search instagram arrow-down

Copyright Notice

© rauldukeblog and The Violent Ink 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to The Violent Ink and rauldukeblog The Violent Ink with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Archive

Jeremy Sanders and Bernie Corbyn. Some Notes on The Pathology of the Left.

The American left in its public persona, is generally more conservative than its cousins across the Pond.

This is a truism of Anglo politics generally.

The average Canadian conservative is to the left of the average American liberal or Progressive.

Privately and among the public minority the differences narrow but our focus here is with the public face of the American left.

It is delusional and trapped in a private neurosis manifesting as a dangerous group-think dominated by a kind of psychological dissonance.

The dissonance takes the form of, on the one hand, expressing correctly the differences between their champion, Bernie Sanders, his opponents (from slightly less Progressive Elizabeth Warren, more centrist Buttigieg, to the Wall Street liberals like Biden, Obama and were capitalists get used to it, Pelosi, let alone oligarchs like Bloomberg) detailing the Sanders-Progressive agenda (universal healthcare, massive improvements in housing, jobs, wages, and the essential creation of a sustainable economy to save the environment) and the other being how to square the circle – if as they correctly say, the system is corrupt, and that corruption manifests in the opposition to Sanders’ agenda, how exactly will he implement his plans?

Asking this and related questions is universally met by rage and accusations of being at best a neo-liberal supporter of Buttigieg, Biden, or at worst, a neo-fascist supporter of Trump.

This is sometimes followed or occurs simultaneously with patronizing rhetorical pats on the head and a tone of explanation that conveys the idea you’re some sort of fool who just needs the facts spelled out and then you will see the light.

This knee jerk rage response is consistent among both the keyboard warriors and the professional chattering class at left leaning or truly left media platforms.

And the source of the response?

They know it’s true and as with the narcissism of small differences, they rage rather than take action.

To be clear, as we have posted previously, we agree, housing is a right, as are food, education and healthcare.

In other words, FDR’s Four Freedoms.

We agree the system is corrupt.

We agree the liberals are now and always have been beholden to Wall Street and consistently believe capitalism just needs a fresh coat of paint and a few tweaks under the hood to work.

We also agree that capitalism is incompatible with saving the environment.

The problem is that the left refuses to admit either publically or to its own cadres that getting from here to there will require a revolution in which people are going to die.

As we’ve said before we don’t advocate violence any more than we advocate earthquakes but we’re aware they occur.

And we also believe that a peaceful revolution is possible but the anti-revolutionary forces will respond as they always do, with violence.

History may or may not be, as a certain Irish jazz mystic said, all thud and blunder, but we’re pretty certain it is a trap.

During the 2016 campaign with its, they shoot horses don’t they vibe common to all such scenes, Sanders was asked by a haircut pretending to be a journalist, just how he would get the gerrymandered corrupt whorehouse on Capitol Hill to enact his agenda.

For a split second Sanders was almost honest and almost said he’d call on his followers to surround the House and the Senate.

But he blinked and returned to boilerplate.

Sanders is not an idiot – per se – and knows the ugly truth.

Change is impossible without placing your body and a million more on the gears of the machine.

But say that to the public and you’re dead.

And so we get a dissonance of dithering and hemming and hawing; of passive aggressive meh and counter-productive rage and honesty and half-truths and a kind of stumbling bumbling that succeeds because it offers “revolution” without the effort and by effort we mean risk and by risk we mean danger.

This is similar to the (anti) style of Jeremy Corbyn.

The Labour manifesto was mostly on point and in many respects both obvious in its necessary applications and essential vis the environment and how the nuts and bolts of sustainability are directly linked to transformation in the capitalist system.

Taxing the oligarchs, banking reform, property rights reform, education, healthcare, housing, food, and so on must be changed or everyone dies.

It’s that straight forward.

But at the same time, Corbyn kept rhetorically blowing his own head off over a set of issues ranging from denying the rancid anti-Semitism of the British left, the sadomasochism of his chief lieutenants like Seamus Milne, infighting with his shadow cabinet and his inability to project two qualities Boris doesn’t have – honesty and integrity.

Sanders in contrast is more honest, has more charisma, more integrity and passion.

But he’s also not being completely honest and he’s attached himself to Linda Sarsour who will prove to be a political albatross around his neck.

One could grant the premise that her connection to people like Louis Farrakhan and her anti-Semitic diatribes are only policy differences but this misses the point – even if that’s true, that’s not how the establishment media and the Trumpists will play it and for the 2 to 3 percent who you need to switch in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (the jackasses who voted for Obama then switched to Trump) it’s crucial.

Sanders has fucked himself bigly in the manner of Corbyn.*

While we do not grant the premise the fact is, Trump is going to bang Sanders like a drum on that point and it doesn’t matter that Trump is a bigot.

People who were stupid enough to vote for him can be divided roughly into two categories:

Those who are bigots and those who aren’t but voted for someone who is.

Jon Stewart, in full liberal hypocrisy mode tried to split the difference as if it weren’t a distinction without a difference.

Speaking to the now disgraced Charlie Rose he said he had friends that he loved who voted for Trump because they were terrified and couldn’t pay their insurance premiums.

In other words: Yes, Mussolini was a mass murderer but he made insurance available – in exchange for messy things like freedom.

Or as a noted stand up put it: there are many who don’t know they are fascists but will discover it when the time comes.

The idea that logic and facts matter to those people is sickening.

They are atavists and fools who looked at Trump and said not only do we not care that he’s a bigot, and that his bigotry may get people killed but, he looks smart enough to help us out against this rancid system.

Precisely because of all of that the idea that you can convince those people with anything other than red meat is dead on arrival.

These are people about whom Obama, in a rare moment of honesty, said were, clinging to god, guns and bitterness.

And so back to the left.

Consider the following:

Below is a link to the self-righteous Kyle Kulinski in which he claims Saint Bernie has dismantled Mayor Pete’s “BS” about healthcare.

Buttigieg, as most readers will probably know, advocates what he calls Healthcare for all – who want it.

The idea as such, is that telling people they have to take government healthcare wont go over with a lot of Americans who, Buttigieg is smart enough not to define as paranoid, neo-John Birch-esque loons.

Recall that when Obama offered a limited reform of healthcare people, ginned up by Limbaugh et al, showed up at town hall meetings with guns because they actually believed Obama was either Stalin or Hitler or both but by god no one was going to take their rights away.

These are the goons threatening violence if Trump is removed from power.

These are the people who actually enjoy watching Fox and listening to Alex Jones or his pals.

It’s not an unreasonable view by Buttigieg however “vanilla” it tastes.

Per Kulinski and Sanders however, it’s bunk because, as Sanders says, it leaves in place the for profit manipulators who run private insurance at the expense of human lives and rights.

And that’s true.

We repeat: That’s true.

The problem for Sanders and his cadre (a group that includes but is not limited to, TYT, Sam Seder, et al and about whom we have offered multiple posts) is that Buttigieg’s also correct and secondly, there’s something far more important: As Buttigieg’s plan is to Sander’s critique, so to is Sander’s critique to the rest of American capitalism.

Sanders wants to eliminate student debt.

That’s a legitimate idea.

However he has no plan to nationalize the banks, the hedge funds, or the debt market.

Which leaves in place the for profit manipulators who, faced with losing hundreds of billions if student debt is eliminated, will race for the nearest exit, create a debt crisis elsewhere and turn a profit from their manipulation(s) of the market – which in turn will paralyze Sanders politically.

This is because Sanders is an old if well intentioned fool, and a limp “socialist” who appeals to the limp “woke” keyboard warriors who think “revolutions” can be voted into power and that even if we’re living in an Orwellian corporate dictatorship, all that’s required is electing a righteous dude with the Bill of Rights in one hand and the complete works of Chomsky in the other.

After all, like a villain in a Scooby Doo cartoon, the oligarchs would have gotten away with it if not for those pesky kids, their dog and…look! It’s old man Sanders from the abandoned saw mill!**

 

 

*For a look at the nexus of anti-Semitism, media manipulation and Corbyn’s defective personality see the link here and read the specifically the notes at the end of the post regarding Tom Holland, et al.

https://theviolentink.blog/2019/12/14/postmortem-corbyn-the-left-and-the-gravedigger/

For a look at Kulinski:

Kulinski

**We’re aware that the trope of the unmasked old man from the (abandoned saw mill, arcade, cemetery, etc) is always the bad guy but the image worked too well not to use.

Exactly as predicted, the establishment media is using Sarsour et al, and the Sandernistas are heading for the denial bunker as the paint by numbers Kulinski shows here:

Kulinski

And another thoughtful consideration here:

The Blindspot in Bernie Sanders’ Anti-Semitism Manifesto

Update: 12/18/19:

And so the drumbeat continues. Below is a link to a misses the point but sticks the bs landing all the same piece in The Guardian.

Falling for the trap being set by the right wing the article, its author, The Guardian and the left are coughing up exactly the material that the right will use to sink Sanders.

In this version it’s claiming on the one hand that as Bernie is a Jew, with a backstory or origin story that includes family on the run from the Nazis, he can’t be an an anti-Semite while on the other, it reduces Israel to a “brutal apartheid regime.”

Which is not true, decontextualizes the facts, amputates the Arabs from their own history of fascism, and fits of mass violence as well as systemic misogyny and a brutal anti-modernism, and of course attaches Sanders to Linda Sarsour who in turn is attached to Louis Farrakhan, who routinely compares Jews to cockroaches.

The left, as exemplified by the article and its talking points believes that they are engaged in a fight about facts because to combat “Trump” you must present the facts.

Except it’s an argument about perception and it’s being waged against people who don’t give a fuck about facts or understand them.

And at the same time crucial facts employed in defense of Sanders are wrong or wobbly, or both.

Sanders is politically dead.

A victim of political self-harm and a circular firing squad.

See the toxin here:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/18/the-rights-accusations-of-antisemitism-against-sanders-are-cynical-and-dangerous

Update: 12/20/19

The delusional habits of the left seem to have no bottom.

Below is a link to another Kulinski video that is both hilarious and depressing in its delusions about what went wrong for Corbyn and Labour and the rot at the heart of the left.

The first pathology on display is the idea that because there was an (illegitimate) referendum any subsequent referendums are unacceptable because they would be tyrannical dismissals of “the will of the people.”

Versus one assumes, measures on ballots, appearing every year until enough people are persuaded to vote for them or a candidate who runs for a national or local office, over and over again.

The second bit of toxic left nonsense is that Brexit is better than the EU.

As if the tribal instability of Europe does not pose a terminal threat to the continent and the world.

Versus the idea that arguing for better procedures for immigration and staying in the EU is better than Brexit, that Brexit is suicidal, piratical and a potential catastrophe.

Then there’s no discussion of how Corbyn is a drip of tepid water from a rusty tap.

But of course half the video is devoted to the lie that Labour has no problem with anti-Semitism.

It is, per Kulinski, a smear cooked up by cynical operatives and right wing goons.

Yes, Kulinski admits, Corbyn et al didn’t push back but had they, the big lie would have been revealed and defeated.

Therefore, every senior British politician, and authors like john Le Carre, were either cynical anti-Labour punks (despite so many of them being members of Labour) or fools who succumb to the lies of the Tories.

Pointing out the Kulinski is a non entity, and has a small audience misses the point.

Platforms with far larger viewers have exactly the same view.

TYT, Majority Report, and a host of others all believe both Labour and the American left are not anti-Semitic, and that their criticism of Zionism are not racist.

Except of course they are.

If Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee, Trump will win.

See the blueprint for self-harm here:

Gaslighting

Update; 12/28/19:

Here’s a solid look at Sanders as he visits the LA Times’ Editorial Board to discuss his views.

Take note of how at approximately 2:30 he says his plans will require “a combination of the private sector and the government…”

When Buttigieg’s says that he’s a “centrist sell out.”

When Bernie says it he’s cool and it’s Yuuuge.

Bernie Speaks.

 

 

 

6 comments on “Jeremy Sanders and Bernie Corbyn. Some Notes on The Pathology of the Left.

  1. “The dissonance takes the form of, on the one hand, expressing correctly the differences between their champion, Bernie Sanders, his opponents (from slightly less Progressive Elizabeth Warren, more centrist Buttigieg, to the Wall Street liberals like Biden, Obama and were capitalists get used to it, Pelosi, let alone oligarchs like Bloomberg) detailing the Sanders-Progressive agenda (universal healthcare, massive improvements in housing, jobs, wages, and the essential creation of a sustainable economy to save the environment) and the other being how to square the circle – if as they correctly say, the system is corrupt, and that corruption manifests in the opposition to Sanders’ agenda, how exactly will he implement his plans?”

    The deeper problem is that Buttigieg is not a centrist. If we go by majority public opinion, then Sanders is the centrist and the rest are on the political right. If we can’t even get political will and political action of the most basic centrist variety like Sanders, much less anything genuinely leftist, then we are in an impossible situation and everything else is moot. Anything less than that is guaranteed defeat and we might as well give up. Even Sanders, if we are to be honest, isn’t even a convincing imitation of what will be necessary to pull ourselves out of the death spiral. As a reformer of capitalism, Sanders is to the right of the old school progressivism of the New Deal variety.

    “The problem is that the left refuses to admit either publically or to its own cadres that getting from here to there will require a revolution in which people are going to die. As we’ve said before we don’t advocate violence any more than we advocate earthquakes but we’re aware they occur. And we also believe that a peaceful revolution is possible but the anti-revolutionary forces will respond as they always do, with violence. History may or may not be, as a certain Irish jazz mystic said, all thud and blunder but we’re pretty certain it is a trap.”

    Ya know, I’m constantly repeating that one note tune. It’s such a simple point. I don’t know if most people don’t get it or are too afraid to face the stark reality of it. To admit this is to realize that there is no way this is likely to end well. Revolution is simply failed reform and reform has failed for generations now. Such failure can only continue for so long and yet the failure continues, ever pushing events closer to the big crash. And on some level, everyone knows the elite response to crisis with be authoritarian oppression and violence. So that is how the revolution will begin, no matter what anyone’s opinion of revolution. Or failing revolution, we’ll get some new form of fascism, but even that wouldn’t last long before running into the brick wall of reality.

    “Change is impossible without placing your body and a million more on the gears of the machine. But say that to the public and you’re dead. And so we get a dissonance of dithering and hemming and hawing; of meh and rage and honesty and half-truths and a kind of stumbling bumbling that succeeds because it offers “revolution” without the effort and by effort we mean risk and by risk we mean danger. Taxing the oligarchs, banking reform, property rights reform, education, healthcare, housing, food, and so on must be changed or everyone dies. It’s that straight forward.”

    To try to stop it and change course will mean many people will die. But to fail to do so guarantees any greater death count, not to mention the vast suffering that will accompany it. Damn if you do and damn if you don’t. Still, it’s a choice of lesser evils where the choice is likely to be made by default of events playing themselves out, one way or another. The ‘mainstream’ fear-mongering about the violence of revolutions is willfully stupid. In going down the path we are on, we are embracing violence in a social order that is violent down to its foundation. We don’t need to choose violence since our society is already violent. It’s simply a decision about what method and degree of violence to end the violence that already exists.

    Violence is violence is violence. As we speak, the global system of wealth and power is killing millions of innocents, mostly but not limited to poor brown people, across numerous countries. And that is only talking about the more direct forms of violence, not even to get into the casual slow violence such as the 40% of deaths worldwide attributed to air pollution alone. In every second that we choose to not end the violent system that oppresses us and sometimes benefits us, especially those of us in the West, thousands of people die whose lives could have been saved. We make that choice of apathy and indifference again and again and again.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I don’t have the slightest doubt that our society is already extremely violent. And I certainly don’t doubt this state of violence will end through and in violence. But I don’t hold to any particular predictions about what that will look like.

      Revolution, in a broad sense, is inevitable as the penultimate result of failed reform. Still, to get down to specifics, and if I were a betting man, I think the exact form of violent ending will be some combination of climate crisis and world war with civil wars and revolutions as side effects of the greater changes.

      It wouldn’t be a relatively self-contained event like a local population overthrowing a single government or fighting among themselves to seize power. Everything will simply fall apart in chaos, most likely. There may or may not be a new order that forms out of it. If we do come out the other side, it will be a much humbler and likely smaller-scale expression of ‘civilization’.

      It will just be plain violence, an explosion of violence. Revolutionary manifestos will largely be irrelevant. And the elite response will be impotent and not up to the challenge. It will be a shit storm all around. But some people surely will survive and will attempt to continue on. Good luck to them!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. rauldukeblog says:

        Logical assesment.

        The numberof guns in circulation combined with the hundreds of thousands of well trained “ex” soldiers (essentially a Friekorps) plus militias, and gangs and so on plus say the climate crisi refugees in tens of thousands means a collapsed logistical response system.

        Manifestos will come and go like likes on the internet.

        Tyrannical calls for “order” become inevitable in such a situation.

        What a fucking mess.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. rauldukeblog says:

      I take your point on definitions and agree. i was using standard political patois but a deeper dive has Sanders as a centrist relative to an authentic and essential reform of the system.

      Like you I find it odd, irritating and depressing that the same basic and obvious pint has to be repeated.

      Of course the nature of a mass delusion is that it is widespread.

      I’ve been returning to other revolutionary moments and all of the same psychological issues surface.

      Taking the Lobster King as a sign or signifier, we can consider his simplistic and ironically dialectical certainty that “Marx leads directly to Stalin/Mao” as if history was an isolated line of cause and effect.

      As he’s a simpleton speaking for atavistic goons what goes missing is that no other alternative could have avoided mass slaughter.

      Not the White Russian fascists or the limp Kerensky liberals.

      There’s a chilling line from Danton circa 1789 where he says: Let us (the leadership) be terrible to prevent the people from being terrible.

      Same dilemma.

      The Sanders cadres are despite economic differences essentially bourgeois in their attitude.

      A perfect example is Anna Kasparian of TYT who said she’s in favor of “Democratic Socialism” and defined it as universal healthcare etc but she wants her “cool stuff” like her iPhone made by the “cool people at Apple.”

      And no one called her out to say, oh, so since someone has to pick the cotton and China has a lot of slaves…

      This is also part of the point I was making vis Sanders “critique” of Buttigeig’s all who want it slogan.

      Eliminating student debt without nationalizing the banks is either just stupid or a con job.

      It’s as vacuous as “for all who want it” but say that and the tribe will cyber lynch you.

      Because of course nationalizing the banks means ultimately violence and the bourgeoisie are always willing to fight to the last dead leftist;-/

      On your point about violence and what we define as such – I’m reminded of another symptom of the bourgeois David Simon who is both presented and presents himself as “working class.”

      He said somewhere that you can follow the economic chain down to the ghettos and violence.

      Vs someone asking me about violence in Chicago and they said good thing there’s no crime or violence on the North Side.

      To which I said, sure there is, it’s just conducted indoors on computers.

      In other words, if Jamal sells you a bag of pills its a crime but if Big Pharm does it it’s a business opportunity (notwithstanding opiod lawsuits).

      Schwarzenegger of all people made the point a few weeks ago that since the energy companies knew about climate change decades ago, they are guilty of murder.

      I’d go further: they are guilty of ecocide which is (or should be) a crime against humanity.

      I’m gearing up for a post on this and may do it later today.

      But here we are.

      On your point about revolution as failed reform, that’s true and Walter Benjamin said behind every failed revolution is a fascist tyranny.

      That’s where we’re headed.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “On your point about revolution as failed reform, that’s true and Walter Benjamin said behind every failed revolution is a fascist tyranny.”

        From a failed society, there is a demand for reform. From failed reform, revolution inevitably follows. And from failed revolution, there is fascist tyranny or some other authoritarianism. Then after authoritarianism fails and is replaced, historical amnesia sets in and the population contentedly settles into a new variety of failed society.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. rauldukeblog says:

        LOL God it’s a cycle of historical Ground Hog Day;-/

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: