“Divisive mainstream coverage is because mainstream identity politics is a divide and rule strategy by the ruling elite, to keep the public busy and not pushing for economic justice.”

“The dangerous subtext of a thousand groups discussing the ‘line’ in comedy or whether a joke was offensive or not or judging someone’s behaviour based on review of past performance: everything is seen by everyone, expect all you say and do to be seen by everyone else. The basic assumption is zero privacy, zero boundaries, universal surveillance and permanent storage of everything surveilled. Well, fuck that!”

“One interesting thing about criticism – like being called a fake leftist – is it’s a dishonest insult when coming from Cenk Uyghur (a neoliberal corporatist masquerading as a liberal left-winger) but would be a serious question if it came from Kshame Sawant (a bona fide socialist).”

“Humour is a great weapon for disarming kneejerk antipathy, like when a socialist is trying to engage with an indoctrinated conservative. Humour is subverted, however, by the synthetic (pretend) liberal left – like with Tik Tok Bimbos or Nina Jankowicz singing Mary Poppins – and one reliable sign is a dumbed down caricature we can all feel superior to, and thus let down our guard with, laugh at, share in the joke; and meanwhile be indoctrinated by osmosis with the verities of the ruling capitalist elite.”

“One of the most pernicious and effective uses of the ‘straw man’ is when a public figure uses his/her time to answer the bad faith criticism of a troll – grandstanding, courting sympathy, lecturing, self-righteous, highlighting the attack, expounding both a defence and a declaration of principle without fear of interruption – making the most of the opportunity while evading good faith potentially revealing questions asked by supporters. The technique is a go to, especially on social media in livestream or interactive formats (like YouTube, Callin, Patreon). Perhaps it’s clever marketing, making the most of the audience’s intimacy without risking being held accountable and also heading off the accusation of ignoring feedback. Doesn’t matter if it is by rote. Doesn’t matter if it’s borderline dishonest. Nobody can know for sure so it never adversely impacts the bottom line and frequently creates engaging content that attracts new fans impressed by the real-time rebuttal. It’s a crock.”

“Layers on layers. Discourse on discourse. Take the negative comments of the troll. Sideline the sincere criticism of the supporter. Frame the negative comments in a particular way, creating a straw man of the troll’s argument. Then take down the straw man with facts-and-logic-and-brilliant-counterpoints. It’s a straw man straw man. It’s a crock.”

“Supporters ask, are you going to drop being independent and join the corporate outlet for higher pay better career prospects more congenial supportive workplace? Pick out corporate and independent. Assure you’ll never compromise your integrity. Evade the real question by pivoting the discussion to something anodyne but plausibly adjacent, like ‘should an independent appear in a corporate media ecosystem, to reach bigger audience, to push the independent’s agenda, even if the corporation is an ideological enemy?’. It’s a clever pivot because the new question, though it evades the original, is nonetheless an interesting and important matter. ‘Should Jimmy Dore go on Fox News?’ It’s a crock, though, because it’s not addressing what was asked, which never gets addressed. What’s more, the redefined question tends to be on that’s been answered many times before. Waste of time for audience. Borderline disingenuous performance marketing for the public figure answering. Crock.”

“Remember when #ForceTheVote tried to persuade so-called Progressives to assert their kingmaker Congressional numbers, by simple united action to secure quantifiable power from the corporatists? Remember how #ForceTheVote would have been an acid test of representative fidelity to Progressive causes, honouring campaign promises that’d gotten them elected in the first place? Remember how the politicians scorned the left-wing project, complaining about the pressure while kow-towing to donor class power? Remember how teams of advisors and journalists on the liberal-left public platforms derided #ForceTheVote to their impressionable liberal-left audiences, misrepresenting it or condemning it or assuring us it was unnecessary and risked squandering political capital. It’s hard to believe the professional mediasphere was acting in good faith. And yet, the #ForceTheVote furore is no reason to disassociate if you’re a neoliberal in the left media space or a socialist upset at being marginalised. It’s no reason to disassociate from the big tent because there’s always going to be policy disputes in a pluralist political group.

Most leftists haven’t disassociated. Why then have so many mainstream and corporatized public figures chosen disassociation? Because for them it’s not a mere policy dispute, it’s a fundamental point of divergence. Bercause it exposes an incompatible ultimate purpose. The honest leftist is figuring out strategy for best advancing the cause of universal healthcare. The dishonest corporatist in left space understands #ForceTheVote is good strategy that could expose dishonest actors who’ve been benefiting from association with supporting universal healthcare. It must therefore be derailed and, anyone who continues to push the #ForceTheVote strategy is a proven threat to the interests of the donor class.

As public policy, the strategy of #ForceTheVote must be shot down. What’s more, its stubborn left-wing advocates, having proven themselves disloyal to the party and its big money causes, need to be extirpated. Loyalty is paramount in any criminal subterfuge. And extirpation is exactly what happened. What a crock.”

“It should be possible to have disagreements and still work together. Aspiring media brands like Breaking Points should be able to have a left-winger and a right-winger together, without being called out as dishonest or dysfunctional. Free universal healthcare says the leftist. For-profit health industry says the rightist. Debate ensues. But what happens when the opposing politics are anti-imperialist versus imperialist? Bomb the foreigners to steal their shit says the imperialist. Don’t mass murder says the anti-imperialist. Should debate ensue? Can these opposing worldviews be reconciled? No. The imperialism should be a deal breaker or else it’s a crock.”

“The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was and is a remarkably reliable litmus for sense of humour. If you loved the Daily Show and figured it was a comedy paradigm that happened to also concur with leftist sensibilities, you have no sense of humour. The Daily Show was not funny. It is not funny same way David Letterman’s bullshit Top Tens were never funny.”

“In all the public virtue signalling by liberals using identity politics to push ‘inclusive’ doctrine and punish dissenters from the professional managerial class intersectional pablum, the liberal middle class advocate is loud in all the public spaces of the liberal middle class. Where he or she is not is in the spaces of the minority or marginalized they’re so loudly fighting for. ‘Call the homeless unhoused, stop disrespecting them, they’re people too!’ cries the liberal identitarian who’d never volunteer a minute of his/her valuable time to mutual aid or material assistance or personal shared community with homeless people. What a crock. Why do the middle class hate the precariat class so much?”

Fascism was the hammer wielded by rich elites to smash the rising threat of socialists and their efforts at redistributing the common weal to give the working class a fair share.

Fascism speaks to the dispossesed workers. It offers them a rallying point, to work together, to give mutual aid, to train hearts and minds for a better future.

Fascism serves the interests of elite capital and the ruling class.

In the 1930s, nascent fascism formed; to weaponize blood nationalism and hunger in the rebellious majority.

Since the 2020s, neo-fascism has returned; to weaponize identity privilege and fear in the precariat masses.