The liberal establishment’s war on the New York City mayoral candidate reflects panic over a growing left challenge to Zionist orthodoxy and the mainstreaming of Palestine solidarity
It’s this and other factors. The real enemy of the neolibs was not communism. The real enemy was and still is the social democracy. The welfare state that protect everyone is what they want to abolish. Mamdani is for lots of people the image of this social democracy. If he wins, they lose. If he wins, he put the social democracy back on track. They are afraid of that.
Because it’s a shit-tier rag that’s consistently skewed in favor of a few special interests - involving apologizing constantly for one that is currently blowing kids up on our dime. I honestly cannot understand why anyone would give this rag any credence since they drummed us into a war in 2003.
Just being charitable here (to be clear I agree with you) - but I think a big contributor to a lot of folks taking these old media organizations more seriously than they should, is how batshit insane the rest of the media ecosystem has gotten.
That combined with the kind of…legacy of trust, for these old “household name” ones? It’s hard for us olds to update our mental models in a deep way. I was raised thinking it was a respectable outfit - I know, for sure, that I don’t trust them or like them at all today. And yet every time I see “New York Times” my subconscious goes “ah, yep, one of the good ones”. Brains are dumb and annoying.
Because there are a lot of Zionists in the media. They have their marching orders from their handlers. Kill any progressiveness.
Judith Miller, a former reporter for The New York Times, was a key figure in reporting on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) prior to the 2003 invasion. Her reporting, particularly her exclusives citing Saddam Hussein’s possession of WMDs, were prominently used by the Bush administration to build the case for war. Miller later acknowledged that her reporting relied too heavily on sources connected to the Bush administration and that she didn’t adequately consider dissenting views.
Such a well-written article. Lots of emotion, but it’s incredibly right on.
Feels like grasping at straws, here. Sure, NYT aren’t his biggest fans, but the article has this as evidence of its’ claims:
“opinions on Israel are changing fast”, and cautioned that “Mamdani’s victory is not a fluke. It’s a sign of things to come.”
He is, of course, right.
Clearly The MiddleEastEye agrees with NYT about Mamandi, so let me flip that; why is MEE so afraid of Zohran Mamdani?
After Bidens debate performance they published 80 articles in 2 weeks about it…
Should they not have? Should they have continued to pretend that the president was lucid when everyone saw him bragging about how he finally beat Medicare?
How many of the articles were apologia?
I mentioned Zohran to my aging mother (who lives in a suburb, and cannot vote in NYC elections). She was like, “You didn’t vote for him did you? He’s a communist”
We decided not to go into details right then, but it’s wild what a deep, emotional, response the idea of “communism” evokes. I don’t know what she even thinks it is.
People were more or less helping each other back in the 50’s after the war. The money boys got worried about that and Joseph McCarthy, along with Donald Trump’s mentor, Roy Cohn, started a communist witch hunt which eventually got out of hand. The communist stigma remained.
I don’t know what she even thinks it is.
She thinks it’s the enemy.
That type of response has nothing to do with politics or even reality, it’s just “us vs. them”. People attribute everything they think is evil to “them”.
(It’s not just communism hate. Because anyone who knows what it is, know that he isn’t one.)
You know those experiments Pavlov did with dogs that made them salivate to the sound of a bell (because they associated the sound with food)? Boomers essentially had that but the trigger is the word communism and the response is aversion / disgust.
They didn’t have the internet back then so mainstream media could essentially control mainstream thought.
None of them do. They were just programmed real good during the red scare to have a knee-jerk reaction to anything with the name communist or socialist.
That reminds me of the woman who declared that she couldn’t vote for Barack Obama because he was a Muslim and an atheist.
“Communism” as it was in history should 100% invoke that reaction. The dude is not a communist tho.
Still upset about the battle of Berlin, I see.
No, about Katyn and the years of occupation that followed till 89’ actually. And about Holodomor. And about using tanks against civilians. And about a ton of other things that tankies don’t know about because they think the Soviet Union was perfect
Ok, so what is your solution? Besides calling everyone to your left a commie?
Capitalism is no longer working. The status quo is untenable.
My solution is to not glorify the Soviet Union as some sort of enlightened country when in reality it was a shithole that killed millions of people.
Also, don’t put words in my mouth. Just because you think in “tribes” and everyone that doesn’t think exactly like you is your enemy, doesn’t mean other people are just as naive.
My solution is to not glorify the Soviet Union as some sort of enlightened country
Am I doing that, or have you just decided that you hate everyone to your left and only your left and therefore they must be commies?
I said "communism as it was in history should evoke a negative reaction. You then jumped in saying what basically amounts to “you are a nazi mad about losing”. I then said "no, I am mad about attrocities done to the various peoples because of the soviet union. To which you then respond “what else are we supposed to do?”
So:
-
You are arguing that communism as it was in history shouldn’t invoke a negative reaction
-
You are calling me a nazi
-
You are deflecting from the attrocities of communism and going “whatabout capitalism”.
-
Maybe. The natural reflex is to point out the horrors of capitalism, but people are more okay with that.
Not “maybe”. Countries were screwed over by communists, people murdered in the thousands with famines that killed millions. People excusing communism - either the Soviet Union or China are delusional.
Then fix capitalism because this shit is busted.
“whatabout” doesn’t get you anywhere. There aren’t just two systems. Because newsflash, communism “is busted” too.
Isn’t the problem there authoritarianism? The Nazis were also authoritarian shitheads, but not communists.
Communists absolutely were authoritarian shitheads.
Yes, I wasn’t denying that but it isn’t limited to communists.
Source: Author’s ass crack.
These claims come from the “Black Book of Communism”, an old propaganda piece with wildly bullshit claims (provably so)
These “claims” as you put it come from a person who has lived in an area and talked to their parents and grandparents about it. So stay in your lane with your “hurr durr propaganda”. Soviets were war criminals, not a utopia and anyone saying otherwise is the one that’s brainwashed by history revisionism.
Do you even read the comment or do you go straight to shitty memes? My family lived through it. Stay in your lane.
Communismtyrants and authoritarian dictatorships. Get a grip. Nobody has done real communism. They give the people fake participation while the wealth and power go to the top. It doesn’t matter which system you choose, if the rich and powerful take control you’re fucked. Capitalism worked for a while in the US, now it’s fucked because of the rich people.If thats the case you should want communism kept as far away from the American government as possible. They can’t be trusted with that kind of power.
That comment completely ignores what I just said and how communism is supposed to work.
Yeah, there is only one party that is busy implementing their secret police
Yes, because there is only one party you mean. Oh, no, you didn’t mean the KGB, the black cars disappearing people, you just wanted to go “whatabout Murica” like that matters to the fact that communism hasn’t worked out in history and resulted in oppression.
Because they are capitalists
We’ve been trying to tell yall for years. For anti capitalist? Socialists? All manners of leftists? Biggest enemy has always and will always be liberals.
Actually it’s capital. But it’s true that Liberalism is the wiggly fun-house slide to capitalism and fascism no doubt.
Liberalism is capitalism. They are intrinsically and indivisiblely linked. The liberal revolutions were capitalist revolutions.
He said capital, not capitalism. Aka, those with money.
Liberalism is defined by advocates of guaranteed human rights and freedoms so long as those freedoms don’t infringe upon others’.
So, no, actually. None of the stuff you said.
Liberalism is defined by advocates of guaranteed human rights and freedoms so long as those freedoms don’t infringe upon others’.
And then liberals turn around and sell weapons they know will be used for genocide.
Not to mention the whole, you know, slavery thing.
The only rights liberalism cares about are private property rights.
Oh, you must be the new owner of Webster and Oxford dictionaries.
Check it out, guys! Its the dude who decides the meaning of words. Round of applause.
Neither liberalism nor neoliberalism can be grasped coherently without talking about capitalism and democracy. If liberalism names the political ideology aligned to the historical emergence of “free market” capitalism and Western-style representative democracy, neoliberalism signifies a particular regime of liberalism, capitalism, and democracy that has been globalized since the 1970s, in the form of an active state promotion of market and competition principles that critics see as antithetical to democracy.
- Liberalism and Neoliberalism (Sean Phelan, PhD and Simon Dawes, PhD)
Sucks for them that they’re PhDs and they still confuse words like Liberalism and Laissez Faire.
The dictionary definition has not changed, this is like calling China communist or the USSR socialist republic, or calling the US Republican Party… well, Republicans.
It’s just propoganda made to appear in a slightly better light when in truth opposing liberalism is just opposing human rights.
So either multiple people with PhDs that have written extensively on the subject are correct and you didn’t comprehend their point, or you, who failed to comprehend even the wiki page on Liberalism, know more.
It’s pretty obvious which is the case when you read through the article, even more so when you read when laissez faire is mentioned multiple times.
I have you tagged as a Zionist from previous conversations, you got no say on the concept of human rights when you’ve repeatedly defended that type of fascism in the past.
“The dictionary definition has not changed, this is like calling China communist or the USSR socialist republic, or calling the US Republican Party… well, Republicans.”
Yeah, I mean you’re here stomping your feet over semantics by leaning on a dictionary definition rather than acknowledging that all your criticisms of other political systems absolutely applies to your defense of Liberalism. In so far as we’re existing only in theory, the things you said about Liberalism are true (according to the source that you didn’t cite), but in the actual world and as applied through history, Liberalism simply isn’t what that definition claims anymore, or Liberals aren’t Liberals despite their claims. Both can be true.
P.S. you’re bad at this defense thing.
This is really more neo-liberalism. Classical liberalism is pretty much just “capitalism > kings”.
I mean, I definitely wouldn’t ally myself with Kings, which is unfortunately a nonironic stance of modern conservative parties like the CCP and GOP.
which political establishment just passed legislation to obliterate the social safety net
Yes liberals who are simultaneously all-powerful and weak.
I believe they are using it in the sense of economic liberalism. What today we just call capitalism. Encompassing Republicans, national Democratic leadership, and those that larp as anarchist or libertarian while being capitalist.
Libertarians are capitalists who hate the state and like drugs.
libertarians are republicans who got tired of being taken seriously.
A libertarian is a man who can throw a dart at a map and tell you the age of consent where it lands. His eyes light up if it lands in international waters.
So just capitalists really.
Uh no. There’s such a thing as left libertarians. People who recognize that the government can never be of the people from the people, therefore the governments power should be limited as much as possible. Before you say that’s anarchism, anarchists are imo a different breed because of their “end game”, though I might convert to anarchism once one of them comes up with a description of what a classless stateless society looks like and how it will be different than what chimps have right now.
No there are no left libertarians just people lying to themselves about how right they actually are.
If you could back that up with an actual argument, we can cook something.
I for one don’t really care where on the spectrum I’m perceived to be, generally I think I’m dead center simply because I like to look at what nets the greatest benefit instead of asking myself whether the policy aligns better with right or left wing discourse. I happen to believe that the government having the least amount of power needed to fulfill their role is a good thing and that curbing the vices of capitalism is also a good thing. So left libertarian is the best label for me.
I’ve made my argument already but tell me how a libertarian curbs the vices of capitalism because that’s the hypocrisy I’m talking about right there.
Maybe look into where they get their funding. Follow the money to the truth, just expect to be disgusted when you find it. On a related note, go back and watch HBO’s the Wire to see why real systemic change doesn’t happen.
A spectre is haunting New York - the spectre of Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor.
It is a freak show. Marx and Engels are not turning in their graves - they are breakdancing back to life.
No kidding?
Weird that they should mention marx. Anyone else remember why the nyt was founded?
deleted by creator
Yes but what specific thing spurred its founding? Perhaps a correspondent the leading paper at the time had, who thevoligarchs didnt love?
Can’t stop to read now but I’d wager some politicians are to scared of trump and his supporters to allow real left wing populism
Almost precisely backwards.
Fascism happens when people cry out for change and it’s denied. If obama hadnt betrayed us all in 08, if sanders hadn’t been ratfucked in 16, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Fascism is enabled by fear of the left, by alienation from your own interests, by irrational hate, by self loathing, by hopeless faceless rage when the actual causes of your displeasure are unspeakable.
Imagine where the world be on climate policy if al gore hadn’t been cheated and you guys might not have ended up in the middle east for so long and nasty stuff like the patriot act might not have been passed
Yeah that would be cool. I’d really rather live in that timeline.
Instead we are in this one. Where ratfucking after ratfucking of the people’s desire, making their cries unspeakable, has lead us to fascism.
Its one of the reasons ill never vote for a dnc politician. They brought this shit into the world.
The Democrat Party is dead to me for exactly this reason.
All they had to do was take office after being elected
