Authortitarianism of US "moderates"

I fucking hate myself.

Obama's 8 billion drone strikes? The fact that, while the ACA is better than the shit Republicans, it's still an inadequate shit healthcare system that serves the interests of the insurance industry more than it does working people? Our involvement in Libya and elsewhere? Just to name a few examples. Honestly though I think a lot of these brainer-than-thou centrist technocrats are irredeemable. Fish hook theory is more right that I wanted to believe. I was talking recently with a friend who I had never talked politics with before, a "moderate liberal" (read: Clintonite) who is disgusted by Trump, but thinks his supporters and Sanders' supporters are basically the same, unironically bringing up horseshoe theory and railing against the ebil populists. I brought up the upcoming 100 year anniversary on the Russian Revolution and his only response was "Where are the Romonovs when you need them."

...

Trump is a creature of the deep state, just of more right-wing cliques. The main difference between the liberal and right-wing establishments is that the liberal establishment doesn't do as much exposing of the other sides' think tanks and NGOs as the right does. Trump was backed pretty early on by people associated with the Center for Security Policy (or was it the Center for National Policy? they all blend in with one another…), by people associated with Blackwater, by Alex Jones (obvious intelligence asset), etc.

I always shill this site on here because he's good on the right-wing deep state: isgp-studies.com/american-security-council

Another thing is how its obvious bots rule the internet and that intelligence agencies run them but people are in total denial about it. Im sure theres CIA on here pretending to be communists and shit. But everyone associates internet manipulation with muh Russia when USA et al been running that show from day 1.

I think people just dont want to believe they're fooled, that their whole country is a lie. They don't see how the superficiality and lack of historical understanding in society on all sides led to muh Trump. The basic insight is that were all caught and all complicit. Even leftists miss out on this and play the "theyre so bad" game. I dont even blame the IC, theyre an outgrowth of the materialized ideology that constituted them, but at this point we live in a society dominated by the secret services and everyone pretends its all on the level.

A lot of these tards I argue with just to see what they say are definitely paid shills but you cant allege that because youll get labelled paranoid. Of course you cant prove it but thats bc the IC controls the info hello?

Really the tragedy is the far left cant discredit the democrats. Because the far left is so scared of Trump theyll suck dems dicks to "resist" him. Antifa sucks ass, etc. Were just not sure what to do but pick on the easy target the Nazis when thats a straight moderate position. Until the far left can differentiate itself from moderates and be effective this shit is here to stay

I have such mixed feelings about the guy, but he's good overall. He equates liberals with leftists and thinks social democracy is socialism (he claims Kennedy had socialist leanings, that daniel ellsberg is a socialist, and just misidentifies a number of others as socialist when they're succdems at most). He also began posting about black crime and Autism Level and is falling into alt-rightism in general.

However, his "liberal CIA" stuff does at the very least point out how many of the liberal centrist, succdem, "grass roots" media outlets (including some frequently linked here) and NGOs are funded by deep state establishment figures and old foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, etc.) and are not our friends, even if they criticize imperialism, as well as how people like Chomsky are members of such organizations.

He also has a tendency to accuse anyone who's opinions on politics and conspiracies don't line up almost exactly with his of being deep state actors.

pics of exploded dust covered syrian babies

also you're never going to convince anyone of changing their minds, this goes back to Lenin's theory of 'the masses'. Instead of Marx's proletarian Adonis we got the Quasimodo of the mass.

Upon re-reviewing his "liberal CIA" page, it's a little worse than I remember, but still contains useful info and the substance is generally true.

No fucking surprise when filthy kikes control all burger media

lolwut?

You know, you guys aren't particularly convincing in the first place.

your false flag is pretty obvious
as usual mods are backing anyone shitposting anti ML slander letting it stay while banning MLs

I'll tell normies I'm "apolitical" if I don't think I can REDpill them because I don't want to be mistaken for a democratic party sympathizer. "Apolitical" in many cases means "disgusted with both political parties" or "doesn't pay attention to bourgeois politics because it's too depressing" and writing such people off is suicide for any revolutionary venture - what, do you think you'll have an easier time radicalizing partisan democrats/republicans?

that guy has only one post though

I ban your ass cause you keep evading, faggot

We just need a label for this. "Moderate" authoritarianism is cool but its its not clear enough in denouncing moderation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink?wprov=sfla1

This article has a lot of really good info that helps think through and critique the left as well as moderates (and the right obviously).

Maybe its easy for people to understand that blindly trusting bush after 911 was wrong, so blindly trusting the FBI now is wrong.

Or maybe obstacles helps: people don't see obvious examples of recent intelligence failures. People are able to see the IC as independent and not reliant on a ruling class, or people delude themselves into thinking there is no ruling class in the US. All of these beliefs must be challenged potetenially at the same time. We need to have sources, but at the same time we cant necessarily rely on sources they will think are credible, since our point is that something is preventing mainstream sources from reporting the truth.

Still, there is stuff like Carter saying were an oligarchy, aclu articles about violations by the IC, and other stuff center left people should acknowledge.

The biggest problem is that people dont fight fair. Whether they are IC shills or not, most people act like they are. Maybe we should not focus on value judgments (the IC is bad, Democrats are just as bad as republicans), but rather focus on what will lead to a better society, and argue that popular control over the IC, indeed all capital, is the only way to do this.

I think communists face the problem of military secrecy in general though- do some things have to be state secrets? If so, who decides and who is trusted to hold secret information? I think this challenge forces us to say there should be no secrecy in society, which of course meams there will also be no privacy. Obviously this is not ideal, but does anyone else see a way around this?

America is generally authoritarian. A centrist is going to be authoritarian. A "leftist" is going to be "gently" authoritarian at best, par for the course in most of the world but seen as a nutty lefty to dumb shit Amerilads. A "rightist" is going to be comically authoritarian to the point of undermining their own effectiveness (see: current US government (both parties)).

MLs are jews
this news brought to you by the globbol gang
end post

yeah but his stuff on the Right is good, I never knew anything about groups like Le Cercle or the ASC until I found that site

debunking no secrecy = no privacy meme. secrecy resorts to state/corporate organisations while privacy concerns regular citizens, so there can be no secrecy while there being full privacy. publicly accessed services merely need not collect personal data.

So there are no state secrets but unlimited private secrets? How do you know people don't privately plot against society and destroy it?