portion of the mainstream Dem left. Libertarianism seemed like a good prospect because of the areas of social libertarianism commonality, as well as a clear anti-war commonality. And libertarians didn't have the taint of Trumptard nutterism and all that entails. These aren’t neo-Birchers, no way.

At least that’s the way it started. So let’s get into it.

What he refers to as the horseshoe theory (a term I’ve never heard before, I have to admit) is what I’ve described using diagrams like this:

Where the left and right meet at their farthest from the political center can be described as where left-wing anarchism meets right-wing anarchism, a utopian world without anything that can be called a government/state, or perhaps a world which ceases to be hierarchical in any kind of structural manner. The last distinction perhaps is that the right retains hierarchy based on individual achievement, while the left has become entirely egalitarian, the cooperative, supportive society versus the every man for himself thing. Collectivism versus individualism in Bircher terms.

That isn’t quite what Kyle is talking about, as much as I can tell, because he’s simply not far enough away from the political center for there to be any kind of fundamental convergence. And it turns out this narrower establishment alignment in his thinking impacts the way he sees this matter in its entirety.

Kyle starts listing his causes, but first lists his alt media examples:

Me, I can’t quantify this matter at all. Of course the individuals one knows of who have undergone this body snatchers transition are going to be at least somewhat known, or you wouldn’t know about it. And they’re going to be media and political people, because those are the people interested in politics. Because he is only talking about people who supported Bernie in ‘16 and/or ‘20 and support Trump now, he’s actually narrowed the field beyond what I’ve been talking about, which are people who were Sanders supporters and now have abandoned the Dem Party as a result of that experience. I think that’s what matters.

His stats on voters are interesting. If 12% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump and we apply that to Dems who voted in the primaries and the 43% who voted for Bernie, that suggests a minimum of 5% of the Dem voters in the primaries voted Republican in the election. Unless we factor in GOP “disruptors” voting in open primaries, that seems like a lot. As for Hillary voters in 2008, I guess I’d assign that to the neocon voter, since Obama was framed as the peace candidate and Zionist warmonger McCain was as far from that as you could get. But she took 48% of the primary votes, which suggests at minimum 13-14% of the Dem voters ended up voting Republican, in an election the Dems won by more than seven percentage points. That makes no sense to me.

The bit about RFK and Gabbard supporting Biden is just stupid. Gabbard ran against Biden and then eventually endorsed him when she dropped out, just like everyone else did, including Bernie. RFK doesn’t matter, because he wasn’t a politician then… and had an active brain worm, I believe, which was telling him to have a book ghost-written for him on Fauci. Smart worm.

Kyle stays that course here, probably his weakest component to his argument:

So he kind of wanders around here trying to generalize on an area where each of these people really has their own story - you really can’t generalize too much over Gabbard in ‘20 and Kennedy in ‘24 in the Dem races, except that they were viewed by the Clintonite establishment as minor nuisances - and also by the Sanders camp in the Gabbard case.

He finally starts to get somewhere when he talks about the media figures and clicks, but then he goes to a concept that I don't like too much, “audience capture”. I don’t like it because it sees the matter through the eyes of the media figures themselves, which is why these people talk about it, and basically frames their audiences as bad or at least problematic - they are trapping me. When the problem really is talking heads gathering a certain audience because of what they’re deciding to say, and then not wanting to lose audience because of the impact of that on money and/or reputation. A case I think of was Sam Harris and the Trumptards he appealed to before Trump was even a thing, because of his anti-Muslim and anti-woke stuff. But as a good Jew he feared and loathed Trump, and that created conflict for a while until those folks all pretty much bailed on him - he wasn’t going to concede moral high ground on the matter of the new Hitler. Not all talking heads are that willing to watch follower and view counts drop, that is the tangible measure of success in their business.

Kyle starts to find his footing with his next reason, but he’s also still wobbling:

What he’s talking about is oppositionalism, pushing back on the establishment - which is exactly what these kind of people were doing when supporting Sanders. What they found out is that there isn’t that much effective oppositionalism on the left, there really isn’t an alt left, and that’s especially true when it comes to making a living on being oppositional. But on the right, that’s a fucking cottage industry, and with a very long history. In conventional terms Kyle would understand that goes back to right-wing radio arising as a phenomenon related to the Reagan revolution, and that fed on a longer-standing right-wing tradition related to conspiracy theory, that rooted at that time in the John Birch Society. The left didn't have no JBS, it was doing its New Left thing back then.

Part of his problem relates to the figures he’s mentioned - it’s kind of difficult to hard-tie Dore and especially Taibbi to Alex Jones, although I guess Brand might be easier. Rubin is a special case since he’s a Jew who was hired as the neo-centrist Intellectual Dark Web’s bartender and he overshot the mark, pretending to be full-on libertarian. But had Kyle named Kim Iversen he’d have the perfect example of a Berniecrat who has gone completely around the bend. Example: in her recent segment on RFK endorsing Trump I heard her say for the first time that she’s an actual anti-vaxxer, berating NIH/CDC conventional medicine for giving little kids 70 vaccines or whatever. It’s very hard for me to imagine her doing that in 2019.

What he’s essentially right about is what he’s saying when he says the extreme is, “the establishment must be wrong in all circumstances”. But the reality of that mentality is better expressed as, “it’s all fake!”, which is the extreme of right-wing neo-Bircher conspiracy theory.

And where he hits the heart of the matter is when he talks about left Big Pharma vs right anti-vaxx, because that’s so critical to the transition that took place with these people, that starting in 2020 when Sanders II failed and the pandemic started in the US, and almost on the same day. The pandemic led to censorship, which was both a threat and an opportunity to be exploited by these talking heads.

But Kyle almost doesn't seem to realize he’s hit the nail on the head, because he quickly moves on to ranting about Jonestown. And yet in that he finds another gem, that the process in that world is to say a shit-ton of ass-pull and then when one out of ten things can be seen as having been right, that's all they talk about and what their audiences remember. Again, covid is probably the best example, all the loony stuff that was being said in those early days, and then the residual retained victory being… the lab leak theory? But they were “right” about covid - really?

Again, he’s right and wrong, and in this case more wrong than right. They’re not trying to burn it all down via the vehicle of Trump, they’re specifically trying to burn down the establishment as expressed by the Democratic Party. They aren’t secretly trying to create a “socialist utopia”, because they have abandoned the left in too many ways to actually still be lusting over that. The goal is to destroy the Dems and that’s it; what happens after doesn’t matter because it just has to be better with them gone, whatever it is. Because they are the party of censorship and the party of the CIA and national security state and the party of war… when it doesn’t involve Israel, that is… or the rest of the greater middle east…

Oh, and let’s not forget that they’re the ones who took away Bernie’s crown, let’s never forget that. Revenge is a dish best served over and over and over again.

There is some truth in the Republicans shifting ever rightward resulting in the Dems doing the same, but there are also deep state reasons for the Dems becoming more “centrist” that has little to do with the GOP and the perpetual fight over the center. He cited Bush II as an example when that should have been Reagan, whose administration did the real damage, and that resulted in the Clinton Sellout by the desperate Dems which changed that party forever. Bush II to Obama is a millennial missing the bus on the change and having to catch the next one.

Finally he gets to the actual heart of the matter:

So he’s right that the core issue is the “liberals”, the centrist Clintonite Dems. And he’s right to talk about Sanders related to this. But he doesn't acknowledge that the attraction to beloved Bernie was actually the cause of this. First, the Clintonite centrists “stole” not one but two nominations from their savior Bernie, but then on top of that they turned him into a cuck. He never really gets blamed for that the way he should, he’s just “weak”, so that saves more blame to in turn be foisted on the dastardly Dems who had turned into mysterious (Jewish-controlled) Stepford Wives since Clinton.

The complete failure of progressivism was what caused these people to look for greener pastures, and for some green is the right color to assign to their quest, fully realizing their internal neoliberal $ide, I think. But they didn't all go become Trumptards, far from it.

The four alt media people who I’ve been focusing on for some time all are part of this post-progressive club - Glenn Greenwald, Max Blumenthal, Kim Iversen and Sabby Sabs; Matt Taibbi was someone I focused on previously as well. They were all slightly different kinds of Berniecrats, and they have all become very different kinds of post-progressives:

- Iversen is perhaps the closest to a Trump supporter in the bunch, but what she really is is an RFK kinda gal. And that’s because her transition involved the Great Distraction of covid more than anyone else’s here, and that’s turned her into the greatest conspiracy theorist in the bunch as well. She’s also embraced her black helicopter Idaho roots in this process, from what I can tell. She considers the all-seeing-eye occupant of the pyramid penthouse of power to be centrist Dem queen Killary, when it’s not Airbnb’ed to princess Pelosi… or Fauci, the devil himself.

[Btw, she amazingly raised the subject of Holocaust denial this week, related to a segment on Anne Frank’s diary. I may address that down the road, because it’s kind of interesting. On the other hand, she said she’s a lunar landing doubter if not denier, which suggests some problems with her basic reasoning powers - I’m starting to wonder if she has a brain worm like her Bobber.]

- Greenwald was perhaps the least leftist of the bunch going into Bernieocracy, but that’s hard to tell because he’s so opaque regarding his political beliefs; some might say he was the most leftist then, the heir to Chompsky thing. His level of Trump support is also masked, most strongly defined as the inevitable consequence of Dem hatred expressed as his “journalism”. When Kyle was talking about Shady Vance the populist there he was talking about Greenie even if he didn’t know it. Greenwald also openly talks about his audience capture, using that as an excuse for sympathetically presenting things like the Israeli side of their murderous war. His surface thing is censorship (which I’ll get to) as a “free speech absolutist”, that being his explanation for not criticizing Citizens United, which he considers to have been constitutionally correct. He’s also been the one most up in arms in contesting his slide to the right, claiming his beliefs haven’t changed at all at the same time not really saying what those beliefs really are. So he’s easily the most slippery slider, and part of that no doubt related to being a self-identified Jew (what he rightly but ironically accused Sam Harris of being back in 2015).

- Blumenthal and Taibbi are the real journalists in the bunch (Greenwald is just a Tucker-like influencer at this point), Max a serious one and Matt a not-so-serious one. They are also the two most visibly in conflict with the Jewish Question in current US politics, Max openly confronting the thin blue line and Matt running from it bawling like a baby with a full diaper. Neither seems to me to have really abandoned a progressive left viewpoint, although they both evidence the Dem hate as the establishment party today. What they do both do to some extent is to concede some ground to the right-wing nature of oppositionalism today, particularly visible related to the pandemic, and more Matt than Max because his Twitterfile-related work was so focused on censorship of that. Saying either of these guys support Trump simply isn’t true, although I have to caveat that by saying I haven’t followed Taibbi at all in the months since I stopped feeding his substack paywall. But they also don’t talk about Trump the way the Trump-deranged Dem left does, and Kyle definitely has a foot in that camp at minimum.

- Sabby is absolutely not a Trumptard, her reaction to the progressive failure has been to shift even farther to the left and out of the duopoly entirely, now supporting Stein - paradoxically the same as Iversen claims, and somewhat less paradoxically as Kulinski himself says. What she has done effectively is to subtly redefine the core of progressivism from progressive Democrat to progressive social democrat, and to perhaps become more of an overt black nationalist. But the visceral hatred of the centrist Clintonite Dems is on display in full color, as was evidenced in her coverage of Obama and Harris at the DNC. She hates these people in a way that she simply doesn't express for Trump.

I believe this better represents the full range of the kind of post-progressive people that Kulinski is more selectively talking about. The main reason that his take is narrower is because he sees the political world more narrowly, always as left versus right and usually Dem versus GOP. In this segment there’s essentially no daylight between Trump and GOP, which cripples his analysis in that none of these people see it the same way, they see Trump as oppositional, as essentially anti-GOP, as the anti Jeb Bush or anti Nikki Haley (she being just another Stepford Wife). They may see him that way in part because business demands it, but it’s simply a fact that none of these people would have been supportive of Haley as the GOP nominee. And that includes RFK and Gabbard.

The Trump anti-war thing is interesting, because it seems like now there are people who are opening up a real difference between Trump and Harris on Ukraine, that Trump will end the war on day one and Harris will do exactly what Biden is doing. I question the Trump side of that much more than I question the Harris side, although I have no idea what she said about Ukraine in her acceptance speech or in her campaign speeches; everyone just wants to talk about Gaza. The fact is sitting VPs don't separate from the administrations they’re part of - unless it’s right at the end and they have the agency; see Mike Pence in the Senate. But the notion that Trump will end the war on day one is ludicrous, it simply won't happen, it can't happen. Of course it’s hard to say where that war will stand in five months when the new president takes office, which is one of those variables that everyone should consider when evaluating what anyone might do in office. But the sense I get is that there are people who are framing him as the anti-war candidate, as if Gaza and his inflammatory rhetoric on that doesn’t exist, or his reaction to being Russiagated as president. And war is one of the reasons why we should never elect what will become an 80+ year old president, because of the way that they potentially can be influenced on a life-or-death matter. The evidence is right in front of us in the Oval today. Or being overseen on Air Force One…

Kulinski’s conclusion clarifies the matter a bit more:

So his examples on the other side include his wife Krystal Balls and his old Boss Junk Wiggler, both former MSNBC employees and people who like him are definitely progressive Democrats - which is different than Berniecrat progressives, many of whom became activated in electoral politics by the Bernie movement and perhaps weren’t nearly as attached to the Dem party. Iversen and Sabs seem to fall into this category, from what little I know about them historically.

But his biggest blindspot is that his world is defined by right versus left and not establishment versus oppositionalism. So he unlikely sees that the Dems became the establishment party during the Obama years and that resulted in Trump, the face on oppositionalism and ultimately not Bernie. Even though neither one should be, but that’s immaterial to the matter at hand.

Another thing that he leaves out of his formula completely is Russiagate, which I think is actually very important. Blumenthal (and fellow GZer Mate), Greenwald and Taibbi all are known as early and strident anti-Russiagaters, and that played a real role in their estrangement with the Dem left. And they were right, which is more than anyone can say about Bernie (but not Tulsi). That was of course viewed as a test of one’s standing as an anti-Trumper, and they all failed that test miserably.

Kulinski wasn’t a Russiagater, but he might be termed a corruptiongater related to that, and remains that today - he’s all in on the prosecutions of Trump because he believes he’s guilty of all that stuff and that’s all that matters - lock him up! Back in early 2018 he debated Cunk on Russiagate, and said this:

So he was right about the purpose and effect of Russiagate, it was to condemn Trump and to foment conflict with Russia as a neocon project, to isolate and provoke Putin. But his “hawkish” terminology choice generalizes what was an ethno-specific mission, and he’d rather talk about Trump’s corruption elsewhere. Which might have been justifiable as political strategy, but it distracts from what really mattered about Russiagate. What really matters about Russiagate isn’t that it failed and so Trump was able to remain viable as a politician, it’s that it succeeded and so led us into this horrendous war in Ukraine.

Greenie Gives a Zuck

Related to all this, I saw Greenwald focused on the Zuckerberg-to-Jordan letter this week, as a way of reopening the Dem/intelligence censorship-industrial complex can o’ worms yet again. I was kind of confused about what actually was said in the letter, so tracked it down and gave it a read:

My immediate impression was that this is a carefully-crafted response to some sort of specific inquiry by the GOP side of the committee. What Zuck the Fuck says are two things - the FBI had warned Facebook about the smoldering laptop in 2020, presumably late summerish, and based on that they “temporarily demoted” the story until it was fact-checked and ultimately it became clear that the substance of the FBI’s warning was untrue or incorrect. And in 2021 the administration including the Biden White House pressured Facebook to censor certain covid content, assumedly related to vaccines. So they bent, he expresses regret for doing so, that in part because of what became known later on.

None of that seems like new or particularly enlightening information, and so I was interested to see how Greenwald might spin this. But first, here is part of an article on Facebook and covid censorship in the NY Times from July 19, 2021:

Executives at Facebook, including its chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, have said the company committed to removing Covid-19 misinformation since the start of the pandemic. The company said it had removed over 18 million pieces of Covid-19 misinformation since the start of the pandemic.

Experts who study disinformation said the number of pieces that Facebook removed was not as informative as how many were uploaded to the site, or in which groups and pages people were seeing the spread of misinformation.

“They need to open up the black box that is their content ranking and content amplification architecture. Take that black box and open it up for audit by independent researchers and government,” said Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a nonprofit that aims to combat disinformation. “We don’t know how many Americans have been infected with misinformation.”

Mr. Ahmed’s group, using publicly available data from CrowdTangle, a Facebook-owned program, found that 12 people were responsible for 65 percent of the Covid-19 misinformation on Facebook. The White House, including Mr. Biden, has repeated that figure in the past week. Facebook says it disagrees with the characterization of the “disinformation dozen,” adding that some of their pages and accounts were removed, while others no longer post content that violate Facebook’s rules.

So the first thing here is that Facebook started removing covid content long before the Biden administration came into power, and long before the election. But then the Times (author Sheera Frenkel) quickly moves to the CCDH, a component of the “censorship-industrial complex” which I’ve addressed previously, a British NGO in part with a mission of silencing antisemitic speech and with backing in what I’d call the Jewish deep state faction. You can pretty much tell that from the word “Hate” in their name. And of course we all know that the “disinformation dozen” thing was just bullshit from the start.

But now we’re at a point where both of the things that Zuck was confirming happened or started when Trump was president. Perhaps the vaccine-specific censorship didn’t, because the vaccine rollout only started when Trump was leaving or had left office, but we can’t even know that - the alternative internet was already all over the vaccines long before the jabs had begun, I remember that very clearly. Operation Warp Speed was not something some these people liked. At all.

So let’s get to Greenwald from his intro - he starts with the Great Laptop Hunter, which is his main focus in the segment:

First Andy Stone, who kind of appears to be the Yoel Roth of Facebook, and who had previously held various positions related to the Dem left, including working for the Jewess liberal CA Senator Barbara Boxer. Here is something on Stone from four months ago, from AP:

A court in Russia on Monday convicted the spokesperson of U.S. technology company Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, of justifying terrorism and sentenced him to six years in prison in a swift trial in absentia, Russia’s independent news site Mediazona reported.

According to the outlet, the charges against Meta communications director Andy Stone stem from his remarks in 2022 following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24 that year. Stone, who is based in the United States, announced temporary changes to Meta’s hate speech policy to allow for “forms of political expression that would normally violate (its) rules, like violent speech such as ‘death to the Russian invaders.’”

In the same statement, Stone added that “credible calls for violence against Russian civilians” would remain banned. The Russian authorities opened a criminal case implicating Stone and other unidentified Meta employees nonetheless, describing the statement as “illegal calls to violence and killings of Russian citizens.”

So apparently Stone and Zuckerberg’s Facebook have been all in on visceral ethno-hatred of Putin’s mother Russia. What I wonder is what this neckbeard mofo’s real surname is. Maybe he’s related to Oliver…

But Glenn started with Twitter’s censorship, and later says this was during the time that Twitter “was run by Jack Dorsey”, but says nothing about the extent to which Twitter was de facto run by Jesse Cohn of Paul Singer’s Elliott Management on the board at that point, which I mentioned in my last piece including a link to my first Twitterfile article in December 2022 that went into it in some detail.

Then GG does his “national security state” thing, naming a number of intelligence agencies including the CIA and NSA, and says these agencies were “built to never interfere in our domestic politics”. But that suggests the constraint that they weren’t allowed to operate domestically, which is the case with the CIA and NSA but absolutely isn’t with regard to the FBI and DHS. And the FBI is the only agency Zuck names in the letter. In fact there really is no agency that was “built to interfere in our domestic politics”. Well, maybe that’s debatable with regard to DHS, because it was created only 20 years ago in the post-9/11 age of the…

One thing he doesn’t go into here or in his segment is the Aspen Institute’s tabletop exercise held in September 2020 that featured a hypothetical Hunter Biden Burisma-based leak and story. As I always say, when you hear “Aspen”, think “Jew”.

Btw, that photo is from a 2022 NY Post article that also says:

While they derided the reporting as potential disinformation well after the story broke, some two years later major news organizations including the Times and The Washington Post chose to authenticate key emails from the laptop and both Twitter founder Jack Dorsey and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg have since admitted it was wrong to crack down on The Post’s reporting.

That seems to contradict what Greenwald says here about Zuckerberg never having said anything until now. But who cares about the truth when you’re trying to influence people.

Here is a capture also from September 2020 of a discussion also sponsored by the Aspen Institute:

I’ve spent huge amounts of time and virtual ink talking about Renee DiResta and Russiagate, starting before Twittergate, and I mentioned Laura Rosenberger in my last piece, involving the Alliance for Securing Democracy and their Russiagate Hamilton 68 dashboard. Were these two at the tabletop exercise? I know Yoel Roth was. Was Andy Stone there, and who else? Is this a smoking gun? Perhaps not quite, but where there’s blue smoke there’s blue fire…

I’m going to include three clips from the segment itself that suggest how GG intended to spin the letter to adapt it to his desired narrative, number one framing the first villain:

So the evil and all-powerful CIA, which Zuckerberg didn’t cite or even imply in his letter. The standard narrative has long been that international mega-companies like Meta/Facebook have incomprehensible power over governments including the US government, but no, it’s the government, specifically in the form of the CIA, that has all the power. The evidence for this is historical CIA coups, like those in Iran and Guatemala in the ‘50s… which we all know were done for the interests of international corporations AIOC/BP and United Fruit/Chiquita… 🤔

Villain number two, courtesy of Mr. “Stone”:

Okay, it’s the Dems and specifically the DNC and, I guess, Frau Pelosi. Except that what Zuck “apologized” for to the House Republicans started when Trump was president. In fact what this suggests is that Facebook largely did this on their own, or in cooperation with the NGOs that were/are a critical component of the censorship-industrial complex, like DiResta’s Stanford Internet Observatory. But clearly what the most important aspect of “Stone” is that he’s a Democrat, something Zuck no doubt missed on his resume… back in 2014 when he apparently started working at Facebook, which means he’s not a party plant intended to go after Trump.

Now let’s bring those things together in Glenn’s conclusion:

First, Glenn’s charts. Note that they show only two data points and a straight line drawn between them. The first was in 2018, which was the year that Russiagate and “fake news” peaked and when the Big Three heavy-handed censorship began (remember Jonestown), and in 2021, which was when the matter of “vaccine hesitancy” was all the rage. Charts with multiple data points that start pre-Trump and extend to the present would be much more enlightening. But perhaps enlightenment isn’t the goal.

He opens by again misrepresenting what Zuck actually said in his letter, which wasn’t actually that much. Then it’s excusing the tech giants as minor players in the censorship while putting the main blame on his national security state led by the Zuck-unmentioned CIA. That villain is described as unchanging, even though it’s pretty much like all other federal agencies, made up of career employees and a management at the top that changes more often than even presidents do. Quick, how many CIA directors have we had since the notorious Wild Bill Casey left 37 years ago? How many of them weren’t promoted from within?

The evidence GG provides is something that Chuck the Fuck Schumer said to Rachel Maddow, and are we just supposed to believe the most powerful Jew in our elected government, a first-tier Dem leader? Wouldn’t we expect him to be shifting the general blame away from the Dems, or maybe away from another group? In fact the moment that the CIA had visibly lost its position as a key operative of the deep state was 20 years ago when the Iraq war WMD lies largely created/propagated by the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans (created by Paul Wolfowitz and run by Douglas Feith) were blamed on the CIA and George Tenet took the fall.

So his narrative serves the function of blaming censorship on two parties, the Democrats and the national security state, a narrative which in turn serves the purposes of the GOP and the Trump campaign. And this isn’t just a matter of partisan politics, it’s an actual threat to our democracy. Which misdirects away from the actual threat to democracy already realized - America is already an Ashkenocracy - which has in part been enabled by the capture of government using money, campaign contributions, that situation exacerbated greatly by Citizens United. Which Greenwald defends on the grounds that he’s a free speech absolutist - if money talks, let it talk. Even if it's disproportionately shekels speaking Hebrew.

And it’s all right there in front of you in the Zuckerberg letter! Zuckerberg and Schumer and Greenwald, the three great blue truthers with regard to contemporary American politics…

Do you see how this works? <sneeze> 🤧