The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Tom Engelhardt ArchiveBlogview
Frida Berrigan, Resistance Is Fertile (Not Futile)
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Dystopian, yes. Unimaginable, no. In fact, a version of our present moment was imagined more than eight decades ago by novelist Sinclair Lewis who wrote a still readable (if now fictionally clunky) novel, It Can’t Happen Here. Its focus: the election as president of a man we might today call a right-wing “populist,” but who, in the context of the 1930s, was simply an American fascist. Lewis gave him the fabulous name Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip and, unlike our president of the moment, he wasn’t a billionaire from New York but a politician from the Midwest.

As we all know, fascism didn’t come to America in the 1930s. Still, in his instant bestseller, Lewis caught the essence of an American tendency that hasn’t left us. And if you read his book now, you can’t help but be struck by certain passages that have the eerie ring not of 1935 but of 2017. Take Lewis’ description of the journalistic Svengali, Lee Sarason (think: Steve Bannon), who wrote his fictional president’s single famous book: “Though he probably based it on notes dictated by Windrip — himself no fool in the matter of fictional imagination — Sarason had certainly done the actual writing of Windrip’s lone book, the Bible of his followers, part biography, part economic program, and part plain exhibitionistic boasting, called Zero Hour — Over the Top.”

Exhibitionist boasting? Sound faintly familiar? Or take this passage about a U.S. Army major general who leads a militaristic show of support for Windrip at the political convention that nominates him: “Not in all the memory of the older reporters had a soldier on active service ever appeared as a public political agitator.” Though Michael Flynn (the “lock her up” guy) was a retired lieutenant general when he strutted his stuff at the 2016 Republican convention, doesn’t it sound uncannily familiar? Or to pick another example, at one point in Windrip’s ever more authoritarian presidency, the book’s protagonist, journalist Doremus Jessup, has these thoughts, which have a distinctly Trumpian feel to them: “He simply did not believe that this comic tyranny could endure. It can’t happen here, said even Doremus — even now.” Admittedly, the ability to tweet was still 70 years away, but comic nightmare, dystopian revelry, a nation slipping further into a militarized state of autocracy?

These days, all of us, it seems, are Doremus Jessups, facing both the increasingly grim and bizarrely comic aspects of the Trump era and all of us have to deal with them in our own lives in our own ways. With that in mind, we’ve turned to TomDispatch regular Frida Berrigan (and her children) for both inspiration and a striking meditation on the dystopian world of Donald Trump and how to face it.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Fascism, TomDispatch Archives 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
    []
  1. “These days, all of us, it seems, are Doremus Jessups, facing both the increasingly grim and bizarrely comic aspects of the Trump era and all of us have to deal with them in ….”

    Come, come Mr. Engelhardt, how exactly has Mr. Trump managed to achieve what you accuse him of? How has he made your life grim and what bizarre comic aspects do you see in his Presidency? He was elected by the American people on a platform you may not agree with, but that does not render the man a comic. If anything, he has attempted to do what he was elected to do – surprised? That Mr. Trump has made slow progress is because he is obstructed – as no American President has ever been – by the media, the courts, by his own administration, and of course by those self anointed paragons of virtue and wisdom – the progressives, aka the loony left. Perhaps you would have loved him if he took part in Pride parades like the Prime Minister of Canada? Or perhaps he would have earned your support if he had let loose a torrent of “refugees” into the US, like Merkel has in Germany? What exactly do you want him to do? Start a war with Russia like the Neocons would? Wave a big stick at Russia like Clinton and Obama? Talk hypocritical lies and nonsense non-stop like Obama? Ah, I see, you find his times grim because the man does not smile like Obama. Perhaps we the people should remind Mr. Trump to scowl less, smile more, twitter less and give more “soaring and lofty” speeches a la Obama. I am afraid I just don’t get you new, new left lefties. Perhaps I need a sex-change operation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @restless94110
    I have frequently said in the comments on here at unz much the same thing about the essays Tom E. posts and his commentary he posts about them.

    It is the most extraordinary thing in my life (maybe) as I have always had radical views (e.g., both drugs and prostitution, legalize it now). However, in the past few years I began noticing an odd dogma spewing from left writing and video outlets such as Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, and the ugly spews of Chris Hedges on porn and started to wonder wtf was happening.

    And then Trump got elected. And it was like the zombie apocolypse. I still can't understand how people who I once thought were sensible, even great in some instances, thinkers and writers have gone completely batshit insane.

    Tom is one of them as is everyone who writes for him (or that he posts). Even Andrew Bacevich has been infected.

    I don't want to be a doomist, but this development could not be a good sign for anyone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    //www.unz.com/tengelhardt/frida-berrigan-resistance-is-fertile-not-futile/#comment-1931270
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. To paraphrase Huey Long, when fa comes to America, they’ll call it “antifa”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Fa-- a long long way to go?

    We'll see, anyway...
  3. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Reg Cæsar
    To paraphrase Huey Long, when fa comes to America, they'll call it "antifa".

    Fa– a long long way to go?

    We’ll see, anyway…

    Read More
  4. @yeah
    "These days, all of us, it seems, are Doremus Jessups, facing both the increasingly grim and bizarrely comic aspects of the Trump era and all of us have to deal with them in ...."

    Come, come Mr. Engelhardt, how exactly has Mr. Trump managed to achieve what you accuse him of? How has he made your life grim and what bizarre comic aspects do you see in his Presidency? He was elected by the American people on a platform you may not agree with, but that does not render the man a comic. If anything, he has attempted to do what he was elected to do - surprised? That Mr. Trump has made slow progress is because he is obstructed - as no American President has ever been - by the media, the courts, by his own administration, and of course by those self anointed paragons of virtue and wisdom - the progressives, aka the loony left. Perhaps you would have loved him if he took part in Pride parades like the Prime Minister of Canada? Or perhaps he would have earned your support if he had let loose a torrent of "refugees" into the US, like Merkel has in Germany? What exactly do you want him to do? Start a war with Russia like the Neocons would? Wave a big stick at Russia like Clinton and Obama? Talk hypocritical lies and nonsense non-stop like Obama? Ah, I see, you find his times grim because the man does not smile like Obama. Perhaps we the people should remind Mr. Trump to scowl less, smile more, twitter less and give more "soaring and lofty" speeches a la Obama. I am afraid I just don't get you new, new left lefties. Perhaps I need a sex-change operation?

    I have frequently said in the comments on here at unz much the same thing about the essays Tom E. posts and his commentary he posts about them.

    It is the most extraordinary thing in my life (maybe) as I have always had radical views (e.g., both drugs and prostitution, legalize it now). However, in the past few years I began noticing an odd dogma spewing from left writing and video outlets such as Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now, and the ugly spews of Chris Hedges on porn and started to wonder wtf was happening.

    And then Trump got elected. And it was like the zombie apocolypse. I still can’t understand how people who I once thought were sensible, even great in some instances, thinkers and writers have gone completely batshit insane.

    Tom is one of them as is everyone who writes for him (or that he posts). Even Andrew Bacevich has been infected.

    I don’t want to be a doomist, but this development could not be a good sign for anyone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    A lot of Deep State assets are outing themselves. Trump ascendency has disrupted the Establishment theater. For a long time there have been credible allegations that Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! is CIA-funded U.S. intelligence asset. Same thing with other far-left outlets. This is Deep State's most valuable, powerful, and sophisticated operation, its numerous assets--and even operatives-- in the far-left.
    , @WorkingClass
    "And it was like the zombie apocalypse."

    Agreed. I read this thing. It would be a good fluff piece in a women's magazine absent the oblique references to Donald Trump. If I were a woman I would be insulted.
    , @yeah
    @restless94110; Anonymous; WorkingClass

    We seem to be on the same side on the "Trump line" and our "progressive" friends on the other. Yes, apart from the comic relief provided by the spectacles that the loony left provide as they cross-dress, fight for bathroom rights, and don pussy hats to boost their I.Q.s, it is worrying, very worrying indeed, how otherwise intelligent people have gone batshit crazy about things trivial, even as they swallow more and more neocon marbles and move away from issues that really ought to matter. We are in dangerous times, folks, when the youth gets taken over by delusions and falsehoods. Could the source of our troubled times lie in the pervasive influence of digital media? Perhaps all that time on facebook, Twitter (sorry Mr. Trump, not alluding to your case), and the net does something to the brain? Like shortened attention spans, neglect of logic, facts, and reasoning, and unlimited opportunity to throw temper tantrums and indulge in self-love? I just don't understand. I think I'll start wearing pussy hats to boost my IQ.
  5. What all this shows is: The left has returned to its moral and mental state during the “Red Decade”. Democracy woud normally mean that a rightwing politician can become president as well as a leftwing – but this was untenable for them then and it’s the same state of mind now.
    They finally got used to it in the McCarthy/Eisenhower era. I hope they will get used to it again.

    Read More
  6. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @restless94110
    I have frequently said in the comments on here at unz much the same thing about the essays Tom E. posts and his commentary he posts about them.

    It is the most extraordinary thing in my life (maybe) as I have always had radical views (e.g., both drugs and prostitution, legalize it now). However, in the past few years I began noticing an odd dogma spewing from left writing and video outlets such as Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, and the ugly spews of Chris Hedges on porn and started to wonder wtf was happening.

    And then Trump got elected. And it was like the zombie apocolypse. I still can't understand how people who I once thought were sensible, even great in some instances, thinkers and writers have gone completely batshit insane.

    Tom is one of them as is everyone who writes for him (or that he posts). Even Andrew Bacevich has been infected.

    I don't want to be a doomist, but this development could not be a good sign for anyone.

    A lot of Deep State assets are outing themselves. Trump ascendency has disrupted the Establishment theater. For a long time there have been credible allegations that Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! is CIA-funded U.S. intelligence asset. Same thing with other far-left outlets. This is Deep State’s most valuable, powerful, and sophisticated operation, its numerous assets–and even operatives– in the far-left.

    Read More
  7. What we are experiencing now is a concerted effort by the USA’s and the EU’s establishment and the USA’s deep state to mount a coup against the current constitutionally elected President of the USA. And the progs in this country are all on board for this. The cold civil war will turn hot if this coup is successful. We may be heading towards something like the “troubles” that racked Ireland in the 1920s and still cause problems in that country and Northern Ireland.

    Read More
  8. @restless94110
    I have frequently said in the comments on here at unz much the same thing about the essays Tom E. posts and his commentary he posts about them.

    It is the most extraordinary thing in my life (maybe) as I have always had radical views (e.g., both drugs and prostitution, legalize it now). However, in the past few years I began noticing an odd dogma spewing from left writing and video outlets such as Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, and the ugly spews of Chris Hedges on porn and started to wonder wtf was happening.

    And then Trump got elected. And it was like the zombie apocolypse. I still can't understand how people who I once thought were sensible, even great in some instances, thinkers and writers have gone completely batshit insane.

    Tom is one of them as is everyone who writes for him (or that he posts). Even Andrew Bacevich has been infected.

    I don't want to be a doomist, but this development could not be a good sign for anyone.

    “And it was like the zombie apocalypse.”

    Agreed. I read this thing. It would be a good fluff piece in a women’s magazine absent the oblique references to Donald Trump. If I were a woman I would be insulted.

    Read More
  9. @restless94110
    I have frequently said in the comments on here at unz much the same thing about the essays Tom E. posts and his commentary he posts about them.

    It is the most extraordinary thing in my life (maybe) as I have always had radical views (e.g., both drugs and prostitution, legalize it now). However, in the past few years I began noticing an odd dogma spewing from left writing and video outlets such as Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, and the ugly spews of Chris Hedges on porn and started to wonder wtf was happening.

    And then Trump got elected. And it was like the zombie apocolypse. I still can't understand how people who I once thought were sensible, even great in some instances, thinkers and writers have gone completely batshit insane.

    Tom is one of them as is everyone who writes for him (or that he posts). Even Andrew Bacevich has been infected.

    I don't want to be a doomist, but this development could not be a good sign for anyone.

    ; Anonymous; WorkingClass

    We seem to be on the same side on the “Trump line” and our “progressive” friends on the other. Yes, apart from the comic relief provided by the spectacles that the loony left provide as they cross-dress, fight for bathroom rights, and don pussy hats to boost their I.Q.s, it is worrying, very worrying indeed, how otherwise intelligent people have gone batshit crazy about things trivial, even as they swallow more and more neocon marbles and move away from issues that really ought to matter. We are in dangerous times, folks, when the youth gets taken over by delusions and falsehoods. Could the source of our troubled times lie in the pervasive influence of digital media? Perhaps all that time on facebook, Twitter (sorry Mr. Trump, not alluding to your case), and the net does something to the brain? Like shortened attention spans, neglect of logic, facts, and reasoning, and unlimited opportunity to throw temper tantrums and indulge in self-love? I just don’t understand. I think I’ll start wearing pussy hats to boost my IQ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @restless94110
    If you wear your pussy hat your IQ will not be boosted.

    Since I am grandfather to two millenials, I'm going to pin their problems directly onto my daughter's generation: Gen X. And this is another thing, I have been hearing incessantly recently: It is the Baby Boomers who are responsible for the fragile, triggered Millenials. Say what? Did those neurotic, navel-gazing, geography-ignorant, logical-thinking-ignorant Gen Xers just get thrown down the memory hole? What happened to them? I haven 't heard Gen X mentioned in years, yet they are the parents that helicoptered the shit out of their children.

    Hey, my daughter is a part of that generation, and yeah, she did appear to be micro-managing. When her daughters started exhibiting signs (anxiety attacks, fragility) of not being able to make their own mistakes, she didn't know what to make of it. She eventually decided they were being ungrateful, at least I think that's where she is at with it now. But my other comments about Gen-X come from direct experience, when 25 years ago, most of my friends were Gen-X, since back then I looked 25 years younger than I was (this is not vanity, just a fact, fortunately or not).

    You're right. It is dangerous times. I don't know a whole lot about the Red Guard thing in the 70s in China or the Pol Pot madness about then, but I believe that a whole generation of young people were convinced about some murderous and/or stupid ideology and went on a country-wide rampage.

    Finally, one last comment about the looney left mentioned by you and by me earlier. I have recently evolved my thinking on that, though I believe this evolution was suggested by someone I read. Let's take Noam Chomsky to illustrate.

    Chomsky is frequently titled our most famous leftist or some such like that. I studied Linguistics in university recently (yes, 2 degrees in my old age), and so I am familiar with his revolutionary work in that field in the early 1960s. And I, before the left went south, have listened to many many of his interviews and lectures.

    I began to think: why would not such a prominent leftist openly question the impossible physics of the WTC buildings collapse on 9-11? The physics are impossible, end of story. A prominent leftist such as Chomsky would affect the Overton Window enormously by being courageous in just asserting that the laws of physics make it impossible to have happened that way.

    So why is Chomsky and other so-called "prominent" leftists not using their powerful podiums to state obvious facts? Why aren't they questioning and discussing? It looks like cowardice from here. I can't see any other reason actually. It's left to people like Paul Craig Roberts or Architects & Engineers or a high school physics teacher in Visalia to state the obvious.

    Why is that? What kind of leftist would ignore science?

    Yeah, I believe we are in for some very weird times in the next few years.

  10. @yeah
    @restless94110; Anonymous; WorkingClass

    We seem to be on the same side on the "Trump line" and our "progressive" friends on the other. Yes, apart from the comic relief provided by the spectacles that the loony left provide as they cross-dress, fight for bathroom rights, and don pussy hats to boost their I.Q.s, it is worrying, very worrying indeed, how otherwise intelligent people have gone batshit crazy about things trivial, even as they swallow more and more neocon marbles and move away from issues that really ought to matter. We are in dangerous times, folks, when the youth gets taken over by delusions and falsehoods. Could the source of our troubled times lie in the pervasive influence of digital media? Perhaps all that time on facebook, Twitter (sorry Mr. Trump, not alluding to your case), and the net does something to the brain? Like shortened attention spans, neglect of logic, facts, and reasoning, and unlimited opportunity to throw temper tantrums and indulge in self-love? I just don't understand. I think I'll start wearing pussy hats to boost my IQ.

    If you wear your pussy hat your IQ will not be boosted.

    Since I am grandfather to two millenials, I’m going to pin their problems directly onto my daughter’s generation: Gen X. And this is another thing, I have been hearing incessantly recently: It is the Baby Boomers who are responsible for the fragile, triggered Millenials. Say what? Did those neurotic, navel-gazing, geography-ignorant, logical-thinking-ignorant Gen Xers just get thrown down the memory hole? What happened to them? I haven ‘t heard Gen X mentioned in years, yet they are the parents that helicoptered the shit out of their children.

    Hey, my daughter is a part of that generation, and yeah, she did appear to be micro-managing. When her daughters started exhibiting signs (anxiety attacks, fragility) of not being able to make their own mistakes, she didn’t know what to make of it. She eventually decided they were being ungrateful, at least I think that’s where she is at with it now. But my other comments about Gen-X come from direct experience, when 25 years ago, most of my friends were Gen-X, since back then I looked 25 years younger than I was (this is not vanity, just a fact, fortunately or not).

    You’re right. It is dangerous times. I don’t know a whole lot about the Red Guard thing in the 70s in China or the Pol Pot madness about then, but I believe that a whole generation of young people were convinced about some murderous and/or stupid ideology and went on a country-wide rampage.

    Finally, one last comment about the looney left mentioned by you and by me earlier. I have recently evolved my thinking on that, though I believe this evolution was suggested by someone I read. Let’s take Noam Chomsky to illustrate.

    Chomsky is frequently titled our most famous leftist or some such like that. I studied Linguistics in university recently (yes, 2 degrees in my old age), and so I am familiar with his revolutionary work in that field in the early 1960s. And I, before the left went south, have listened to many many of his interviews and lectures.

    I began to think: why would not such a prominent leftist openly question the impossible physics of the WTC buildings collapse on 9-11? The physics are impossible, end of story. A prominent leftist such as Chomsky would affect the Overton Window enormously by being courageous in just asserting that the laws of physics make it impossible to have happened that way.

    So why is Chomsky and other so-called “prominent” leftists not using their powerful podiums to state obvious facts? Why aren’t they questioning and discussing? It looks like cowardice from here. I can’t see any other reason actually. It’s left to people like Paul Craig Roberts or Architects & Engineers or a high school physics teacher in Visalia to state the obvious.

    Why is that? What kind of leftist would ignore science?

    Yeah, I believe we are in for some very weird times in the next few years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Why is that? What kind of leftist would ignore science?
     
    I'll give it a brief shot.

    Most of the left, younger in particular, don't actually think. We should leave those out of conversation.

    Those who do think are interested in one thing only:power.

    If science (or anything else for that matter) helps them in that quest they'll use it. Or won't use it.
    Power is the sole criteria.

    Now, from there it goes into several groups/threads.

    From, actually, internal enemies to useful idiots, and anything in between.
  11. ” It looks like cowardice from here.”

    You answered your own question. If it looks like a duck……………

    Read More
  12. @restless94110
    If you wear your pussy hat your IQ will not be boosted.

    Since I am grandfather to two millenials, I'm going to pin their problems directly onto my daughter's generation: Gen X. And this is another thing, I have been hearing incessantly recently: It is the Baby Boomers who are responsible for the fragile, triggered Millenials. Say what? Did those neurotic, navel-gazing, geography-ignorant, logical-thinking-ignorant Gen Xers just get thrown down the memory hole? What happened to them? I haven 't heard Gen X mentioned in years, yet they are the parents that helicoptered the shit out of their children.

    Hey, my daughter is a part of that generation, and yeah, she did appear to be micro-managing. When her daughters started exhibiting signs (anxiety attacks, fragility) of not being able to make their own mistakes, she didn't know what to make of it. She eventually decided they were being ungrateful, at least I think that's where she is at with it now. But my other comments about Gen-X come from direct experience, when 25 years ago, most of my friends were Gen-X, since back then I looked 25 years younger than I was (this is not vanity, just a fact, fortunately or not).

    You're right. It is dangerous times. I don't know a whole lot about the Red Guard thing in the 70s in China or the Pol Pot madness about then, but I believe that a whole generation of young people were convinced about some murderous and/or stupid ideology and went on a country-wide rampage.

    Finally, one last comment about the looney left mentioned by you and by me earlier. I have recently evolved my thinking on that, though I believe this evolution was suggested by someone I read. Let's take Noam Chomsky to illustrate.

    Chomsky is frequently titled our most famous leftist or some such like that. I studied Linguistics in university recently (yes, 2 degrees in my old age), and so I am familiar with his revolutionary work in that field in the early 1960s. And I, before the left went south, have listened to many many of his interviews and lectures.

    I began to think: why would not such a prominent leftist openly question the impossible physics of the WTC buildings collapse on 9-11? The physics are impossible, end of story. A prominent leftist such as Chomsky would affect the Overton Window enormously by being courageous in just asserting that the laws of physics make it impossible to have happened that way.

    So why is Chomsky and other so-called "prominent" leftists not using their powerful podiums to state obvious facts? Why aren't they questioning and discussing? It looks like cowardice from here. I can't see any other reason actually. It's left to people like Paul Craig Roberts or Architects & Engineers or a high school physics teacher in Visalia to state the obvious.

    Why is that? What kind of leftist would ignore science?

    Yeah, I believe we are in for some very weird times in the next few years.

    Why is that? What kind of leftist would ignore science?

    I’ll give it a brief shot.

    Most of the left, younger in particular, don’t actually think. We should leave those out of conversation.

    Those who do think are interested in one thing only:power.

    If science (or anything else for that matter) helps them in that quest they’ll use it. Or won’t use it.
    Power is the sole criteria.

    Now, from there it goes into several groups/threads.

    From, actually, internal enemies to useful idiots, and anything in between.

    Read More
    • Replies: @restless94110
    You have taken me out of context.

    But, in context, you evidently think you are saying that liberals ignore the laws of physics when it comes to the events of 9-11, because they are into power. That's what you just said to me in your reply.

    Did you really mean to say that?

    Becuase I don't see what some liberal's thirst for power has to do with ignoring physics.

    I also don't believe that a label for a group (remember, I still consider myself a radical liberal) means that everyone in that group (who cares, as you say) are solely into power.

    But what power? Power over a city?

    And why would a bunch of liberals want power? I don't think there's much of a plan there on that side.

    I haven't mentioned this before, but liberals really only appear to want to be morally right.

    They continue to focus on morality. That seems to be the thing that ties liberals together: being seen as a "good" person. Voicing displeasure against "immoral" people.

    That's it.
  13. @peterAUS

    Why is that? What kind of leftist would ignore science?
     
    I'll give it a brief shot.

    Most of the left, younger in particular, don't actually think. We should leave those out of conversation.

    Those who do think are interested in one thing only:power.

    If science (or anything else for that matter) helps them in that quest they'll use it. Or won't use it.
    Power is the sole criteria.

    Now, from there it goes into several groups/threads.

    From, actually, internal enemies to useful idiots, and anything in between.

    You have taken me out of context.

    But, in context, you evidently think you are saying that liberals ignore the laws of physics when it comes to the events of 9-11, because they are into power. That’s what you just said to me in your reply.

    Did you really mean to say that?

    Becuase I don’t see what some liberal’s thirst for power has to do with ignoring physics.

    I also don’t believe that a label for a group (remember, I still consider myself a radical liberal) means that everyone in that group (who cares, as you say) are solely into power.

    But what power? Power over a city?

    And why would a bunch of liberals want power? I don’t think there’s much of a plan there on that side.

    I haven’t mentioned this before, but liberals really only appear to want to be morally right.

    They continue to focus on morality. That seems to be the thing that ties liberals together: being seen as a “good” person. Voicing displeasure against “immoral” people.

    That’s it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Did you really mean to say that?
     
    Yes.

    Becuase I don’t see what some liberal’s thirst for power has to do with ignoring physics.
     
    O.K.

    I also don’t believe that a label for a group (remember, I still consider myself a radical liberal) means that everyone in that group (who cares, as you say) are solely into power.
     
    O.K.

    But what power? Power over a city?
    And why would a bunch of liberals want power? I don’t think there’s much of a plan there on that side.
     
    Could be.
    This guy, for example, believes otherwise.
    When you have time/inclination, perhaps you could take a look.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch v=PkNzYttjSHE&list=PLFZ9Q6hV6p6GeT_JL_KMukNENPJ8tlk0v

    If the link doesn't work, Jordan Peterson is the name.

    I haven’t mentioned this before, but liberals really only appear to want to be morally right.
    They continue to focus on morality. That seems to be the thing that ties liberals together: being seen as a “good” person. Voicing displeasure against “immoral” people.
    That’s it.
     
    O.K.
  14. @restless94110
    You have taken me out of context.

    But, in context, you evidently think you are saying that liberals ignore the laws of physics when it comes to the events of 9-11, because they are into power. That's what you just said to me in your reply.

    Did you really mean to say that?

    Becuase I don't see what some liberal's thirst for power has to do with ignoring physics.

    I also don't believe that a label for a group (remember, I still consider myself a radical liberal) means that everyone in that group (who cares, as you say) are solely into power.

    But what power? Power over a city?

    And why would a bunch of liberals want power? I don't think there's much of a plan there on that side.

    I haven't mentioned this before, but liberals really only appear to want to be morally right.

    They continue to focus on morality. That seems to be the thing that ties liberals together: being seen as a "good" person. Voicing displeasure against "immoral" people.

    That's it.

    Did you really mean to say that?

    Yes.

    Becuase I don’t see what some liberal’s thirst for power has to do with ignoring physics.

    O.K.

    I also don’t believe that a label for a group (remember, I still consider myself a radical liberal) means that everyone in that group (who cares, as you say) are solely into power.

    O.K.

    But what power? Power over a city?
    And why would a bunch of liberals want power? I don’t think there’s much of a plan there on that side.

    Could be.
    This guy, for example, believes otherwise.
    When you have time/inclination, perhaps you could take a look.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch v=PkNzYttjSHE&list=PLFZ9Q6hV6p6GeT_JL_KMukNENPJ8tlk0v

    If the link doesn’t work, Jordan Peterson is the name.

    I haven’t mentioned this before, but liberals really only appear to want to be morally right.
    They continue to focus on morality. That seems to be the thing that ties liberals together: being seen as a “good” person. Voicing displeasure against “immoral” people.
    That’s it.

    O.K.

    Read More
    • Replies: @restless94110
    That link doesn't work.

    I watch a Jordan Peterson video nearly every day. I am finding him a bit too preachy though. Listen to the tenor of his voice. It's kind of a beseech-y, pleading kind of thing.

    Some of what he says, too, seems to be more on the order of "I'm an old and wise person, telling you, the young, what to look out for."

    I dont know what he has to do with your point. I also don't have the slightest idea why you said OK over and over again when I asked you why you were claiming that it's all about power.

    It's not. It's about being virtuous.

    Sort of like how Peterson seems to be claiming to be. Good luck with that. I don't believe that's a viable way to live neither is it a viable way to move people.

    Right now, Peterson is a defender of the right to free speech and free thought. But that doesn't mean I think what he says or thinks is correct. He still goes down that path of virtue that liberals seem to be chained to.

    By the way, this is not a new way for liberals and progressives. Though they were very strong in American affairs in the first 20 years of the 20th century, eventually bringing women the right to vote and other advances such as anti-trust, they also turned their back on decriminalizing prostitution, and brought in the disastrous Prohibition, followed soon after that failed, by the 80 years long now prohibition on previously-legal drugs (heroin, cocaine, marijuana). Both the war on sex work (and pornography) and drug and alcohol are an integral part of liberal virtue signalling and, some say, tied to an upper-middle class bourgoisie primarily female sensibility.

    This sensibility, this virtue signalling. It has to go. It is totalitarian at its heart and soul.

  15. @peterAUS

    Did you really mean to say that?
     
    Yes.

    Becuase I don’t see what some liberal’s thirst for power has to do with ignoring physics.
     
    O.K.

    I also don’t believe that a label for a group (remember, I still consider myself a radical liberal) means that everyone in that group (who cares, as you say) are solely into power.
     
    O.K.

    But what power? Power over a city?
    And why would a bunch of liberals want power? I don’t think there’s much of a plan there on that side.
     
    Could be.
    This guy, for example, believes otherwise.
    When you have time/inclination, perhaps you could take a look.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch v=PkNzYttjSHE&list=PLFZ9Q6hV6p6GeT_JL_KMukNENPJ8tlk0v

    If the link doesn't work, Jordan Peterson is the name.

    I haven’t mentioned this before, but liberals really only appear to want to be morally right.
    They continue to focus on morality. That seems to be the thing that ties liberals together: being seen as a “good” person. Voicing displeasure against “immoral” people.
    That’s it.
     
    O.K.

    That link doesn’t work.

    I watch a Jordan Peterson video nearly every day. I am finding him a bit too preachy though. Listen to the tenor of his voice. It’s kind of a beseech-y, pleading kind of thing.

    Some of what he says, too, seems to be more on the order of “I’m an old and wise person, telling you, the young, what to look out for.”

    I dont know what he has to do with your point. I also don’t have the slightest idea why you said OK over and over again when I asked you why you were claiming that it’s all about power.

    It’s not. It’s about being virtuous.

    Sort of like how Peterson seems to be claiming to be. Good luck with that. I don’t believe that’s a viable way to live neither is it a viable way to move people.

    Right now, Peterson is a defender of the right to free speech and free thought. But that doesn’t mean I think what he says or thinks is correct. He still goes down that path of virtue that liberals seem to be chained to.

    By the way, this is not a new way for liberals and progressives. Though they were very strong in American affairs in the first 20 years of the 20th century, eventually bringing women the right to vote and other advances such as anti-trust, they also turned their back on decriminalizing prostitution, and brought in the disastrous Prohibition, followed soon after that failed, by the 80 years long now prohibition on previously-legal drugs (heroin, cocaine, marijuana). Both the war on sex work (and pornography) and drug and alcohol are an integral part of liberal virtue signalling and, some say, tied to an upper-middle class bourgoisie primarily female sensibility.

    This sensibility, this virtue signalling. It has to go. It is totalitarian at its heart and soul.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Short version:
    I believe you are one of the "useful idiots" in the game.
    You are free to believe I am:
    -insensitive
    -misogynist
    -sexist
    -anything that makes me a bad person in the current paradigm

    You appear to be polite person, but probably somebody else will chime in with dissecting my psyche and coming up with the usual list,an "idiot" as the most polite item.

    But, I wouldn't get offended.
    We see the world in different way and behave differently.

    The problem comes up when we start communicating.

    Long version:

    That link doesn’t work.

    I watch a Jordan Peterson video nearly every day.
     
    There is a batch of seven videos where Jordan is speaking from his home into camera. A couple of those videos is exactly about "progressive left" and power.

    I am finding him a bit too preachy though. Listen to the tenor of his voice. It’s kind of a beseech-y, pleading kind of thing.

    Some of what he says, too, seems to be more on the order of “I’m an old and wise person, telling you, the young, what to look out for.
     
    Looking past appearances into the heart of the matter isn't easy.

    I dont know what he has to do with your point. I also don’t have the slightest idea why you said OK over and over again when I asked you why you were claiming that it’s all about power.
     
    Don't worry about it.

    It’s not. It’s about being virtuous.
     
    O.K.

    I don’t believe that’s a viable way to live neither is it a viable way to move people.
     
    Of course. Telling hard truths to people unwilling/incapable to think hard.

    Anyway, you appear focused on "virtue".
    I simply suggest that you could try shifting focus to "power".

    Power to rule over people.
  16. Hard time digesting an article that can’t make a distinction between populist and fascists. Two entirely different beasts.

    Read More
  17. @restless94110
    That link doesn't work.

    I watch a Jordan Peterson video nearly every day. I am finding him a bit too preachy though. Listen to the tenor of his voice. It's kind of a beseech-y, pleading kind of thing.

    Some of what he says, too, seems to be more on the order of "I'm an old and wise person, telling you, the young, what to look out for."

    I dont know what he has to do with your point. I also don't have the slightest idea why you said OK over and over again when I asked you why you were claiming that it's all about power.

    It's not. It's about being virtuous.

    Sort of like how Peterson seems to be claiming to be. Good luck with that. I don't believe that's a viable way to live neither is it a viable way to move people.

    Right now, Peterson is a defender of the right to free speech and free thought. But that doesn't mean I think what he says or thinks is correct. He still goes down that path of virtue that liberals seem to be chained to.

    By the way, this is not a new way for liberals and progressives. Though they were very strong in American affairs in the first 20 years of the 20th century, eventually bringing women the right to vote and other advances such as anti-trust, they also turned their back on decriminalizing prostitution, and brought in the disastrous Prohibition, followed soon after that failed, by the 80 years long now prohibition on previously-legal drugs (heroin, cocaine, marijuana). Both the war on sex work (and pornography) and drug and alcohol are an integral part of liberal virtue signalling and, some say, tied to an upper-middle class bourgoisie primarily female sensibility.

    This sensibility, this virtue signalling. It has to go. It is totalitarian at its heart and soul.

    Short version:
    I believe you are one of the “useful idiots” in the game.
    You are free to believe I am:
    -insensitive
    -misogynist
    -sexist
    -anything that makes me a bad person in the current paradigm

    You appear to be polite person, but probably somebody else will chime in with dissecting my psyche and coming up with the usual list,an “idiot” as the most polite item.

    But, I wouldn’t get offended.
    We see the world in different way and behave differently.

    The problem comes up when we start communicating.

    Long version:

    That link doesn’t work.

    I watch a Jordan Peterson video nearly every day.

    There is a batch of seven videos where Jordan is speaking from his home into camera. A couple of those videos is exactly about “progressive left” and power.

    I am finding him a bit too preachy though. Listen to the tenor of his voice. It’s kind of a beseech-y, pleading kind of thing.

    Some of what he says, too, seems to be more on the order of “I’m an old and wise person, telling you, the young, what to look out for.

    Looking past appearances into the heart of the matter isn’t easy.

    I dont know what he has to do with your point. I also don’t have the slightest idea why you said OK over and over again when I asked you why you were claiming that it’s all about power.

    Don’t worry about it.

    It’s not. It’s about being virtuous.

    O.K.

    I don’t believe that’s a viable way to live neither is it a viable way to move people.

    Of course. Telling hard truths to people unwilling/incapable to think hard.

    Anyway, you appear focused on “virtue”.
    I simply suggest that you could try shifting focus to “power”.

    Power to rule over people.

    Read More
  18. I have no idea what you are going on about.

    I’m laughing though. You believe I am a useful idiot? Useful to whom?
    And, I didn’t say a thing about those other names you think that someone is calling you.
    Are you having delusions? You think people who believe the truth about liberals are useful idiots? You believe imaginary people are calling you names?
    You believe that some other people are going to attack you?
    Do they have green skin and come from space ships?

    I’ve watched most of those 7 videos of Jordan speaking from his home. I find them unconvincing and actually pretty boring. I don’t remember him talking about progressives and power. Maybe that was after I lost interest?

    You see, Jordan is the flavor of the month at the moment. I admire his stance for freedom to speak, but I think his professor schtick has rubbed off on him. There is a saying: he believes in his own propaganda.

    There are so many others in the space that Peterson occupies that make much more sense, speak more clearly, and definitely are more interesting in what they say.

    At any event power seeking in progressives is utter nonsense. They don’t know what to do with it if they ever get it, which is rarely, and they don’t know how to maintain it, and how to fight for it. Just look at Bernis Sanders! The weakest of all the candidates. And you see Sanders even now, when he should be giving fiery speeches all over the place demanding Medicare for All and he does nothing. Progressives are not into power, my friend.

    I suggest you focus on looking for what I told you moves progressives. Virtue signalling. You will find it everywhere. And I do mean everywhere. A progressive would rather be seen as virtuous than acheive power.

    [Edit Update: I believe you think that the banshees that are taking over campuses and shouting down all speakers they don't like are after power. No. They believe that the people they are shouting down are not virtuous. And that they, the screaming banshees are good and true and fighting for what is good and true which is to suppress the bad people from speaking their bad ideas.

    it.
    Is.
    All.
    About.
    Virtue.]

    They are the good boys and girls. That’s not a successful recipe for attaining your goals, unless you think that you can guilt trip your opponents into doing what you say is the “right” and the “good” thing.

    That’s not powertripping, dude.

    I would also suggest you check other speakers out that are far more interesting and persuasive. Here is a short list: Milo Yianopolis, Christine Hoff Summers, Professor Fiamingo, Max Keiser, Paul Craig Roberts, Michael Hudson, Camile Paglia, Stephen Pinker, Steve Keen. These are just a few that have many videos out there. And I did not mention any of the great thinkers and writers who mostly can be only found in print (not video).

    Branch out, friend.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    I have no idea what you are going on about.
     
    Most likely.

    I’ve watched most of those 7 videos of Jordan speaking from his home. I find them unconvincing and actually pretty boring. I don’t remember him talking about progressives and power.
     
    O.K.

    Progressives are not into power, my friend.
     
    O.K.
  19. @restless94110
    I have no idea what you are going on about.

    I'm laughing though. You believe I am a useful idiot? Useful to whom?
    And, I didn't say a thing about those other names you think that someone is calling you.
    Are you having delusions? You think people who believe the truth about liberals are useful idiots? You believe imaginary people are calling you names?
    You believe that some other people are going to attack you?
    Do they have green skin and come from space ships?

    I've watched most of those 7 videos of Jordan speaking from his home. I find them unconvincing and actually pretty boring. I don't remember him talking about progressives and power. Maybe that was after I lost interest?

    You see, Jordan is the flavor of the month at the moment. I admire his stance for freedom to speak, but I think his professor schtick has rubbed off on him. There is a saying: he believes in his own propaganda.

    There are so many others in the space that Peterson occupies that make much more sense, speak more clearly, and definitely are more interesting in what they say.

    At any event power seeking in progressives is utter nonsense. They don't know what to do with it if they ever get it, which is rarely, and they don't know how to maintain it, and how to fight for it. Just look at Bernis Sanders! The weakest of all the candidates. And you see Sanders even now, when he should be giving fiery speeches all over the place demanding Medicare for All and he does nothing. Progressives are not into power, my friend.

    I suggest you focus on looking for what I told you moves progressives. Virtue signalling. You will find it everywhere. And I do mean everywhere. A progressive would rather be seen as virtuous than acheive power.

    [Edit Update: I believe you think that the banshees that are taking over campuses and shouting down all speakers they don't like are after power. No. They believe that the people they are shouting down are not virtuous. And that they, the screaming banshees are good and true and fighting for what is good and true which is to suppress the bad people from speaking their bad ideas.

    it.
    Is.
    All.
    About.
    Virtue.]

    They are the good boys and girls. That's not a successful recipe for attaining your goals, unless you think that you can guilt trip your opponents into doing what you say is the "right" and the "good" thing.

    That's not powertripping, dude.

    I would also suggest you check other speakers out that are far more interesting and persuasive. Here is a short list: Milo Yianopolis, Christine Hoff Summers, Professor Fiamingo, Max Keiser, Paul Craig Roberts, Michael Hudson, Camile Paglia, Stephen Pinker, Steve Keen. These are just a few that have many videos out there. And I did not mention any of the great thinkers and writers who mostly can be only found in print (not video).

    Branch out, friend.

    I have no idea what you are going on about.

    Most likely.

    I’ve watched most of those 7 videos of Jordan speaking from his home. I find them unconvincing and actually pretty boring. I don’t remember him talking about progressives and power.

    O.K.

    Progressives are not into power, my friend.

    O.K.

    Read More
  20. @peterAUS

    I have no idea what you are going on about.
     
    Most likely.

    I’ve watched most of those 7 videos of Jordan speaking from his home. I find them unconvincing and actually pretty boring. I don’t remember him talking about progressives and power.
     
    O.K.

    Progressives are not into power, my friend.
     
    O.K.

    Most likely.

    Ok.

    O.K.

    Okie.

    O.K.

    hokay.

    Read More
  21. I thought the never-Trumps were all reading Orwell’s 1984.

    They must have stopped short when they realized that every feature of the dystopian society in that novel is what the Deep State promotes today. Goldstein, Winston, Julia are clearly “deplorables”; O’Brien is clearly a warmongering “progressive”/neocon whose elite would perfectly fit a Hillary administration.

    Read More
  22. To stay within the metaphor, Ms. Berrigan’s resistance may be “fertile”, but the plants she grows are obviously hollow within: they have no core. Because these leftists react mostly to Trump’s lingo and sartorial style which is indeed miles away from the hippie tradition. But they have no more alternative in politics, they are too much invaded and corroded by the Clinton and Obama ideologues which they have hailed and whose politics they have grumblingly accepted. So what’s the difference which would justify the sudden furor against Trump, except of outer appearances?

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Tom Engelhardt Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Eight Exceptional(ly Dumb) American Achievements of the Twenty-First Century
How the Security State’s Mania for Secrecy Will Create You
Delusional Thinking in the Age of the Single Superpower