There are many truly compassionate people who adhere to the ideology of the political left. Indeed, the left-leaning rank-and-filer will insist that compassion is the primary emotion upon which the left's ideology is built. There is obviously truth there. Compassion is a core human emotion, and the left offers a pathway for helping our fellow man that is, at least superficially, very appealing.
There are many different explanations, depending on how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go. Votes for them. Cheap labor for our corporatist system (and cheap nannies and gardeners for California lefties). Population replacement. Cloward-Piven style overloading of the economic and welfare system to engineer collapse. Stop me when you hear one you like…
Our UniParty rulers always wants more subjects. (Although the left side of the UniParty also wants depopulation, they say; but the leftists are always the biggest liars and hypocrites).
The easiest answer is votes. The more people who owe you a favor, the more people you can get to vote for you. The blacks have been voting Democrats since the advent of Section 8 housing and welfare.
They think that Central and South Americans will vote the same way, but what they seem not to know is that most Central and South Americans are very religious and catholic.
"To the contrary, the free-market system that has made some people fabulously wealthy has also done more to improve the lot of the lower-income ranks than any other force in history."
If only this were more generally understood! As soon as a society says, "Look at this giant pie! Let's cut it up and pass it around!", the pie evaporates.
"No doubt the average leftist will howl here, noting that they are motivated by compassion, not fear—and that the deck really is stacked against certain people."
True, the deck is stacked against white men: whatever their qualifications, they're often put at the back of the line so that some member of a favored Victim group can fill a slot, qualifications be damned. Ironically, this practice is destructive to the advancement of those favored by it, as unqualified people tend to stand out as unqualified, giving members of the Victim group a bad name, and genuinely qualified people are unjustly tarred with getting unfair help.
"We just have to get away and build our own thing." Right you are. Lead by example, show what works. Let them come to us, or not, as they please.
"If only this were more generally understood! As soon as a society says, "Look at this giant pie! Let's cut it up and pass it around!", the pie evaporates."
—That zero-sum-game outlook on economics hasn't been true since caveman times (only so many buffalo and berries in a given range). But they still talk and act as if it's true. It's very backward.
And yet they style themselves as sophisticated and advanced, and portray us as the cavemen!
"(only so many buffalo and berries in a given range)"
One could argue that even then, something that is community owned is more susceptible to being harvested to extinction than if it were owned by someone who has a stake in thinking more long-term. Private elephant preserves, which harvest ivory without decimating the population, are an example.
The tragedy of the commons. The evidence for it is plastered across the human historical record, yet people still keep calling for it.
I just had someone two days ago telling me about her plan for small groups who share everything in common. As if communal property hasn't been tried over and over, with failure and murder as the outcome almost every time.
I especially like the story of the Pilgrims, who in desperation (and apparently without any real expectation of success) tried letting people own their own harvests. Magically, after years of starvation, suddenly there was enough to eat, even surplus! How did that happen? I'm sure children are taught this important historical lesson in school, right? ;-j
Yes! I am sure. I have written about this before. (I even mentioned it to that woman in my response to her comment). It is stunning to me that this lesson was learned in the first permanent English colony. Seems like a script was being written!
There will definitely be a contest of wills on this question. We who wish to run our own lives will have to match or exceed the determination of those who wish to keep us enslaved.
When you were in school, not college which is something of a different metric, did you find that most of the students knew who the teacher who taught them the most. I mean the teachers whom I thought I learned the most from, most of my classmates also thought taught them them the most, no matter their aptitude, the poorer students learned more and the brighter students learned more.
Why are owners necessarily different? Why is a CEO of Chobani who includes his workers in decision making and letting the workers determine who deserves what percentage of the profit. Don't they know who is deserving ?
Owen Young, as CEO of G.E. made a bit of flap suggesting investors get a minimum return and profits should be directed more towards rewarding the workers. Workers do create the product even if (sometimes) the executives create the product, it takes both to make the product, why should the person be entitled, just by fiat, to more for the idea (in Rand's term) than those that actually bring the idea to life, who do the work. I'm not suggesting there should be a 50-50 split, my suggestion is that rather than paying salaries, perhaps everyone involved should have a say in determining who has contributed the most---they should know best.
In a truly free society, such things can be done. Indeed, even in our current society, such things can be done.
Want a worker-owned factory? You can have that.
Want holacracy rather than hierarchy? You can have that.
Want a different way of splitting up profits? You can have that.
All you have to do is build your business and run it however you like. And let the best systems and methods prove themselves.
But here are two problems:
1. Nearly everyone is obsessed with forcing others to live and act they way they think those others ought to live and act. (see https://christophercook.substack.com/p/burning-need-force-views-others and https://christophercook.substack.com/p/tyranny-social-nature). Instead of building a business and running it their way, they simply opine that all businesses ought to be run a certain way. Or worse, they use politicians and government force to pass a "law" that forces all businesses to conform to their ideal. This is a longstanding human behavior, and it is time to realize how evil it truly is.
2. The option to have worker-owned businesses (and various other such arrangements) has existed since Marx's time, and even more so in the subsequent century-plus. NOTHING is stopping anyone from making such a business. Nothing except their own laziness and inability to do so. That is why they never build worker-owned businesses of their own, but rather agitate for the use of (government) violence to take from those who have built businesses.
If they were serious about wanting worker-owned factories, they would have built them. But they're not serious about that. They're not serious about building anything. What they are serious about is taking by force from those who have built something.
today, there is even more opportunity with little investment. I don't think it's always laziness. Most don't really understand the possibility or think it's impossible and would cost too much or don't join together to form cooperatives. I didn't really know I could when I was young until mid 30's when I decided to start my own business even the for under 10,000 . I've never been too interested in more than I need, so it was enough for me until it got too big and forced me to sit in an office all day. Personally I liked heavy labor but I didn't particularly like doing it for someone else. But an awful lot don't like hard labor, I don't know if it makes them lazy. But I agree there are multiple opportunities beyond working for others and co-ops are great too, worker ownerships. The owner of Chobani you probably know his name but I can't spell it, he got a low loan on a decaying building and recruited people saying help me build it and we'll share what we make. I have a certain admiration for "owners" like Buffet who just like creating his organization, he always lived in a simple house and never really wanted to have money to have power over others. That's what I don't like of course whether it's too much power by govt, by churches or by overly large businesses. Your article kind of hit me because I was working on an article today about the opportunities people could choose to be more independent..
You are right that not all are lazy, and some are just unaware of the possibilities.
But let's play that thought out for a moment…
Who are the architects of the ideology of leftism? By and large, they are university-educated intellectuals. They have been all along, even going back to the middle of the 19th century, and they continue to be today.
So, the people they push the ideology onto, and who ultimately serve as the viral spreaders of it, have been mostly students.
So yeah, you could say that these 18–22 year-olds are ignorant…but the professors are not!! They know—they have always known—that worker-owned factories were possible. Or, factories that treat their workers really well, like those created by proto-socialist Robert Owen (which actually worked, before he got more left-commie-weird).
The professors know…but they never say. Instead, they say to each generation of footsoldiers—"you must go out and TAKE what others have built." They never tell them that they can build stuff themselves.
So what you end up with is generation after generation of takers who have drunk the koolaid that they are oppressed and that it is their "right" to go seize the means of production by force (either the force of the bullet or the ballot).
And then it also increasingly becomes an ideology of virtue-signaling, as they continue to absorb the notion that their beliefs make them not only entitled to what other people have made, but that those beliefs also make them GOOD. The only good people, in fact. The rest are greedy or bigoted or evil oppressors.
This is not a complete description of the whole of leftism or leftists, but neither is it a strawman. This is, in the main, what leftism is all about. It is not a philosophy of making, it is an ideology of TAKING.
I think I agree and disagree I've been called a marxist, and recently a Nazi. One Christmas, as joke, my classmates drew covers of Atlas Shrugged and The Communist Manifesto. We had been passing both around and discussing them throughout the semester. Some liked Marx, some liked Rand and I rejected both as unworkable extremes. Of course Marx is not really redistributing wealth, he's transferring power. On the other hand Rand is attempting to concentrate wealth into making it the source of power. You might go to the Keynes-Hayak debates, what they ultimately agree upon in the end is that wealth and power cannot be co-equal. I don't give a fig noodle about how much wealth anyone has,I only care when he tries to use his wealth to coerce my power over myself. If wealth is not about power then what matters to me anyone's wealth and why do I need any part of it? You're right. I could earn more if I took a second job or worked double shift. I usually did because I'm very kinetic and then I had money I didn't need. A fifty dollar used car (ageing myself) got me where I needed, sharing a room in a friend's house provided me companionship and low rent, but maybe someone else wants a new or more powerful car, does that concern me? Not unless he tries to take away my choice to be satisfied with my $50 car. Or make it more difficult to obtain.
Most see money as the means to power, I think it is only true for those few who do. Whether I agree or disgree with Jamie Dimon or how much money he has no effect on me. But the bank across the street I keep very close on because they've attempted in the past to attempt to prey on me. I had one payment to go on my college loan but had less income (now payments could be lowered, or income-driven, not then. When my income returned to normalcy and I attempted to pay the agent added the interest and I said I can't pay both now, instead of trying to work with me he tried to demean me and saying there was no other option. Of course I had another option since I'd already had the benefit of the loan he couldn't take away my degree. (whether the degrees should be contingent on repaying the loans might be another issue.) So he tells me Pay it all now or else... Or else what? Are you threatening me? No. Oh well, thanks for the option. It was either a veiled threat or it was an option, and if the option to pay it all now or else and I couldn't make the entire payment, and he wouldn't accept a partial the only else left is no payment, right? Of course not, he was making a threat and so I screwed myself and didn't pay until they offered me a reasonable way to pay what had been $90 was now $11,000, but I was fine in paying the $11000 and wasn't fine paying the $90 because of the intimidation he tried to use against me.
The problem is most people really don't understand that it is the power they are being deprived of, not the money. If you don't like inflation don't buy. If it causes a depression shine shoes. We lose our power as individuals when we believe our paycheck is the only power we have. Like we talked about earlier and as you replied, we don't have to submit to an employer, there are options, and the only way money can be used against us if we allow it to consume us.
And herein I will end by saying the education is often used against us, not just in schools, but by many churches and by, from your perspective taking from others. If the rich, the boss, the evangelist sometimes, or even the government who "gives" someone a welfare check we learn to believe we are powerless. My comprehension of scripture or government or work, is the converse, they empower me to choose my god, the structure of my life (government) and my means of sustenance. Feeling unempowered we take or empower those to take from us. ,
And to clarify the religious references, I don't feel worshipping god to not burn in heaven, is in actuality worshipping God, but a feeling of disempowerment by God. The story of the returning brother really is about the brother who stayed home who is standing in for the pharisees Jesus is speaking to. God is not obligated to the obedience of your performances and is not a god who forces your obedience to his power. The Law, as I interpret Jesus is a guideline to personal strength that can lead to love of God that comes from the power he has given. The law is not given so that people obey to earn rewards in god's eyes, sorry elder brother your obedience to earn self-rewards is a cowardly negation of what I have given you.
Και τους είπε: Ο νόμος έγινε για τον άνθρωπο και όχι ο άνθρωπος για τον νόμο
(I have substituted σάββατο to νόμος the law of the sabbath to the law generic-Mark 2:27)
I've been watching Socialist Videos for a year, and in each instance, they keep saying, "The community will speak" on crimes, criminals, punishments, etc. But at no point do they say who the community will be.
"At its core, the ideology of the left is focused on the equalization of outcomes."
IMHO the left claims that it wants equalization of outcomes but, like the rest of the left's "ideology", that is really just an excuse to call for bigger more powerful government, which is and always has been the left's true goal. The left says that more powerful government will use its power to equalize outcomes, but the left has no such plan and never has.
Do the rich, powerful leftist politicians and the rich, powerful leftist corporate CEOs really want "equalization of outcomes". That's the last thing that they want. The other leftists don't want "social justice", their "core belief" is a desire for free stuff taken by government from the people who produced or earned it.
Why do the democrats want large numbers of illegal immigration?
There are many different explanations, depending on how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go. Votes for them. Cheap labor for our corporatist system (and cheap nannies and gardeners for California lefties). Population replacement. Cloward-Piven style overloading of the economic and welfare system to engineer collapse. Stop me when you hear one you like…
Thank you. I just can’t imagine anything so crazy as their positions.
I fear it goes beyond just the conventional democrat-republican dichotomy too.
Our UniParty rulers always wants more subjects. (Although the left side of the UniParty also wants depopulation, they say; but the leftists are always the biggest liars and hypocrites).
The easiest answer is votes. The more people who owe you a favor, the more people you can get to vote for you. The blacks have been voting Democrats since the advent of Section 8 housing and welfare.
They think that Central and South Americans will vote the same way, but what they seem not to know is that most Central and South Americans are very religious and catholic.
"To the contrary, the free-market system that has made some people fabulously wealthy has also done more to improve the lot of the lower-income ranks than any other force in history."
If only this were more generally understood! As soon as a society says, "Look at this giant pie! Let's cut it up and pass it around!", the pie evaporates.
"No doubt the average leftist will howl here, noting that they are motivated by compassion, not fear—and that the deck really is stacked against certain people."
True, the deck is stacked against white men: whatever their qualifications, they're often put at the back of the line so that some member of a favored Victim group can fill a slot, qualifications be damned. Ironically, this practice is destructive to the advancement of those favored by it, as unqualified people tend to stand out as unqualified, giving members of the Victim group a bad name, and genuinely qualified people are unjustly tarred with getting unfair help.
"We just have to get away and build our own thing." Right you are. Lead by example, show what works. Let them come to us, or not, as they please.
"If only this were more generally understood! As soon as a society says, "Look at this giant pie! Let's cut it up and pass it around!", the pie evaporates."
—That zero-sum-game outlook on economics hasn't been true since caveman times (only so many buffalo and berries in a given range). But they still talk and act as if it's true. It's very backward.
And yet they style themselves as sophisticated and advanced, and portray us as the cavemen!
"(only so many buffalo and berries in a given range)"
One could argue that even then, something that is community owned is more susceptible to being harvested to extinction than if it were owned by someone who has a stake in thinking more long-term. Private elephant preserves, which harvest ivory without decimating the population, are an example.
The tragedy of the commons. The evidence for it is plastered across the human historical record, yet people still keep calling for it.
I just had someone two days ago telling me about her plan for small groups who share everything in common. As if communal property hasn't been tried over and over, with failure and murder as the outcome almost every time.
I especially like the story of the Pilgrims, who in desperation (and apparently without any real expectation of success) tried letting people own their own harvests. Magically, after years of starvation, suddenly there was enough to eat, even surplus! How did that happen? I'm sure children are taught this important historical lesson in school, right? ;-j
Yes! I am sure. I have written about this before. (I even mentioned it to that woman in my response to her comment). It is stunning to me that this lesson was learned in the first permanent English colony. Seems like a script was being written!
This issue is especially potent for friend and colleague https://substack.com/@deplorabledavid
"Right you are. Lead by example, show what works. Let them come to us, or not, as they please."
—The real question is…will they let us go?
"The real question is…will they let us go?"
There will definitely be a contest of wills on this question. We who wish to run our own lives will have to match or exceed the determination of those who wish to keep us enslaved.
I think this deserves an article of some sort…
Specifically on the "You are not allowed to leave" stance of many humans. Maybe I will create a hypothetical…
why do you think the 'other' wants what the capitalist produces when the "other" is used to produce the goods?
I am not sure what you mean exactly. Can you help me understand, so that I can be sure to answer properly?
When you were in school, not college which is something of a different metric, did you find that most of the students knew who the teacher who taught them the most. I mean the teachers whom I thought I learned the most from, most of my classmates also thought taught them them the most, no matter their aptitude, the poorer students learned more and the brighter students learned more.
Why are owners necessarily different? Why is a CEO of Chobani who includes his workers in decision making and letting the workers determine who deserves what percentage of the profit. Don't they know who is deserving ?
Owen Young, as CEO of G.E. made a bit of flap suggesting investors get a minimum return and profits should be directed more towards rewarding the workers. Workers do create the product even if (sometimes) the executives create the product, it takes both to make the product, why should the person be entitled, just by fiat, to more for the idea (in Rand's term) than those that actually bring the idea to life, who do the work. I'm not suggesting there should be a 50-50 split, my suggestion is that rather than paying salaries, perhaps everyone involved should have a say in determining who has contributed the most---they should know best.
In a truly free society, such things can be done. Indeed, even in our current society, such things can be done.
Want a worker-owned factory? You can have that.
Want holacracy rather than hierarchy? You can have that.
Want a different way of splitting up profits? You can have that.
All you have to do is build your business and run it however you like. And let the best systems and methods prove themselves.
But here are two problems:
1. Nearly everyone is obsessed with forcing others to live and act they way they think those others ought to live and act. (see https://christophercook.substack.com/p/burning-need-force-views-others and https://christophercook.substack.com/p/tyranny-social-nature). Instead of building a business and running it their way, they simply opine that all businesses ought to be run a certain way. Or worse, they use politicians and government force to pass a "law" that forces all businesses to conform to their ideal. This is a longstanding human behavior, and it is time to realize how evil it truly is.
2. The option to have worker-owned businesses (and various other such arrangements) has existed since Marx's time, and even more so in the subsequent century-plus. NOTHING is stopping anyone from making such a business. Nothing except their own laziness and inability to do so. That is why they never build worker-owned businesses of their own, but rather agitate for the use of (government) violence to take from those who have built businesses.
If they were serious about wanting worker-owned factories, they would have built them. But they're not serious about that. They're not serious about building anything. What they are serious about is taking by force from those who have built something.
today, there is even more opportunity with little investment. I don't think it's always laziness. Most don't really understand the possibility or think it's impossible and would cost too much or don't join together to form cooperatives. I didn't really know I could when I was young until mid 30's when I decided to start my own business even the for under 10,000 . I've never been too interested in more than I need, so it was enough for me until it got too big and forced me to sit in an office all day. Personally I liked heavy labor but I didn't particularly like doing it for someone else. But an awful lot don't like hard labor, I don't know if it makes them lazy. But I agree there are multiple opportunities beyond working for others and co-ops are great too, worker ownerships. The owner of Chobani you probably know his name but I can't spell it, he got a low loan on a decaying building and recruited people saying help me build it and we'll share what we make. I have a certain admiration for "owners" like Buffet who just like creating his organization, he always lived in a simple house and never really wanted to have money to have power over others. That's what I don't like of course whether it's too much power by govt, by churches or by overly large businesses. Your article kind of hit me because I was working on an article today about the opportunities people could choose to be more independent..
You are right that not all are lazy, and some are just unaware of the possibilities.
But let's play that thought out for a moment…
Who are the architects of the ideology of leftism? By and large, they are university-educated intellectuals. They have been all along, even going back to the middle of the 19th century, and they continue to be today.
So, the people they push the ideology onto, and who ultimately serve as the viral spreaders of it, have been mostly students.
So yeah, you could say that these 18–22 year-olds are ignorant…but the professors are not!! They know—they have always known—that worker-owned factories were possible. Or, factories that treat their workers really well, like those created by proto-socialist Robert Owen (which actually worked, before he got more left-commie-weird).
The professors know…but they never say. Instead, they say to each generation of footsoldiers—"you must go out and TAKE what others have built." They never tell them that they can build stuff themselves.
So what you end up with is generation after generation of takers who have drunk the koolaid that they are oppressed and that it is their "right" to go seize the means of production by force (either the force of the bullet or the ballot).
And then it also increasingly becomes an ideology of virtue-signaling, as they continue to absorb the notion that their beliefs make them not only entitled to what other people have made, but that those beliefs also make them GOOD. The only good people, in fact. The rest are greedy or bigoted or evil oppressors.
This is not a complete description of the whole of leftism or leftists, but neither is it a strawman. This is, in the main, what leftism is all about. It is not a philosophy of making, it is an ideology of TAKING.
I think I agree and disagree I've been called a marxist, and recently a Nazi. One Christmas, as joke, my classmates drew covers of Atlas Shrugged and The Communist Manifesto. We had been passing both around and discussing them throughout the semester. Some liked Marx, some liked Rand and I rejected both as unworkable extremes. Of course Marx is not really redistributing wealth, he's transferring power. On the other hand Rand is attempting to concentrate wealth into making it the source of power. You might go to the Keynes-Hayak debates, what they ultimately agree upon in the end is that wealth and power cannot be co-equal. I don't give a fig noodle about how much wealth anyone has,I only care when he tries to use his wealth to coerce my power over myself. If wealth is not about power then what matters to me anyone's wealth and why do I need any part of it? You're right. I could earn more if I took a second job or worked double shift. I usually did because I'm very kinetic and then I had money I didn't need. A fifty dollar used car (ageing myself) got me where I needed, sharing a room in a friend's house provided me companionship and low rent, but maybe someone else wants a new or more powerful car, does that concern me? Not unless he tries to take away my choice to be satisfied with my $50 car. Or make it more difficult to obtain.
Most see money as the means to power, I think it is only true for those few who do. Whether I agree or disgree with Jamie Dimon or how much money he has no effect on me. But the bank across the street I keep very close on because they've attempted in the past to attempt to prey on me. I had one payment to go on my college loan but had less income (now payments could be lowered, or income-driven, not then. When my income returned to normalcy and I attempted to pay the agent added the interest and I said I can't pay both now, instead of trying to work with me he tried to demean me and saying there was no other option. Of course I had another option since I'd already had the benefit of the loan he couldn't take away my degree. (whether the degrees should be contingent on repaying the loans might be another issue.) So he tells me Pay it all now or else... Or else what? Are you threatening me? No. Oh well, thanks for the option. It was either a veiled threat or it was an option, and if the option to pay it all now or else and I couldn't make the entire payment, and he wouldn't accept a partial the only else left is no payment, right? Of course not, he was making a threat and so I screwed myself and didn't pay until they offered me a reasonable way to pay what had been $90 was now $11,000, but I was fine in paying the $11000 and wasn't fine paying the $90 because of the intimidation he tried to use against me.
The problem is most people really don't understand that it is the power they are being deprived of, not the money. If you don't like inflation don't buy. If it causes a depression shine shoes. We lose our power as individuals when we believe our paycheck is the only power we have. Like we talked about earlier and as you replied, we don't have to submit to an employer, there are options, and the only way money can be used against us if we allow it to consume us.
And herein I will end by saying the education is often used against us, not just in schools, but by many churches and by, from your perspective taking from others. If the rich, the boss, the evangelist sometimes, or even the government who "gives" someone a welfare check we learn to believe we are powerless. My comprehension of scripture or government or work, is the converse, they empower me to choose my god, the structure of my life (government) and my means of sustenance. Feeling unempowered we take or empower those to take from us. ,
And to clarify the religious references, I don't feel worshipping god to not burn in heaven, is in actuality worshipping God, but a feeling of disempowerment by God. The story of the returning brother really is about the brother who stayed home who is standing in for the pharisees Jesus is speaking to. God is not obligated to the obedience of your performances and is not a god who forces your obedience to his power. The Law, as I interpret Jesus is a guideline to personal strength that can lead to love of God that comes from the power he has given. The law is not given so that people obey to earn rewards in god's eyes, sorry elder brother your obedience to earn self-rewards is a cowardly negation of what I have given you.
Και τους είπε: Ο νόμος έγινε για τον άνθρωπο και όχι ο άνθρωπος για τον νόμο
(I have substituted σάββατο to νόμος the law of the sabbath to the law generic-Mark 2:27)
I've been watching Socialist Videos for a year, and in each instance, they keep saying, "The community will speak" on crimes, criminals, punishments, etc. But at no point do they say who the community will be.
The community will be them. The state. Leviathan. Rousseau's <<legislateur>> actuating the general will. Naturalement!
“Who is John Galt?”
You are. We are.
"At its core, the ideology of the left is focused on the equalization of outcomes."
IMHO the left claims that it wants equalization of outcomes but, like the rest of the left's "ideology", that is really just an excuse to call for bigger more powerful government, which is and always has been the left's true goal. The left says that more powerful government will use its power to equalize outcomes, but the left has no such plan and never has.
Do the rich, powerful leftist politicians and the rich, powerful leftist corporate CEOs really want "equalization of outcomes". That's the last thing that they want. The other leftists don't want "social justice", their "core belief" is a desire for free stuff taken by government from the people who produced or earned it.
Just an excuse for some intellectuals to claim moral superiority, get power, and amass wealth at our expense.
Chris
I live in Canada and the same playbook and narrative was followed and still is by the politicians and managerial class.
My own awakening (sense making) was jolted into being by How the pandemic was handled in the Western world
So quick to tyranny and totalitarian methods and mentality
Human behaviour ( not history IMO) of the orthodox once again
Thanks for your reply
Jon
My views were already pretty well along by the time the plandemic hit.
But the plandemic pushed them over an edge I didn't even know for sure actually existed!
“Rather than focus on making people stronger and more confident, however, our leftist overlords tend to stoke the fear. “
Reminds of how the Pandemia unfolded misinformation from the MSM
Misdirection from the entrenched health bureaucracy
Our ruling Politicians using ad hominem attacks against groups of citizens to instill fear and division in our society
Thanks for your thoughtful articles
Jon
Thank you, Jon.
Yes, realizing that the media's corruption went light years beyond mere blue-red bias was a huge moment for me.
Realizing that our institutions either don't care whether we live, or die or actually want us dead, was even bigger.