Communist America

Four socialist-backed candidates win Pennsylvania legislative primaries

Four Democratic candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) won primary elections for legislative seats in Pennsylvania on Tuesday.

I am surprised the DSA is still operating, I thought they had faded away. If conservatives reacted to this news the way the left reacts to Nazis, thye wouldn't have to deal with an Alt-Right. Here's the Cathedral in a nutshell:

The DSA's ideas are greatly influenced by those of writer Michael Harrington, Chairman of the League for Industrial Democracy (1964) and member of the National Executive Board of the Socialist Party of America (1960–68). Opposed to capitalism and communism alike as cruel and anti-libertarian social systems, Harrington advocated working for a realignment of the U.S. Democratic Party away from an amorphous amalgam of often contradictory ideas and toward a principled party of the left.

Put it this way. Marx was a democrat with a small D. The Democratic Socialists envision a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning...and racial equality. I share an immediate program with liberals in this country because the best liberalism leads toward socialism.... I want to be on the left wing of the possible.

The Far Left Economist

This used to be one of the conservative columns in the magazine. Now it is unironically far-left progressive. What a difference a decade makes!

Laughing with Diamond and Silk

It is a great article for criticizing blue-pilled conservative Republicans:

THE three southern ladies entering the Marriott Hotel in Greensboro, North Carolina, were clear about why they loved Diamond and Silk. “They’re very conservative,” said Stephanie, who had driven for two hours over from Charlotte to watch the social-media stars and professional Trump fans perform their new show. “And, you know, they’re black,” said Gracie. “That means black people don’t need to have a certain point of view.” It also makes some whites feel better about holding a certain view. Soothing Trump voters’ anxiety over their reputation for racism is the main function of Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, as Diamond and Silk are properly called. It has made them highly successful political entrepreneurs.

Conservatives often talk of blacks being on the Democrat plantation, but blue-pilled conservatives are also on a plantation: the Cathedral's. That bold portion is a good line for burning blue-pilled conservatives. For the red-pilled, it's easy to see the Cathedral reaching its hand from behind the curtain.

As for the progressive finish:

It is good that such voters do not like to be considered racist. It is also understandable that many of them feel frustrated to be told that the casual bigotry which was acceptable in the 1980s no longer is. It is not their fault that the definition of racism in America has broadened. But the racial battle-lines Mr Trump has drawn leave no room for such niceties. In reality, African-Americans always vote in line with their interests, and a president who has equivocated on white supremacist violence naturally repels them. Fully 84% consider Mr Trump racist. That represents an American tragedy, a reaffirmation of racial-political divisions from which Diamond and Silk provide no comic relief. The joke is on anyone who thinks they do.

One of racism's new broadly defined qualities is having the opposite political opinion of blacks. Since blacks vote their interests race, and their race allies with the left, to be a right-winger is to be a racist. If blacks think 2+2 = 5, then if you say 2+2 = 4, you are a racist. That is how the definition works. It's also why you and every right-winger you know needs to be red-pilled. Racism is not a logical or rational argument, it is an emotional and rhetorical argument designed to make you stop thinking logically. It is social pressure designed to push you into abandoning your own self-interest.

Fake Right Relies on NYTimes for Support

Jonah Goldberg cuts to the heart of the "Intellectual Dark Web" (a made up thing that appeared in the NYTimes yesterday) showing it is exactly what critics say it is: Evaluating the ‘Intellectual Dark Web’

More substantively, I guess I still don’t get it. Having read the essay twice, it seems to me this IDW thing isn’t actually an intellectual movement. It’s just a coalition of thinkers and journalists who happen to share a disdain for the keepers of the liberal orthodoxy. Weiss recounts a bunch of conversion tales where once-respected and iconoclastic liberal types run head-on into the groupthink or party line of the liberal establishment. They suddenly have a revelation about the enforced orthodoxy of their own side, and as they pull on these intellectual threads, they face blowback and reinforcement from unexpected places.

They are liberals, not conservatives. They aren't opposing the left, they are opposing the people currently in charge of the left. They are not even technically Outer Party. They will only become the Outer Party if they can secure a position as the loyal opposition. As happened before:

Where have we heard that before? Well, it’s the story of successive waves of neoconservatives in the 1960s and 1970s. It’s the story of former Communists — Burnham, Meyer, Eastman, et al. — who joined the founding generation of National Review. It’s the story Whittaker Chambers tells in Witness. It’s also the story of many of the progressive intellectuals who were disillusioned by the First World War. Are they exact parallels? Of course not — in part because these are different times. Irving Kristol famously said, “a neoconservative is a liberal who’s been mugged by reality.” New realities may create different muggings, but the pattern is awfully familiar.

VoxDay has been shooting holes through Jordan Peterson's philosophy for about a week now and he appeared on Alex Jones to talk about it.