I adore foregathing utile information
A kindred spirit.
Recent socialist wins in US elections – how it began: Part I
[NOTE: This is the first part of a planned 2-part series.]
Last Tuesday was not the first time socialists have won elections in the US, but until recently most of those elections occurred close to a hundred years ago (see this). And for the most part the candidates ran as Socialists, not Democrats, and fit the mold of more conventional socialism as well.
More recently, Bernie Sanders ran as an Independent, beginning in the 1970s (first for mayor of Burlington, then for US Congress, than as US senator from Vermont), even though he is “self-described democratic socialist.”
The most recent pattern goes even further, because as far as I can tell all the DSA candidates who won last Tuesday (and Mamdani before them), and those of a few years ago (such as AOC), ran not as Socialists or Independents but as Democrats. They are also even more radical than the ones who came before. The approach is to choose a low-turnout primary election in a deep blue city and field an extremely radical candidate who will run as a Democrat and who is often chosen for physical attractiveness and youth. Often, although not always, the candidates themselves and/or their parents have apparent 3-world immigrant roots. The idea is to challenge the old guard and win, often with a tiny percentage of the voters, the win being possible because the turnout is so low.
I watched a video after the New York primaries the other day, and although I no longer can find that video it featured interviews with people in the districts where the DSA radicals won. They were flabbergasted and distressed, but all but one of them said they hadn’t voted. Unfortunately, the interviewer didn’t ask them why they had failed to vote, and so we can only speculate. But it was clear that they hadn’t quite realized what was going on until it was too late. They were all Democrats, by the way, and even moderately leftist. But they did not like these candidates.
Another thing that wasn’t asked of them was whether they would be willing to vote for these candidates’ Republican opponents in the general election. But I bet their answer would be “no” if they were to be honest.
As best I can recall, this sort of approach to fielding very radical candidates began with the Soros-backed DAs in blue areas. They slipped in somewhat under the radar in a similar way. Soros (and others; I doubt he was alone in this) had the rather brilliant idea of targeting low-turnout primaries for DA in places where the Democrat nominee invariably wins, and so the key to a victory was gaming the primary vote. As best I can tell, this tactic began in 2015 (the linked article was written in August 2016):
While America’s political kingmakers inject their millions into high-profile presidential and congressional contests, Democratic mega-donor George Soros has directed his wealth into an under-the-radar 2016 campaign to advance one of the progressive movement’s core goals — reshaping the American justice system.
The billionaire financier has channeled more than $3 million into seven local district-attorney campaigns in six states over the past year — a sum that exceeds the total spent on the 2016 presidential campaign by all but a handful of rival super-donors.
His money has supported African-American and Hispanic candidates for these powerful local roles, all of whom ran on platforms sharing major goals of Soros’, like reducing racial disparities in sentencing and directing some drug offenders to diversion programs instead of to trial. It is by far the most tangible action in a progressive push to find, prepare and finance criminal justice reform-oriented candidates for jobs that have been held by longtime incumbents and serve as pipelines to the federal courts — and it has inspired fury among opponents angry about the outside influence in local elections.
Prior to that, as far as I know, most DA candidates were at least somewhat tough on crime, or campaigned that way. It was part of the concept of a DA: these were head prosecutors, after all. Voters weren’t especially energized and probably had no idea that this time was very very different. In fact, one difference was that – according to the article – prior to the 2015 push, 85% of DA candidates ran unopposed. Some of these Soros prosecutors ended being booted and some are still in place, but I wager that all of them have harmed their communities.
This Soros push was very well-researched and well-orchestrated. The people running the show are not at all dumb:
Prosecutorial discretion gives district attorneys a huge say in the charges and sentences that defendants face. But reform efforts have not traditionally focused on harnessing that power.
“They are often a very invisible part of the criminal justice system and the political system,” said Brenda Carter, director of the Reflective Democracy Campaign, an arm of the progressive Women Donors Network. “Many people can’t name their district attorney. It’s not an office people think about a lot.
Ripe for the picking, obviously.
More:
… “I think people are waking up to the untapped potential for intervention in these seats to really change the day-to-day realities of criminal justice,” Carter said. “It’s been really gratifying for us to see the research taken up and run with by different groups around the country.”
Armed with that knowledge, progressive groups including Color of Change began researching potentially interesting district attorney races around the country, multiple sources said. (The organization declined to comment.)
“It’s hard to find this information!” exclaimed Steele, the Emerge America president. “You can’t just Google ‘hot DA races.’ So part of the issue is identifying what potential races there are.”
They certainly succeeded in doing so.
That same approach was used in 2018 for one of the very first carefully-chosen DSA candidates for a federal position: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Young (29 at the time), energetic, and telegenic, she managed a primary victory in New York’s 14th Congressional district that was shocking, defeating Joe Crowley, a powerful (10-term) US House member who was the Democratic Caucus chair. This set the template for subsequent victories over Democratic establishment figures, one that expanded and which we see occurring today, especially in New York.
AOC was not alone, either. She was part of the “Squad,” who all entered Congress that year, the others being Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. All women, all relatively young and energetic as well. The group has since expanded. Not all were or had been DSA-sponsored (Omar and Pressley were not), but they almost undoubtedly are supporters of the same or similar principles, and:
At least three Squad members provided fundraising and volunteer assistance during the other members’ campaigns.
It was AOC who gave the group the moniker “the Squad,” which has stuck.
I believe that it was with AOC that I first became aware of the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) designation and realized that it had become a force with which Democrats would need to contend. It’s no accident some of this is happening in New York, either – as have the recent DSA victories of even more radical candidates. New York is the DSA’s headquarters.
And the earlier history of the DSA is the subject of a planned Part II.
Rubio speaks on the topic of the Iran MOU
I was waiting to hear from Rubio on this. Ignore the silly clickbait title:
Rubio’s attitude and the tenor of his message contrasts at least somewhat with that of Vance. Rubio seems more realistic to me in terms of what he’s saying. Of course, neither is in charge; Trump is. And the Rubio/Vance contrast – which is more one of emphasis, I think – may be intentional, with Rubio presenting to Iran as the “bad cop” and Vance the “good cop.”
The video isn’t all that long. But it highlights the important bits, with commentary. I watched it like I watch most talking heads videos: speeded up. But if you don’t have the patience to watch, here’s a very short excerpt I think is important. Rubio has a very clear way of stating things; here he’s asked about the attitude of the current Iranian leaders and whether they are religious fanatics:
No wonder Brits here for the World Cup sometimes praise our air conditioning
I had noticed that a number of those YouTube paeans to the wonders of the USA mention the fabulous air conditioning that seems to be ubiquitous here. This puzzled me a bit, but article such as this go a long way towards explaining it:
Homeowners are being forced to tear out air conditioning from their private properties under climate laws, despite rising temperatures.
Council planning officers ordered residents to remove air-con units over fears they produce too much carbon dioxide, stating they should only be used as a “last resort”.
The net zero clampdown is part of building regulations that state “active cooling” should only ever be allowed when all other means of “passive cooling”, such as opening windows or using fans, have been exhausted.
The Tories said Britain was being “kept in the dark ages” under a net zero mindset that denies people “modern conveniences that are completely normal in other countries”.
It’s not happening everywhere in Britain, but it’s happening. And it’s a reminder that the commitment to liberty in Britain and in much of Europe is lukewarm at best.
Of course, our own leftists are salivating at the chance to do the same here – to exercise more and more control over every aspect of people’s lives “for our own good.”
Plus, Europe has been experiencing a heat wave of major proportions:
Temperatures soared to record highs from Switzerland to the Czech Republic and Denmark on Saturday, as a heat wave that baked western European countries this week moved to central and eastern parts of the continent.
Unusually high temperatures were recorded even in the Nordic countries not known for sweltering summers. Denmark’s Meteorological Institute reported a record 37 degrees Celsius (98.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in Ødum north of Aarhus — the warmest day since records there began in 1874. …
Germany’s famous Autobahn was overwhelmed, too, as temperatures were expected to hit 40 C (104 F). In two places outside Berlin, the concrete of the A2 burst due to the high temperatures and the highway had to be closed. …
The Czech Republic also saw its hottest day on record, with 40.8 C (105.4 F) in the northern town of Doksany. Forecasters said it may still rise.
That’s hot, all right. But in the US, not all that unusual. Even the New England states reach high levels at times, with record highs generally more in the 105-107 vicinity.
As a young child, I lived without air conditioning in New York, in a home that didn’t have much cross-ventilation. It was pretty brutal at times in the summer. I also remember that a lot of homes had awnings on the windows that went up in the summer, to create at least a slightly cooling effect. On very hot days, sometimes we’d go to the movies – thirty-five cents admission – because they were usually air conditioned. Ah, the relief!
Open thread 6/27/2026
The names are far less interesting than the hairstyles. My high school yearbook features some doozies, although mine was relatively sedate:
The Socialist cuckoos and the Democrats
I think this is a good analogy:
So, will they wear out their welcome and be just a passing phase? Maybe, but I absolutely wouldn’t count on it. Another phrase occurs to me:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
I’ve quoted the poem many times over the years. But it now occurs to me that the first part isn’t correct. In other words, do “the best lack all conviction”? Not in the least. If they’re “the best,” they have plenty of conviction and principles and are serious about them. The real question is whether those convictions are a match for the obvious “passionate intensity” of the far left.
Note also that “the worst” are riding almost entirely on emotional intensity; reason really doesn’t enter into it for them. Thus we have today’s cuckoos, who – although they talk academic theory gobbledygook – are full of such passionate intensity that I don’t doubt they would “cut down every law” to get their way.
Another relevant quote occurs to me, and it’s this one from Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four, uttered by O’Brien to Winston Smith as he’s being interrogated and tortured:
The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?
In another cuckoo-like move, however, the Party pretends to be interested in the good of others. Perhaps certain members even think they are interested in that. But the gleaming attraction of power is tantamount (true of many politicians, by the way).
Plus, also from Orwell:
There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always— do not forget this, Winston— always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.
Forever? Well, maybe not, but once these things get going they are difficult to reverse. Most Democrat politicians of the more “moderate” sort are loathe to condemn the Democratic Socialists, who already seem to have a lot of power in blue areas. The old-time Democrats seem to think the crocodile will eat them last. Hakeem Jeffries doesn’t have that luxury (although he refuses to address it); the chant at some of the NY primary victory get-togethers, when Jeffreys’ face appeared on the screen for a moment, was “You’re next!”
As that article says:
“To be shouting ‘you’re next’ — a majority white audience to a Black man — just harkens back to some dark times in history,” said Queens Borough President Donovan Richards, who endorsed Valdez’s opponent Antonio Reynoso. …
In interviews with the New York Times and CNN, New York Attorney General Letitia James spoke about “hurt feelings” in communities of color. She said she was disappointed by Mamdani’s lack of understanding about race and class issues in the city.
“Some of the candidates that he has supported are individuals who do not understand the politics of New York City, the cultural differences from district to district, who have not been part of the history and the struggle of some of these districts …
So there’s a very interesting racial aspect to all of this, and it seems to be the case – from an analysis of the results in different areas of New York – that the main DSA support comes from affluent and highly educated white people rather than black or Hispanic voters. But the overall voting turnout was very very low, reported variously as between 10% and 15%. That makes it somewhat more difficult to analyze.
Why is turnout so low in these primaries? I don’t know. If I lived in NY, I’d be strongly motivated to vote. I think that, in many deep blue enclaves, it’s a foregone conclusion that the Democrat nominee will win the regular election, and that all Democrats are at least somewhat alike. Therefore, people who aren’t political junkies and aren’t paying a whole lot of attention don’t realize what’s actually happening here and who these candidates are and how much they differ. So the 10% or 15% who do turn out and vote are the ones filled with that “passionate intensity” of the far-left fanatic. That’s the best I can do for an explanation for such tremendous voting apathy on the part of most people there.
One of the few Democrats speaking out against the DSA is James Carville, of all people. But he’s an old fossil [emphasis mine]:
True to form, Carville lit into the party crashers with his colorful “Ragin’ Cajun” rhetoric. Focusing on Chevalier, he said that she “has attacked interracial relationships and the American flag. Lady, I ain’t in the same party as you. I’m sorry, I’m just not.”
He then revealed how very serious he considered the situation to be by calling for his own party to do something drastic: “And I actually do think it’s time for Democrats to talk the S word: schism. I really do.”
“Everybody’s always said, ‘No, no, we’re a coalition, we’re a big tent,’” Carville went on, but there’s “just some s**t that I can’t be in the same tent with.” …
“But, and understand, these people do not like Democrats; not only are they not Democrats, they wish Democrats poorly. …
“I am totally comfortable in a political party that spends time questioning the policies of the government of Israel. In fact, I’m enthusiastic about that,” Carville clarified, but “I don’t want to be in a political party that denies the right of the state of Israel to exist. That’s just not — I just can’t do that. I’m sorry. It’s just not doable.”
But Carville is an outlier on this. Must Democrat politicians seem to be finding it very doable indeed – so far.
Newark renaissance?
This article very much surprised me. Newark is a city that’s been in decline for my entire adult life. One branch of my family had been there since the mid-19th century, and the older people still lived there in my youth; I remember visiting them in an old apartment building with very high ceilings.
Then all of them moved away as it became more and more dangerous to live there.
In 2020 I wrote this lengthy piece on Newark, describing its decline. But now I read – in a British paper, of all places – that things are looking up in Newark:
A New Jersey city once known as the car theft capital of the world has transformed itself over the last three decades from a blighted crime metropolis to one of the hottest real estate opportunities on the East Coast.
Located just 30 minutes from Manhattan, Newark has been ranked as the most competitive housing market in the nation, according to a spring market report from Redfin.
Real estate values have surged as criminal activity has fallen in Newark, with violent crime down by 19 percent last year, according to the Newark Star-Ledger.
Money talks:
“Newark has been rediscovered,” real estate broker Michael Rosa told HousingWire, who said a wave of luxury apartment construction has helped revive the city. “More recently, there’s just been so much investment going on over here.”
I have to say I read the article with a great deal of skepticism. Is this some sort of delusional Newark boosterism? The commenters there seem to think so; the article is regarded as a sick joke, and lots of people assert that Newark is basically a cesspool. Then again, are they correct?
When I searched, I found a great many articles about improvements in the Newark airport’s on-time record, which apparently had been abysmal. It also seems that, for whatever reason, in 2024 there started to be articles such as this one describing an increase in investment:
There’s the ongoing $190 million capital investment project at Newark Penn Station; the $570 million AirTrain Newark Replacement, with construction slated for 2025 through 2029; the $110 million “High Line”-like Pedestrian Bridge traversing McCarter Highway to Newark Penn Station; and, of course, Terminal A at Newark Liberty International Airport.
“People who haven’t been here or turned their backs on Newark are missing out on the most amazing urban transformation,” says Vincent Baglivo, executive director of the Ironbound Business Improvement District and Board Member for the Greater Newark Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Deputy Mayor Allison Ladd, director of the Department of Economic and Housing Development, says following the COVID-19 pandemic, investors and developers are still bold and bullish on growth in Newark.
Though largely focused on arts, health, and wellness, Newark’s incredible transformation is now attracting hundreds of new tech startups and higher-income residents.
Who knows? I’m not travelling there to find out, either. But I like to think it’s true. Once a city declines it’s very difficult to reverse the process, but I wish Newark well.
Years ago I also wrote about Newark’s extremely leftist mayor, Ras Baraka. It was in 2014, when he was first elected. At the time, he was one of the most “progressive” (that is, far left) mayors in the US. Well, guess what? To my surprise, he’s still the mayor there, serving his fourth 4-year term. From that Wiki page:
Politico has described Baraka as “one of the most progressive Democrats in New Jersey, and possibly the nation”.
During his tenure as mayor, Baraka has earned praise for improving Newark’s economic prospects.
Make of it what you will. Also this:
The city has now achieved a historic 60-year low in violence.
Violence has gone down in a lot of cities. But a 60-year low might actually mean something – although relatively speaking, violence isn’t actually low there. Some statistics from a 2025 discussion:
Many people still ask, “is Newark NJ safe?” The answer depends on where you go and when. While some neighborhoods have made notable progress, others continue to face persistent challenges.
The article goes on to get very specific about that.
You may ask, why am I writing about Newark? Basically I have a soft spot in my heart for it and I’d like to see it improve.
Lastly I’ll point to this comment in a Reddit thread about Newark’s declining crime rate:
Sticking to police reform was huge. The community policing element put former gang members in direct contact with at-risk youth in tough neighborhoods to get to them before they got in trouble or entered the cycle of retaliation.
The city’s population has gone up quite a bit. So there’s way less vacant housing that can be used for criminal activity.
This is the part that everyone ignores. The city has actually gentrified more than people think; it’s just middle class minorities doing it. If you go to parts of the West and South Wards, you’ll find Black people who had been priced out of Harlem, Bed-Stuy, and Crown Heights are becoming homeowners, which basically added a middle-class to poor neighborhoods. This is the reason why Downtown Newark has like 5 expensive African restaurants/nightclubs now.
The national trends have been helpful too. Crime is down pretty much everywhere, despite the fear-mongering.
Again, make of it what you will.
[NOTE: I wrote another post about Baraka in 2025, focusing on his arrest for causing a brouhaha around ICE.
And by the way, Baraka’s father is Leroi Jones.]
Open thread 6/26/2026
Today’s date: a whole lot of sixes and a whole lot of twos.
And then there’s that lonely zero.
Update on the Venezuela earthquake
We’re nowhere near knowing the true toll. But here’s an update:
At least 188 people have died and more than 1,500 are injured …
Many people are missing or still trapped beneath rubble as rescue efforts stretch into Thursday night. Many residents have nowhere to go after their homes were flattened in the port city of La Guaira, the capital Caracas and surrounding areas. …
The US is deploying elite rescue teams to Venezuela, though it’s not yet clear when they’ll arrive, and pledges of foreign aid are pouring in. Venezuelans living abroad are anxiously awaiting updates from loved ones.
There’s more news at the link.
Here’s an interesting changer – actually, two interesting changers
When I first saw an excerpt from this guy’s message, I thought he might not be for real. I tend now to think he is for real, although I’m not 100% sure. At any rate, his point is a good one.
The commentary on what he’s saying is by Amala Ekpunobi, a woman whose own political change experience happened a couple of years ago. I’ve watched quite a few of her videos, and I think she’s quite good.
On immigration and the law: SCOTUS decides that “temporary” means temporary and that the Trump orders were not based on race
Here’s the ruling, in a 6-3 opinion with Alito authoring:
In these cases, we consider whether respondents, who challenge the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for aliens from Syria and Haiti, are entitled to orders postponing the terminations during litigation. We hold that they are not.
The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents’ non-constitutional claims. It allows “no judicial review of any determination . . . with respect to the . . . termination” of a TPS designation. 8 U. S. C. §1254a(b)(5)(A). The term “determination” can be used to describe either an individual decision or the whole process leading to a final decision, and under either understanding of the term, §1254a(b)(5)(A) squarely bars all of respondents’ non-constitutional claims.
The sole constitutional claim before us will likely fail. Citing statements made by President Trump and former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, one set of respondents advances an equal protection claim that Haiti’s TPS designation was terminated because of the racial makeup of that country’s population. But, ironically, one of respondents’ other arguments undermines the equal protection claim by offering a strong, race-neutral explanation for Haiti’s termination: namely, that the current administration, which has terminated every TPS designation that has come up for renewal, simply opposes the TPS program, at least as it has been implemented in the past. For these reasons, the District Courts erred in granting interim relief.
The opinion points out that these “temporary” exceptions often last for many decades.
NOTE: SCOTUS should be issuing a ruling on birthright citizenship soon. If I had to guess, I’d say they will uphold the present interpretation of how it functions. But I simply don’t know. Personally, I think the arguments against the current construction of the law are strong. But there’s room for ambiguity and it would be such a big change to make it more restrictive that I don’t think it will happen.
Democratic Socialism: workers of the blue cities, unite!
Yesterday I wrote a post about the socialist victories in New York’s primaries on Tuesday. In it, I quoted from this City Journal article about the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America), as follows:
Earlier this month, the Democratic Socialists of America’s top leadership met for an in-person meeting of their National Political Committee (NPC), the DSA’s governing authority. The result of the meeting was “Workers Deserve More!”, a rebooted platform for the organization featuring a host of radical proposals. The document commits DSA to scrapping the U.S. Senate, “abolishing the carceral forces of the capitalist state,” defunding the Department of War, amnesty for all immigrants, and “replac[ing] the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.”
That’s not all they want, but it’s a start. It also gives you a hint about why they call themselves democratic socialists: they use what they call “democracy” as a tool. First it’s just the ordinary “democracy” we have today – that is, a republican form of government with checks and balances. The most “democratic” organ of the legislature is the House, because the Senate gives power to states as entities rather than by population numbers. Leftists are angry that in the Senate low-population states like South Dakota (which tend to be red) count for as much as the populous blue enclaves of New York or California. They plan to remedy that flaw. And then they plan to make other branches of government subordinate to the House, which would reign supreme.
Of course, this is at present a dream. But look how far they’ve come in just a few short years.
Also, the whole thing would fall down if the House ends up taken over by the right. If these Democratic Socialists ever get sufficient in numbers, however, they plan to make that impossible any way they can. Whether or not elections are “rigged” or outright fraudulent in blue cities and states, if you don’t believe the left wants to do it and will do it if possible, you don’t understand their drive for power.
This triumph of “democracy” – “our democracy” – is the process part of it. The content is indeed things like the abolition of prisons (except perhaps for their political prisoners), open borders (the better to get more third-world denizens here), hatred of Israel and Jews (and probably for those Christians who aren’t with the DSA program) – and the destruction of Western Civilization.
You think I made that last part up? I did not; see this:
The socialist backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani who won Tuesday night’s primary election in New York’s 13th Congressional District founded a group in college that called for the total destruction of the West.
Darializa Avila Chevalier, 32, a Democratic nominee for U.S. Congress who made career out of “community organizing,” wrote in her biography for an opinion piece in independent news outlet The Electronic Intifada that she “helped launch the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign Columbia University Apartheid Divest.”
“We are Westerners fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization,” the group said in a now-deleted 2024 Instagram post.
In May 2024, eight years after she graduated from Columbia, Chevalier was back on campus advocating alongside the group she founded, known as CUAD, wearing a keffiyeh and a t-shirt emblazoned with the group’s name.
This isn’t ancient history for Chevalier.
She co-founded Columbia University Apartheid and Divest (CUAD), an organization that did not merely oppose the state of Israel but also celebrated terrorism outright. After the death of Yahya Sinwar, CUAD’s Substack published a glowing eulogy of the Hamas terrorist who masterminded the October 7 attack on Israelis. CUAD hailed him as a “hero of the revolution” guided by “pragmatic optimism.” The group called on its followers to “reflect on how we can make ourselves more like him.”
Avila Chevalier was also involved with the related group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which explicitly celebrated the October 7th terrorist attack as a “historic win.”
We cannot count on the people of New York to stop her from becoming a member of the House of Representatives. After all, she’s got a “D” after her name now as the official Democrat nominee in the 13th District:
She wants to abolish not just the police but the very concept of policing entirely. For good measure, she views interracial relationships with suspicion, thought COVID-19 originated in France, and thinks white people are not hygienic.
In an interview with The New York Editorial Board from earlier this month, Avila Chevalier declined to walk back her most controversial statements. She refused to say, for instance, that murderers belong in prison.
There are two ways in which the right is reacting to Chevalier and the other Democratic Socialists who won their primaries recently (it’s not only in NYC). The first way is to be happy, because this signals that the left has gone too far and will be rejected. The second – and I’m in this camp – is to take it as an extremely serious sign, and to believe that they will not fade away in some natural fashion. Too many people in the US now – too many voters – are ignorant of history, economics, and common sense. Too many live in a la-la land where ideas like abolishing the police are not seen as lunatic. Too many think socialism would be just peachy keen. Too many have succumbed to the poisonous virus of Jew-hatred, especially when couched in the language of anti-Zionism backed up by lies about apartheid and genocide.
Way too many.
NOTE:
I know that some of you objected last time I posted a Ruthless podcast video, because they use the f-word a lot. This session also contains language of that sort. Don’t listen if that bothers you too much; I don’t consider it any sort of deal-breaker, because their content is good. They have a lot to say about the Democratic Socialists, and I think it’s well worth listening to:
[ADDENDUM:
And although I think this is totally obvious and goes without saying, it’s still refreshing to hear someone like New York City DSA cochair Gustavo Gordillo be so honest about methods and goals:
“We’re using the Democratic Party as a ballot-access vehicle, not because we share its goals,” Gordillo boldly stated. “We build our own organization, get elected under the Democratic label, caucus with Democrats when it’s useful, and push our own agenda from the inside.”
Here’s the kicker — the line that should have House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries losing sleep at night and/or wetting himself: “We see the Democratic establishment as an obstacle, not a home.”
As I said, this has been quite obvious for some time.
Also, the NY DSA is coming for Kathy Hochul, who is obviously not radical enough.]