But if we're talking characters from early '90s cartoons, they missed the more apt comparison -- a swarthy Earth Mother, stewardess over the environment, mellow and unflappable in a very aloha kind of way. And of course, streaks of silver through her black hair. It's Gaia, the overseer of the heroes from Captain Planet and the Planeteers:
How did the debate go? I couldn't watch it. Did read Michael Tracey. My feeling is that Tulsi polling poorly and being treated with such disdain by the Establishment is less a bad reflection of her and more a bad reflection of the Democratic Party. I understand they got upset because she said attack on Kurds was bipartisan. I don't understand this reflex they have to not air out and debate views and policy. How was Bernie, btw?
ReplyDeleteI only watched the Chapo livestream, the debates are usually insufferable.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny seeing how unwoke the leftists get when they're boozed up -- plausible deniability that "it didn't count, because I was drunk".
When I first started listening to them, I thought most / all of them were gay. I figured Will's gf was a beard. But they're just liberal-brain, urban-environment males.
During the last debate's livestream, when Tulsi was excluded, the crew said they wouldn't have minded seeing more of her. Drunken Will reflexively says, "I sure wouldn't mind seeing more of her," as his gf sitting next to him says "Woah, down boy."
They project so hard about conservative-brain people being so horny all the time -- it's just that conservatives are more open about it, let it out on a regular basis, so it never builds up, and the level it reaches is only ever, "Say, I wouldn't mind giving her campaign a boost, if you know what I mean..."
Liberals keep it pent up more because they're constantly policing themselves and others for violations of anti-rape culture norms. They believe A leads to B leads to Z. So merely uttering something mildly horny will inexorably lead you to raping someone in the near future -- the horniness has a life of its own and only grows unless satisfied. So you have to nip it in the bud, or else every guy will be running amok raping left right and center.
For conservatives, expressing horniness is a negative feedback loop -- the words get the underlying urge out of your system, and that relieves the pressure. It's blowing off steam. For libs, it's a positive feedback loop -- once you speak it into existence, it takes on a life of its own. You've created Rapenstein's monster.
So you only hear libs express horniness when their internal policeman is off the clock, i.e. when they're in an altered state (their normal state is paranoia over rape culture, racism, etc.).
Drunken Matt Christman got in an unwoke joke about Tulsi. She was saying we need the best for all Americans, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Then Matt adds, "Or caste."
ReplyDeleteIt shows how hung up on race they are -- again, nuclear projection when they accuse conservatives of obsessing over race and viewing things in racial or ethnic terms.
Not just that they tell unwoke ethnic jokes while boozed up. That's just like with unwoke horny remarks -- showing it's there, just repressed in their ordinary state, and bubbling up to the surface when they're under the influence.
But also because Tulsi is not Indian or Hindu in an ascribed status way whatsoever -- and caste is an ascribed status, not achieved. It's her white American mother who adopted / converted to Hinduism, which Tulsi herself followed along with. She has no South Asian blood, ancestral ties to that land, or deep history of Hinduism in her family.
Her exotic ethnic make-up is Pacific Islander -- Samoan -- which is not genetically or culturally a part of South Asia.
But in the liberal mind, they've convinced themselves that she is favorable toward Modi -- like most US and world politicians -- because she's an ethnic nationalist right-winger, acting on her Hindu religion or her Indian genetic ancestry. In reality, she has no link to South Asia, so it has nothing to do with acting on her background.
They just see a swarthy practitioner of Hinduism and assume it's genetic -- she must be partly Indian / South Asian, of a Hindu caste.
Liberal-brain people have such an obsessive hair trigger over racial and ethnic issues, that they think you can't even speak about them, because it'll be a positive-feedback loop process that leads inexorably toward genocide. Whereas the conservative brain treats it as a negative feedback loop process -- you tell a few ethnic jokes every now and then, drop an ethnic slur here and there, and it lets you blow off steam, preventing genocide because the animus never intensifies from being pent up for so long.
That's why I'm not worried about anti-white genocide from blacks and others -- they blow off steam by telling jokes and slurs against whites on a regular basis.
ReplyDeleteBlack people have morally conservative brains like most of the world's people -- strong in-group preference, no kneejerk anti-authoritarianism against parents, revulsion toward things that are disgusting and unnatural (including homosexuality).
They vote Democrat and ally with moral liberals because politics is primarily material, not moral. And the Dem machine butters their bread, and blacks don't care if other recipients of the machine's patronage happen to be open-borders fudgepackers who tell their mother to STFU without getting slapped silly. As long as the blacks are getting their patronage, nothing else matters.
The worst advice is for them to bottle up their feelings like a repressed white liberal, as that would just cause them to intensify and explode in catastrophic fashion later on. That actually might lead to anti-white pogroms.
As long as they blow off steam like normies everywhere around the world, they won't organize a genocide of any group, white, Mexican, Korean, or otherwise.
That's for collective violence. Obviously individual-level crime will still happen by blacks against whites. But not the genocide that some right-wingers are paranoid about.
Krystal Ball is good on Bernie and Tulsi, one of a few media people who is. Unlike the radlibs, she does not hem and haw about Bernie being only kinda good, but not as far left as he could be, nor does she equate Bernie and Warren, say how eager she is to vote Warren if Bernie drops out, etc.
ReplyDeleteShe used to be on MSNBC, now on Rising for The Hill. Interviewed Michael Tracey recently.
Apropos of the ethnic composition of the anti-woke left, she's a white Southerner (Virginian).
Thanks so much, Ag! You gave me a real education a long time ago about booze, millenials, and plausible deniability. Can never not recall it when I hear one of them tell a story where they're the victim.
ReplyDeleteWhat did you think of Hillary calling Tulsi a Russian asset?
ReplyDeleteI think this is an awesome smack-down of that crooked old witch!
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289626409406464
Nothing brings the world together like hating Hillary Clinton. It really would rule if she entered the race again, especially since it would split up the establishment machine vote and give Bernie a chance at victory this time.
Tulsi on Tucker (one of the few bipartisan unity tickets I would be excited for):
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtgCC5cZP5Q
Right now, she's really the only Democrat who can bring about party realignment. Republicans and Trump sympathizers don't give a fuck about anyone other than her. And Dems are such partisan zombies, they'll follow anyone with a D after their name, including her, however much they claim to dislike her during a heated primary.
Bernie was poised to play that role, but he / his campaign / the broader left pissed that all away in the past couple years. They tarnished his image into being another extreme liberal on cultural / social issues, plus a little thing called Medicare For all.
People don't want a leftist for any single election, and they definitely will not realign their party preferences in favor of a leftist. Economic populist, cultural moderate / truce to the culture war.
I've been saying for a few years that the Dems have a far better chance of reaching some of their big reach goals, as long as it's on foreign policy / imperialism. Domestic econ stuff like M4A would be harder to achieve than pulling the US out of NATO countries, South Korea, and Japan, not to mention the Middle East / Afghanistan -- which is what Trump promised during the campaign.
I'm still voting for Bernie, to concentrate as many anti-Establishment votes in one place as possible, packing the strongest punch. But if he de facto stops running a campaign, and Tulsi is still doing her anti-imperialist thing, I might give her my vote instead.
Ideally Bernie grows a spine and defends Tulsi, while also savaging Crooked Hillary, and it brings everyone around to him as the champion of the anti-machine / anti-Establishment crowd.
If Bernie doesn't defend Tulsi, he's implicating himself as a "Russian asset," which is a secondary goal of the Clinton borg hive. Everything Tulsi is saying on foreign policy is supposedly in line with what Bernie has been proposing -- so Hillary is taking a shot at Bernie indirectly when she goes after Tulsi.
ReplyDeleteSo even if Bernie is not going to defend an ally of his, who has already taken fire on his behalf back in 2016, he ought to at least defend himself.
What's the risk? -- pissing off the Clintons? GOOD. Everybody hates their guts.
The weirdo left can't even boost Tulsi when she's slamming Hillary Clinton, who they supposedly hate, and over matters of anti-imperialism, which they also supposedly support. It's either ignore altogether, or "Meh, I don't care for either."
ReplyDeleteThey could not build a coalition to put in a traffic light at a busy intersection. They expect everyone to convert to their ways 100% -- and then wonder why Bernie has lost more than half his support from last time, as he / his campaign / the activist-industrial complex has tried to push Bernie over to meet the weirdo left where they already are, not force them to drop their retarded bullshit and meet Bernie and the normies where they were.
Weirdos are people like the Chapo Trap House gang, Jacobin, Current Affairs, and their boosters on Twitter. Some have over 100K followers, but generally in the 10K-100K range.
Normies are Michael Tracey, Shoe on head, Kyle Kulinski, Rania Khalek, Jimmy Dore, et al. All over 100K followers -- more popular, because they're not counter-cultural as their prime concern.
The weirdos are closer to the NGO-activist-industrial complex, and by a few steps, the Democrat machine establishment. The normie lefties, too, are media people, but they aren't as close with the activist / NGO / party insiders. They're more materially independent of the Democrat blob -- and therefore, more ideologically and strategically independent.
The weirdos don't like Tulsi because they figured out that she appeals to normies, and that subverts the counter-cultural agenda, as well as threaten the material livelihood of the weirdos. In a political world where Tulsi is one of the next big things, Jacobin, Current Affairs, et al are out of a job, and Chapo Trap House has to ditch political commentary in favor of cultural commentary.
Where AOC is one of the next big things, those guys all do well. So they will always treat AOC better than Tulsi, despite AOC being worse on populist and anti-imperialist issues than Tulsi. It's not about that for them. AOC and the weirdos are also more about intensifying partisan polarization, Tulsi and the normies more about mending the divide as much as possible to realign out of the Reagan era.
To secure their material welfare, the weirdos have to be the culturally left wing of neoliberalism, rather than the midwives of a party realignment that means they need to be friendly toward huge swaths of Republicans and Independents, as long as they're on board with important shared goals like shrinking the empire.
Sure enough, Aimee Terese is friendly toward Tulsi and her fans. She originally tried to join the weirdo left, on the assumption that they were at least better on economics and foreign policy. But no, she should join the Michael Tracey, Rania Khalek, Kyle Kulinski group of normies or normie-friendly lefties instead. Angela Nagle could pull that off as well.
"The weirdos don't like Tulsi because they figured out that she appeals to normies, and that subverts the counter-cultural agenda, as well as threaten the material livelihood of the weirdos."
ReplyDeleteThe night of the election, CTH was looking forward to their roles as anti-Hillary counterculture warriors, but they got caught taking her loss way too hard.
I didn't start listening to Chapo until fall or winter 2017, but when I got around to seeing that 25-30 minute documentary short about their election night coverage, it really hit home how much the late 2010s are like the early 2000s, with the whole vulnerable / victimization / emo mood.
ReplyDeleteIt was just like Bush winning in 2000, and the recount, Supreme Court stopping the recount, etc. It fired up the libs, but a fair amount of the radical / far left was up in arms too.
That was the sign that they would make peace with each other, to defeat Bushitler in '04 -- only they fucked it up by going full libtard, rather than bring anyone who voted for Bush over to their side by compromising on anything.
Michael Moore begged Nader not to run again in '04, just like so many leftists in good standing are either against Bernie, lukewarm, or taking constant potshots at him while professing to support him. They've got to rally around the lib/left goal of defeating the white supremacist menace in the White House.
Obama won so big in '08 because he ran on burying the hatchet in the culture wars (aside from the obvious material reasons: Iraq War disaster, financial crash, etc.). Hopefully after the Dems lose in '20, they'll put up someone more like Tulsi in '24 who will appeal to a wide range by burying the hatchet in the culture wars, and perhaps having to tell the leftoids directly to STFU with their alienating cultural bullshit.
They aren't the gatekeepers of electoral success anyway -- else, Kerry would've won in '04 with the help of the far / rad left doing all the Bushitler-themed stuff.
Tulsi ramping it up... Is this an inflection point? She's only at 1-2%, but if you add the pols supporting her, those ambivalent, etc.
ReplyDeleteAt my own online place, I don't discuss it: it's not worth antagonizing my MSM journalist friend, if he's still lurking. But, personally, her video she put out today was extremely emotional for me. It took me nearly two years to figure out what my crime was: hurting the DNC.
Bernie stepping up for Tulsi:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1186405744146554882
>Domestic econ stuff like M4A would be harder to achieve than pulling the US out of NATO countries, South Korea, and Japan, not to mention the Middle East / Afghanistan
ReplyDeleteHow did you come to this conclusion?