As long as Tulsi Gabbard does not cannibalize votes from the one plausible re-aligner candidate to unite around, Bernie Sanders, there's no problem in her running a campaign before the actual primary voting begins. She could help build enthusiasm for realignment during the debating stage, and get most of her supporters to go to the polls for Bernie during the voting stage. She endorsed him last time, and they mostly overlap on the issues, so that should not be too hard for her to do.
The real threat to uniting around Bernie is Pocahontas, who will not campaign on the same issues as he will -- she is a Reaganite, not a realigner -- but who will still position herself as an enemy of the banks. She will not drop out before voting begins, nor eagerly plead with her supporters to vote for Bernie, whom she refused to endorse last time.
With Tulsi in the race during the debate stage, she and Bernie can tag-team the neoliberals -- Bernie focusing more on domestic issues, and Tulsi on foreign policy. They will force the dozen other neolibs to promise crushing austerity programs domestically, and endless wasteful destruction abroad.
That will be the main split among the candidates -- survival or extinction. Most voters will not care what particular flavor their austerity/warmonger candidate comes in. They are sick of the failed Reaganite system, and want major change. That leaves only Bernie/Tulsi. The voters who materially benefit from austerity and war will split their vote a dozen different ways, just like the anti-realigners did during the GOP primary in 2016, clearing the way for a consolidated realignment vote in favor of Trump.
Tulsi's function in the prelude to voting will be to force voters to choose between identity politics and material issues like healthcare, wages, and war. She will be pilloried by liberals for not being pro-gay, pro-choice, or pro-Islamist. These are empty dead-end identity issues for materially comfortable liberals to jerk themselves off to -- no different than being vocally against gay marriage, pro-life, or anti-Islamist are empty identity issues for materially comfortable conservatives.
Someone who wants to improve material conditions first and foremost will form an alliance with anyone else who does, regardless of their differences on less important social-cultural issues. So Tulsi is perfectly happy to endorse and work with Bernie, who holds more liberal positions on the social issues. And Bernie is happy to work with Tulsi. Each one of them does not care about these marginal identity issues, or else their alliance would never have formed.
Those who put empty identity issues first could stand behind Bernie but would reject Tulsi. This includes most of the so-called "socialists" who have re-branded themselves after Bernie's 2016 campaign. They're not the inheritors of historical socialism, which is class-first and anti-imperialist. They just got tired of being called SJWs, but still could not leave behind their favorite label of "social justice". In practice, in the US in 2019, "socialism" mainly means "social justice-ism" AKA "intersectionality".
That's how the DSA shot up in membership by several orders of magnitude overnight -- tens of thousands of former liberals or progressives did not suddenly adopt a whole new worldview, vision, strategy, tone, or set of goals. They're the same ol' libs and progs from before Bernie showed up, but since the hot new phenomenon labeled himself a "democratic socialist," well, they had to adopt that label as well. They've always styled themselves as radicals, and "socialism" has a radical connotation, so they're happy to adopt the term. But fundamentally, they are stylistically-radical liberals ("radlibs" in the words of the class-first, anti-imperialist Left).
These libs and progs will not condemn Tulsi for her economic policies, which they mostly share, so these opponents are not pro-austerity. They are pro-welfare state. But they will scold her for discussing radical Islamic terrorism, on the basis of any criticism of any Muslim individual or group being Islamophobic. She will make these crazy woketards say that we must let ourselves get blown up by jihadists just to prove that we aren't Islamophobic. And that anyone who isn't a Sunni Muslim in the Middle East must let themselves get blown up, their shrines desecrated, and their villages bulldozed, to prove they have not bought into the Western white supremacist myth of radical Islam.
These identitarian attacks against Tulsi's foreign policy agenda benefit the Pentagon's alliance with the Salafi jihadists of the Gulf like Saudi Arabia, who along with Israel are our partners in imperialism throughout the Middle East. This puts the woke crowd in league with the imperialists. And if there's anything the American people hate, it's political correctness and endless wars -- combine them both, and it's an electoral death wish. Tulsi's campaign will serve to flush the woke imperialists out of any realignment coalition.
There are far more politically incorrect anti-imperialists than there are woke imperialists, and being more Independent in partisan affiliation, they would have no problem invading the Democrat primary to vote for Bernie, if Tulsi withdraws and endorses him. The woketards are far more moralistically partisan, and would rather drop out of Bernie's electoral coalition if it meant sharing space with those who are ritually unclean ("deplorable"). All the more space for us, then, who don't mind mingling with different groups, as long as they share our goals.
Realignment of the Democrats into the dominant party, after Reaganism, requires purging themselves of their anti-coalitional members, i.e. those who want a smaller purer party. All politics is coalitional, and a dominant party must be even more of a cohesive coalition than the opposition party. And in order to realign, they must secure permanent massive defections from the current dominant party. In 2019, that means stealing away legions of Trump voters for the indefinite future. The only way to do that is to say "We're going to bury the hatchet on all this pointless culture war BS, and focus on improving material living standards at home, and cutting loose our dead weight empire abroad."
Woketards will never bury the hatchet on the culture wars, so they will purge themselves out of this new realignment coalition, especially once they get a taste of large numbers of former Trump voters sharing the room with them. Tulsi's campaign can be a call to the Trumpian cavalry to come to the aid of Bernie during the primary, when he's most desperate.
The strategy for Trumpian populists should be supporting Tulsi during the debating stage, then voting for Bernie when the polls open. Bernie is the only viable candidate to crush the identity politics crowd for good, by winning on material issues after getting vilified as a racist sexist old white man. Just as Trump was the only viable candidate to crush right-wing identity politics (pandering to evangelicals), by winning on material issues after getting vilified as an atheist adulterer with "New York values".
Reminder that most media Leftists are controlled by Qatari Islamist petro-dollars. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are the twin centers for the spread of radical Islam (Wahhabism / Salafism), with Qatar focusing more on infiltrating civic institutions to enact Islamist policies, and SA focusing more on direct military conflict to impose these policies.ReplyDelete
So Qatar co-opts informational institutions to spread propaganda, while SA co-opts military-related institutions. Qatar aligns with the media cartel, SA with the MIC cartel. Qatar aligns with Democrats, SA with Republicans.
Qatar realized that in order to infiltrate the Western media to spread Islamist propaganda, they had to end the culture war with the West. If Western nations enact gay marriage, raise the minimum wage, or protect their natural environment, what does that matter to Qatar? Their attempted sphere of influence is in the Middle East, so as long as gay marriage etc. does not reach Qatar or the ME -- and it will not, with puritanical Islamists in control of Qatar -- then who cares if it is enacted in the degenerate West?
This is how the energy-sector ruling class of Qatar infiltrates Western media. Promote socially liberal policies for the West, while promoting Islamist-friendly foreign policy for the West vis-a-vis the ME. Al Jazeera Plus, targeting the (liberal) American audience, is the most direct form of this strategy, as AJ is Qatari owned and operated.
But they clearly have influence over other media outlets, and especially those that are not part of the Big Five corporate media cartel. These non-corporate outlets are financially desperate, and they are willing to sell their souls to the Islamist foreign policy demands of their Qatari benefactors, in order to get funding for socially left-wing views in America.
You don't have to do forensic accounting to trace Qatari influence -- this can be very arcane. Just look at who is not part of the corporate media, promotes socially leftist views, but wants to destabilize the secular government of Syria while keeping mum about the jihadist nature of the opposition to Assad.
That is a signature of Qatari influence -- who else is socially left-wing (for the West) but has a big fat boner for neocon imperialism in the Middle East?
This reveals Democracy Now, The Intercept, and Jacobin as compromised by Qatari wealth or influence. Probably others as well -- these are just the most obvious ones that have a high profile in leftist circles.
This is yet another reason why leftists from the media sector are more in favor of the Reaganite status quo, compared to leftists from purely academic backgrounds, as I detailed here:ReplyDelete
The material interests of media leftists depend unusually heavily on Qatari Islamist funding, especially if they don't have mainstream US corporate funding.
Academics, in contrast, are supported by US taxpayers via government grants, government-financed student loans that provide the demand for their higher-ed services, and outright salaries if they work for a public university. The US gov writ large is not in the pocketbook of Qatar, so their influence is diluted among academic leftists relative to media leftists, who are more likely to be owned lock stock and barrel by Qatar.
The exception on the media left is those who are financed by a left-leaning oil state like Venezuela, who pays for a lot of Telesur, which hosts media leftists like Abby Martin (Empire Files). Chavismo in Venezuela does not depend on Islamism, so they don't care if their Western beneficiaries support a secular Syrian govt against the jihadist opposition and its allies in the Pentagon/CIA.
And certainly if media leftists get funding from Russia, via RT, they are getting petro-funding from a govt that is against US imperialism in the ME -- not only to keep a geostrategic rival out of their sphere of influence, but also to keep jihadists from Russia's neighbors from invading and destabilizing Russia. Russia right now is not very left-leaning on social issues, but they don't care if the West adopts socially liberal policies -- if they have to promote left social issues in the West, in order to grab the attention of Western liberals, in order to advance Russia-friendly US foreign policy, then it's a no-brainer for them.
Again, no need to do forensic accounting to see who's getting money or influence from Venezuela / Russia vs. from Qatar -- just look at the outlet's stance on Syria. Abby Martin, as a prominent example, worked for outlets funded by both of the good ones and not for outlets funded by the bad one. So she and her fellow travelers are more trustworthy on foreign policy than people from Democracy Now, The Intercept, or Jacobin.
This is all apropos of media leftists attacking Tulsi, who interferes with their Qatari-funded strategy of amping up leftist social issues while advocating for Islamist-friendly foreign policy. She's the opposite -- moderate-to-conservative culturally (and doesn't give these issues importance to begin with), and against the Pentagon/CIA interventions in the Middle East in alliance with SA, Qatar, Pakistan, and other Islamist states.ReplyDelete
Here's Michael Tracey correcting the record on a Jacobin article slamming Tulsi, and an article from Truth Dig about Jacobin's flagrant Pentagon/CIA Islamist propaganda regarding Syria:
The fundamental flaw in these media-left sources is their continued primary emphasis on identity rather than material conditions. They take "racism" first, and then foreign policy flows from that. And in their view, Islamism and jihadism are tantamount to Islam in general. So anyone who wants to curb jihadist destabilization of the ME, or of the broader world, is an Islamophobic bigot deep down. And that deep-down identitarian bigotry is what drives them toward their foreign policy views.
The reality is that we don't want people's daily material lives destabilized, whether by this group or that group. If it happens to be radical Muslims doing the de-stabilizing, then that's who we need to contain, de-fang, or eliminate.
For the identitarians, eliminating bigotry is the primary goal, and foreign policy flows from that. Countering Islamophobia in the West means supporting Islamists in the ME, for example the opposition to the secular Syrian state.
This shows that many or most of the media left is not "socialist," in the sense of materialists who are class-first and anti-imperialist, but rather "social justice-ist" in the sense of re-branded and intensified SJWs who put identity first, believe cultural bigotry determines foreign policy, and who are either indifferent to or in favor of imperialism.
Rania Khalek is like Abby Martin in getting funding from Russia instead of Qatar, and so being able to spread info about US support for jihadists in the Middle East, and advocate against the continued US presence there. And, to endorse and defend Tulsi Gabbard against her Qatari-controlled detractors.ReplyDelete
In their recent Unauthorized Disclosure podcast, Kevin Gosztola said he co-hosts a radio show for Sputnik, and that Rania makes social media video clips for In The Now, which is owned by the same parent co. as RT.
Since Russia is aligned with the truth-tellers on US policy in the ME, they're one of the few state sources of funding you can get in order to spread info and advocate politically for us to get the hell out of there already.
Every time someone accuses them, Abby Martin, et al of being "funded by Russia / Putin / the Kremlin," they and their supporters need to dismiss it with, "You're just a paid puppet of the jihadist elites of Qatar (if liberal) or Saudi Arabia (if conservative) -- no wonder you support the Pentagon and CIA's alliance with the jihadist militias in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere."
The American people are much less tolerant of us getting in bed with ground zero for radical Islamic terrorism, than they are "getting along with Russia" -- as proven by Trump's upset victory in the primaries and the general. If we wanted a hawk against Russia, and a butt boy for jihadism, we'd have voted for Marco Rubio or Crooked Hillary Clinton.
It appears that the unbiased media has begun unbiasedly building consensus for Harris to become the Democratic nominee:ReplyDelete
Disturbing how the NYT is not so subtly throwing Tulsi under the bus already.
Why do people internalize the "nation of immigrants" rhetoric so easily and sincerely? Is it because it somehow helps them rationalize striving/cocooning behavior? There seems to be a connection since a striving cocooner seems like they could be in a very similar mindset to someone fresh off the boat, generally alienated and back-against-the-wall, ruthlessly competitive .ReplyDelete