Prominent leftist podcasters funded by Central Intelligence Agency assets (and a few others desperate to make a buck) really want you to love far-right Republicans and hate progressive Democrats.
I have to admit I'm biased because I've been a Bad Faith listener since I started getting into podcasts in 2020, and I have a parasocial relationship to BJG (hey, at least I can own up to my parasocial relationships with podcasters and public figures). I wholeheartedly agree with your criticism of Cenk Uygur —a union busting CEO who buddied up to Charlie Kirk in an ill-fated attempt at being a populist— and Ana Kasparian —perhaps one of the greatest examples of the white liberal type condemned by MLK and Malcolm X—, but I genuinely don't think that BJG fits in the same basket as them.
I know she tends to be a problematic and polarizing figure for many people. I certainly don't agree with everything she says or does, and I can't stand some of the people she is close to (Butch Ware and Glenn Greenwald are the first to come to mind), but I honestly think she does a very good job at interviewing people on her show and fostering actual dialogue and debate among leftists. I would also argue that the point she and Sana Saeed made in their conversation wasn't that people should in any way support a far-right bigoted nut job like MTG, but that it's a pretty bad look for any progressive to be out flanked from the left (even if for all the wrong reasons) by said nut job when it comes to anti-Zionist and anti-interventionist positions. And I think we can agree that the Overton window in the US still needs a massive leftward shift when it comes to Palestine, especially from so-called "representatives."
I'd also like to add that BJG was fired from a cushy job at The Hill for her reporting on the Palestinian genocide and for holding very principled anti-Zionist views. Much like Brie, I was a huge AOC supporter when she first got into Congress, but was disgusted when she got up on that DNC stage and said Kamala Harris was working tirelessly for a ceasefire in Gaza, which was deeply hurtful and insulting for everyone protesting the genocide, not to mention the very people being subjected to it. And I get the pragmatic and urgent necessity of beating Trump, but it was precisely the Democratic establishment's refusal to move even an inch to the left that gave him the White House, again.
Anyway, sorry for the long unhinged rant. I still value your writing and perspective and will continue reading what you have to say.
I get that about BJG, but the constant whitewashing of far-right Republicans, including in this episode, when she felt the need to say the media "lost credibility" by calling Trump's 2016 escalator speech racist. Combine that with her having financial support from Peter Thiel, and the echoes of Cold War wrecking, and I can't ignore it.
if you listen to the context in which she spoke that, she finished up the point by saying that the media lost credibility because they said *that* comment was racist but chose NOT to focus on other instances in which Trump had been quite bigoted, such as when he discriminated against Black tenants. She said the media needed to get more sophisticated in critiquing right-wingers like Trump and Tucker. She also pointed out that "not sending their best" *could* be construed as a statement more about class (obvs the people walking or swimming across the border are poor, it's not the wealthy who are doing this), which is how *some* people could have construed it (she emphasized that those were not her values but she can see how it could be interpreted that way). People can disagree with her analysis! But I would say that to call her analysis "whitewashing" of Trump is a pretty big stretch.
People don't call Trump's 2016 escalator speech racist because he said "they're not sending their best." They do because he said Mexicans were rapists. The lie "scary brown men are coming to rape our white women" has been the go-to line for every genocide, including the multiple ones carried out by the American government.
Very late to the conversation, but this line doesn't match what I'm actually hearing from people making the unflattering AOC vs MTG/Tucker comparison: "constant whitewashing of far-right Republicans".
I hear a lot of people in my circles say that MTG and Tucker are outflanking AOC, doing a better job on key issues. That's never a statement meant to praise MTG or Tucker. Everyone making these comparisons, including me, detests MTG and considers Tucker Carlson scum of the Earth. Instead, it's a statement of horror that our party's standards have fallen so low that disgusting monsters like MTG are showing (or at least performing) more courage and morality than even AOC, who for a while looked like our party's brightest star. It's a statement of despair that people who in the bottom .1% of the human species, like MTG and Tucker, are outflanking us on fundamental beliefs. It's a statement of how lost we are as a party right now.
That may be what you're saying. But BJG is explicitly whitewashing Greene. During the episode, her guest said, "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez carried more water for the genocide of Palestinians than Marjorie Taylor Greene ever did.” Gray agreed "100%", clipped the statement, and put it on Instagram.
For this to be true, we have to ignore the genocidal rhetoric MTG used to dehumanize Palestinians and American anti-genocide protestors in the weeks after 10/7. That was the moment in which the genocidal narrative was being set, which is why Zionists were spreading warmongering lies.
I don't mind if people criticize AOC. But they are explicitly whitewashing MTG's record (which should put her in the Hague).
I actually have to agree with this statement: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez carried more water for the genocide of Palestinians than Marjorie Taylor Greene ever did.”
MTG has obviously said far more reprehensible things about Palestinians and Arabs in general over her life. But she's a known fringe weirdo racist and she didn't go out of her way at all to continue being a racist. She's not capable of carrying very much water even if she tries. She has no legitimate voice here and could barely carry a leaky thimble full of water.
AOC, by contrast, was a trusted voice of morality on precisely things like this. And she used that voice to betray all of her principles and go full Goebbels for the Biden administration. She rallied behind him, encouraging him to stay in the race--which was indefensible both strategically and morally. And she outright lied that there were meaningful efforts ongoing to secure a ceasefire, when we've since learned that the entire Biden administration couldn't have cared less. AOC carried massive buckets of water here compared to MTG, not because what she said was objectively worse in isolation. But because her position gave her much more leverage to carry that water. Her lickspittle actions here mattered far more than MTG's and are a much more vile display of genocide-apologist sycophancy.
Again, I view this not as a "MTG record good" statement in any way, and I don't think it whitewashes her record at all. It's more like: "my god, AOC, what are you doing?!?!"
MTG is racist scum, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t criticize AOC or Bernie when they peddle a softer-sounding liberal zionism and center Israeli safety in the midst of Israelis commiting genocide. I’m glad she’s been moved on this issue (due to said criticism), but she has to prove it
I can accept saying AOC isn’t a liberal-Zionist, but to call Bernie Sanders anything other than a liberal (or “labor”) Zionist is simply untrue. He wholeheartedly defends the existence of Israel as a Jewish ethnostate. How long did it take him to even call the genocide a genocide?
I overall really appreciated this article as someone who used to listen to BJG’s commentary. She is absolutely an opportunist and careerist before anything else.
She was also one of the few left-media types to platform Kshama Sawant and Socialist Alternative when we were defending our council seat against a right-wing billionaire-funded recall campaign that attacked her for participating in the 2020 BLM protests.
I don’t always agree with your takes, but this was balanced and measured IMO. And absolutely fuck the Young Turks. We gotta stop worshipping media talking heads just like we need to stop worshipping politicians.
“While the Communist Party USA was working to build the New Deal as a much-needed antidote to fascism, the Trotskyists spent their time writing articles (the 1930s version of a podcast) relentlessly attacking them as “fascists,” “reformists,” and “sell-outs.” (Sound familiar?)
What a gross oversimplification of the period. How did the 1934 General Strike of Minneapolis happen? If Trotskyists were nothing more than 1930s “podcasters,” how were they able to win such a monumental strike?
I’m extremely open to hearing criticism of Trotskyism/Trotskyists, and I have plenty of my own as a Trotskyist myself, but this is lazy. I genuinely think you’re a better writer than that, and I at least thought your politics were better than that.
Of course they are. They both have been vocal in their beliefs that Israel should exist as a state. That is a Zionist position. They’re not advocating for decolonization.
I think "Americans had the most trust in the mass media in 1976, following principled, critical coverage of Watergate and the Vietnam War" is a bit simplified: As detailed in Manufacturing Consent, mainstream media was not, in fact, doing much principled critical coverage of at least the Vietnam War until well after it wouldve been useful to the average viewer. Support for the war was positively correlated with hours of TV viewing, for instance.
I could have worded that better. The coverage wasn't ideal, but the press's images of war did help turn public opinion against it. And I do believe Americans saw that as principled.
Some interesting points and facts in this piece, Joe! Definitely thought-provoking. Some of the logic is kind of twisty and it ultimately seems to uphold the duopoly.
I agree about the right-wing personalities mentioned. Not convinced Briahna Joy Gray is compromised based on this information, but questioning motives and exploring connections is good in our situation.
An excellent resource on these matters is “Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism” by @Gabriel Rockhill. I will check out the book you mentioned as well!
The left knows the CIA is destroying the left. The right also believes the CIA is interfering in their politics, whatever they are, and they’re probably right. The left and a good portion of the right are done with the terrorist colony of Israel. There are a lot of things we should be able to come together on and take care of.
I’d like to hear you flesh out the claims you make of American Trotskyism in the 20th century. You say a lot in a couple paragraphs that oversimplifies and ignores a lot of historical context.
I’d also be curious if you do have any critiques of the CPUSA in the same time period. If I read this article having been relatively unfamiliar with Trotskyism and Stalinism, I could assume you are fully aligned with the CPUSA of the 20th century.
I also think it’s a big stretch to lump in modern day political parties, like Socialist Alternative, with the left-podcast sphere. We wholeheartedly supported Force the Vote, and we also have MANY disagreements with folks like Jimmy Dore, and BJG for that matter. Kshama Sawant was a *Trotskyist* in Seattle City Council for 10 years (2014-2024), being elected to office before the DSA and Bernie’s meteoric rise.
I also have my critiques of Sawant! I even have critiques of my own party! But I would much rather you argue these points more clearly, and not just include them as footnotes in an article about lefty podcasters.
I have many critiques of CPUSA, and pretty much any leftist organization that's ever existed. But I do believe supporting the New Deal was the correct move. And you're also correct, this is a simplified version of 20th-century Trotskyism. I wasn't trying to share my full views, only draw a parallel between the Trots who went on to support Republicans and what's happening today.
I don't believe I mentioned SA, so I certainly wasn't trying to lump them in with BJG.
But once again, I want to reiterate how much I appreciate you responding in good faith. I wish more of the left ecosystem was willing to engage in good faith debate.
I guess I meant it as in you lumped all the FTV people together as just lefty podcasters, which isn’t the whole truth. My point was that there were genuine organizers who do real tangible work who supported that initiative.
With respect, you didn’t fulfill your important promise to me as a consumer of content. I wanted answers to his direct questions! See here for someone else making the same point:
That's Glenn again. TBH, I'm not too interested in getting involved in Glenn's podcast feud. Leftist infighting used to be about which parties you supported. Now, it's about which podcasters you stan.
But you had suggested you were going to answer his direct questions. His direct questions were not about a "podcast feud" - they were about applying **your own criteria** of accusation and innuendo to other cases. If you are not willing to apply your own criteria to those cases, ok. But just know that this is called special pleading: https://www.logicalfallacies.org/special-pleading.html
Great to see someone connect the dots around these absurd takes from podcast people. This, too: “Too often, American audiences let mainstream media talking heads with no connection to actual political movements dictate what those movements should do.” It describes so much NYT involvement in politics in particular. It’s how they end up endorsing people like Amy Klobuchar for president, who didn’t come anywhere near winning her own state primary. Or sending columnists like Frank Bruni on TV the morning after the 2016 election to say Dems lost because they were too far left on “boutique issues” like trans rights (https://fair.org/home/nyt-protects-its-pundit-who-dismissed-trans-rights-as-boutique-issue/). That people like him are invited on TV to do political analysis, when he seems to have only shifted from being a restaurant critic to writing political commentary because he developed gout, is absurd.
"Valorizing himself and his co-host Ana Kasparian for 'taking a chance' (by which he means they said things on their podcast), Cenk...." I must say, that one made me do a Christoph Waltz, "Ooh, that's a bingo!"
1. Why are you giving a podcast named after genocidaires by a bunch of talking heads whose most recent significant activity was “why I left the left” grifting the fig leaf of calling them leftist/left-leaning?
2. I feel like the phrase “personal vendettas against the Soviet Union” is both an understatement and dancing kinda close to the flame of Soviet apologia. Of course, I freely admit that I’m a little bit hypervigilant for the ol’ “US Bad -> Soviet Union Good -> Russia Good -> Putin Good” pipeline that a lot of nominal leftists fell down when Putin invaded Ukraine.
I'm not saying there weren't some valid critiques of the USSR, especially during Stalinism. I'm pointing out that some ultra-leftists let their personal feelings against other leftists drive them into neoconservatism. Because that did happen.
When did Butch Ware attack PSL? He called out DSA-LA for endorsing a billionaire who apparently made part of his fortune in for-profit prisons. But what (if anything) did he do to PSL?
The video is in here. Butch claimed Peace & Freedom revoked a promise of a gubernatorial position on the left unity slate. And "PSL only gets motion on tik tok."
Jesus Christ is this long. And boring. And incredibly selective of the facts. And filtered through the prism of "What Joe believes".
And in the end a truly bad faith argument which reveals the eternal downfall of "the Left" (wrongfully expanded to include liberals): taking a narrow and unnuanced position on everything and attacking anyone who doesn't hew precisely to that position.
It doesn't even engage honestly with the many reasons BJG and many others are disappointed with AOC. Ugh.
Jeeeez this was hard to go through. First, let me start by saying, “shame on you”. AOC actively supported the genocide. She did that. You cannot dispute that. Kamala vowed to maintain Biden’s genocidal policy in Israel, and AOC obfuscated for and defended that genocidal administration. She worked to get genocidal war criminals elected for her own self-interest.
On a side note: it seems like you, yourself, voted Kamala. Meaning that you actively and knowingly participated in supporting a genocide. You got off your ass, put your shoes on, and went to vote for genocide to give yourself a marginally better life. How are you different than MAGA? You engaged in the same hyper-individualism that they do. You voted to murder toddlers for your own self-interest. At least MAGA voters can say they were dumb enough to be duped. You KNOWINGLY supported genocide.
Now. Back to the point.
It doesn’t matter how disgusting MTG is or was. She didn’t support genocide. AOC did. And, instead of holding AOC accountable, you defend her. She still supports Zionism. She is a liberal Zionist. Two states is a lie. Israel stole it all. Anyone who says “two states” is lying. There is no two states. There is only Israel with a Jewish supremacist minority in power.
So here you are defending the genocidal Nazi; while condemning the anti-genocide conservative who is also a little racist. From my perspective, your liberal ass is WAAAY more disgusting than MTG for the simple fact that you support genocide. You can cosplay as an anti-Zionist all you want, but you keep supporting genocide and Jewish supremacy.
You do not hold genocide supporters accountable. You do not hold yourself accountable for supporting a genocide. Who the fuck are you to judge MTG for anything? You are a hyper-individualist child killer.
There was no anti-genocide candidate running in 2024* and therefore any attempt to assign moral weight based on voting for a pro-Israel presidential candidate in 2024 is less than worthless. Please learn about concepts like “harm reduction” before attempting to broach this topic again.
*: The Spoiler Party That Should Have Committed Seppuku After 2000 does not count
So you admit to supporting genocide for your own self-interest. You admit to actively participating in a genocide by KNOWINGLY voting for a genocidal administration in order to preserve your own self-interest. The ends justified the means. It’s “I don’t hate the gays or the immigrants, I just wanted lower taxes” vs “I don’t support genocide, I just wanted abortions and unisex bathrooms for trans people”. What’s the difference?
We can further expound. 56 people killed under ICE detention in the Obama/Biden years. More deportations than Trump to date. Where was the outrage? Where was the concern for harm reduction? How about when migrants were getting whipped on horseback during the Biden admin? Where was the outrage? Where was the concern for harm reduction.
You people care only about decorum and optics. You will murder mountains of toddlers to maintain your decorum and optics. You are Nazi scum
And would “not voting” have changed any of those outcomes?
Look buddy if you wanna advocate for violent resistance then go for it, but right now all I’m hearing is the whining of a little shitstain who thinks elections are all about personal moral purity.
How are you missing the point? You ACTIVELY and KNOWINGLY participated in genocide. How are you better than MTG? She didn’t actively or knowingly support a genocide. She didn’t do the evil thing. YOU DID! You took action to support a genocide for your own self interest.
And, unfortunately revolution isn’t coming because Americans are far too stupid and disjointed to successfully accomplish one. No, there will be no revolution. Only collapse. And that was coming with or without Trump. Trump isn’t the disease. Trump is a symptom of the disease that is liberalism. Trump hasn’t murdered millions yet. Obama has. Biden has. Bush has. That doesn’t mean that Trumps better, but it does mean that you are the SAME exact scum that would vote for Trump.
I did. Learn to understand context. You made the case for harm reduction. I’m making the case that you still participated in the most evil act humanly imaginable. My argument is that you are no different than a Republican. You are both two sides of hyper-individualistic imperialist liberals who put your own self interests at the forefront of your ideologies; while brandishing the shield of “ethics” and “virtue”. You are literal Nazis.
I have to admit I'm biased because I've been a Bad Faith listener since I started getting into podcasts in 2020, and I have a parasocial relationship to BJG (hey, at least I can own up to my parasocial relationships with podcasters and public figures). I wholeheartedly agree with your criticism of Cenk Uygur —a union busting CEO who buddied up to Charlie Kirk in an ill-fated attempt at being a populist— and Ana Kasparian —perhaps one of the greatest examples of the white liberal type condemned by MLK and Malcolm X—, but I genuinely don't think that BJG fits in the same basket as them.
I know she tends to be a problematic and polarizing figure for many people. I certainly don't agree with everything she says or does, and I can't stand some of the people she is close to (Butch Ware and Glenn Greenwald are the first to come to mind), but I honestly think she does a very good job at interviewing people on her show and fostering actual dialogue and debate among leftists. I would also argue that the point she and Sana Saeed made in their conversation wasn't that people should in any way support a far-right bigoted nut job like MTG, but that it's a pretty bad look for any progressive to be out flanked from the left (even if for all the wrong reasons) by said nut job when it comes to anti-Zionist and anti-interventionist positions. And I think we can agree that the Overton window in the US still needs a massive leftward shift when it comes to Palestine, especially from so-called "representatives."
I'd also like to add that BJG was fired from a cushy job at The Hill for her reporting on the Palestinian genocide and for holding very principled anti-Zionist views. Much like Brie, I was a huge AOC supporter when she first got into Congress, but was disgusted when she got up on that DNC stage and said Kamala Harris was working tirelessly for a ceasefire in Gaza, which was deeply hurtful and insulting for everyone protesting the genocide, not to mention the very people being subjected to it. And I get the pragmatic and urgent necessity of beating Trump, but it was precisely the Democratic establishment's refusal to move even an inch to the left that gave him the White House, again.
Anyway, sorry for the long unhinged rant. I still value your writing and perspective and will continue reading what you have to say.
Thanks for reading!
I get that about BJG, but the constant whitewashing of far-right Republicans, including in this episode, when she felt the need to say the media "lost credibility" by calling Trump's 2016 escalator speech racist. Combine that with her having financial support from Peter Thiel, and the echoes of Cold War wrecking, and I can't ignore it.
if you listen to the context in which she spoke that, she finished up the point by saying that the media lost credibility because they said *that* comment was racist but chose NOT to focus on other instances in which Trump had been quite bigoted, such as when he discriminated against Black tenants. She said the media needed to get more sophisticated in critiquing right-wingers like Trump and Tucker. She also pointed out that "not sending their best" *could* be construed as a statement more about class (obvs the people walking or swimming across the border are poor, it's not the wealthy who are doing this), which is how *some* people could have construed it (she emphasized that those were not her values but she can see how it could be interpreted that way). People can disagree with her analysis! But I would say that to call her analysis "whitewashing" of Trump is a pretty big stretch.
People don't call Trump's 2016 escalator speech racist because he said "they're not sending their best." They do because he said Mexicans were rapists. The lie "scary brown men are coming to rape our white women" has been the go-to line for every genocide, including the multiple ones carried out by the American government.
This is whitewashing.
Very late to the conversation, but this line doesn't match what I'm actually hearing from people making the unflattering AOC vs MTG/Tucker comparison: "constant whitewashing of far-right Republicans".
I hear a lot of people in my circles say that MTG and Tucker are outflanking AOC, doing a better job on key issues. That's never a statement meant to praise MTG or Tucker. Everyone making these comparisons, including me, detests MTG and considers Tucker Carlson scum of the Earth. Instead, it's a statement of horror that our party's standards have fallen so low that disgusting monsters like MTG are showing (or at least performing) more courage and morality than even AOC, who for a while looked like our party's brightest star. It's a statement of despair that people who in the bottom .1% of the human species, like MTG and Tucker, are outflanking us on fundamental beliefs. It's a statement of how lost we are as a party right now.
That may be what you're saying. But BJG is explicitly whitewashing Greene. During the episode, her guest said, "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez carried more water for the genocide of Palestinians than Marjorie Taylor Greene ever did.” Gray agreed "100%", clipped the statement, and put it on Instagram.
For this to be true, we have to ignore the genocidal rhetoric MTG used to dehumanize Palestinians and American anti-genocide protestors in the weeks after 10/7. That was the moment in which the genocidal narrative was being set, which is why Zionists were spreading warmongering lies.
I don't mind if people criticize AOC. But they are explicitly whitewashing MTG's record (which should put her in the Hague).
https://www.instagram.com/p/DYfrj3RJFlR/
I actually have to agree with this statement: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez carried more water for the genocide of Palestinians than Marjorie Taylor Greene ever did.”
MTG has obviously said far more reprehensible things about Palestinians and Arabs in general over her life. But she's a known fringe weirdo racist and she didn't go out of her way at all to continue being a racist. She's not capable of carrying very much water even if she tries. She has no legitimate voice here and could barely carry a leaky thimble full of water.
AOC, by contrast, was a trusted voice of morality on precisely things like this. And she used that voice to betray all of her principles and go full Goebbels for the Biden administration. She rallied behind him, encouraging him to stay in the race--which was indefensible both strategically and morally. And she outright lied that there were meaningful efforts ongoing to secure a ceasefire, when we've since learned that the entire Biden administration couldn't have cared less. AOC carried massive buckets of water here compared to MTG, not because what she said was objectively worse in isolation. But because her position gave her much more leverage to carry that water. Her lickspittle actions here mattered far more than MTG's and are a much more vile display of genocide-apologist sycophancy.
Again, I view this not as a "MTG record good" statement in any way, and I don't think it whitewashes her record at all. It's more like: "my god, AOC, what are you doing?!?!"
MTG is racist scum, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t criticize AOC or Bernie when they peddle a softer-sounding liberal zionism and center Israeli safety in the midst of Israelis commiting genocide. I’m glad she’s been moved on this issue (due to said criticism), but she has to prove it
I don't think they're liberal zionists. But I do agree criticism is absolutely fair.
I can accept saying AOC isn’t a liberal-Zionist, but to call Bernie Sanders anything other than a liberal (or “labor”) Zionist is simply untrue. He wholeheartedly defends the existence of Israel as a Jewish ethnostate. How long did it take him to even call the genocide a genocide?
I overall really appreciated this article as someone who used to listen to BJG’s commentary. She is absolutely an opportunist and careerist before anything else.
She was also one of the few left-media types to platform Kshama Sawant and Socialist Alternative when we were defending our council seat against a right-wing billionaire-funded recall campaign that attacked her for participating in the 2020 BLM protests.
I don’t always agree with your takes, but this was balanced and measured IMO. And absolutely fuck the Young Turks. We gotta stop worshipping media talking heads just like we need to stop worshipping politicians.
Ah just got to this part:
“While the Communist Party USA was working to build the New Deal as a much-needed antidote to fascism, the Trotskyists spent their time writing articles (the 1930s version of a podcast) relentlessly attacking them as “fascists,” “reformists,” and “sell-outs.” (Sound familiar?)
What a gross oversimplification of the period. How did the 1934 General Strike of Minneapolis happen? If Trotskyists were nothing more than 1930s “podcasters,” how were they able to win such a monumental strike?
I’m extremely open to hearing criticism of Trotskyism/Trotskyists, and I have plenty of my own as a Trotskyist myself, but this is lazy. I genuinely think you’re a better writer than that, and I at least thought your politics were better than that.
Of course they are. They both have been vocal in their beliefs that Israel should exist as a state. That is a Zionist position. They’re not advocating for decolonization.
I think "Americans had the most trust in the mass media in 1976, following principled, critical coverage of Watergate and the Vietnam War" is a bit simplified: As detailed in Manufacturing Consent, mainstream media was not, in fact, doing much principled critical coverage of at least the Vietnam War until well after it wouldve been useful to the average viewer. Support for the war was positively correlated with hours of TV viewing, for instance.
I could have worded that better. The coverage wasn't ideal, but the press's images of war did help turn public opinion against it. And I do believe Americans saw that as principled.
Yeah, it's a necessary simplification for the larger point, just thought it worth noting.
They don’t call it television “programming” for nothing.
Some interesting points and facts in this piece, Joe! Definitely thought-provoking. Some of the logic is kind of twisty and it ultimately seems to uphold the duopoly.
I agree about the right-wing personalities mentioned. Not convinced Briahna Joy Gray is compromised based on this information, but questioning motives and exploring connections is good in our situation.
An excellent resource on these matters is “Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism” by @Gabriel Rockhill. I will check out the book you mentioned as well!
The left knows the CIA is destroying the left. The right also believes the CIA is interfering in their politics, whatever they are, and they’re probably right. The left and a good portion of the right are done with the terrorist colony of Israel. There are a lot of things we should be able to come together on and take care of.
TY for sharing your thoughts and findings! 🕊️
Thank you for reading, and engaging in good faith!
I’d like to hear you flesh out the claims you make of American Trotskyism in the 20th century. You say a lot in a couple paragraphs that oversimplifies and ignores a lot of historical context.
I’d also be curious if you do have any critiques of the CPUSA in the same time period. If I read this article having been relatively unfamiliar with Trotskyism and Stalinism, I could assume you are fully aligned with the CPUSA of the 20th century.
I also think it’s a big stretch to lump in modern day political parties, like Socialist Alternative, with the left-podcast sphere. We wholeheartedly supported Force the Vote, and we also have MANY disagreements with folks like Jimmy Dore, and BJG for that matter. Kshama Sawant was a *Trotskyist* in Seattle City Council for 10 years (2014-2024), being elected to office before the DSA and Bernie’s meteoric rise.
I also have my critiques of Sawant! I even have critiques of my own party! But I would much rather you argue these points more clearly, and not just include them as footnotes in an article about lefty podcasters.
I have many critiques of CPUSA, and pretty much any leftist organization that's ever existed. But I do believe supporting the New Deal was the correct move. And you're also correct, this is a simplified version of 20th-century Trotskyism. I wasn't trying to share my full views, only draw a parallel between the Trots who went on to support Republicans and what's happening today.
I don't believe I mentioned SA, so I certainly wasn't trying to lump them in with BJG.
But once again, I want to reiterate how much I appreciate you responding in good faith. I wish more of the left ecosystem was willing to engage in good faith debate.
Thanks! You as well.
I guess I meant it as in you lumped all the FTV people together as just lefty podcasters, which isn’t the whole truth. My point was that there were genuine organizers who do real tangible work who supported that initiative.
This response by Glenn Greenwald seems very devastating: https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/2056854771428913633
I hope that you reply to his direct questions!
Will do!
As a consumer of content, this is what I love to hear.
I'll never deprive the internet of content.
With respect, you didn’t fulfill your important promise to me as a consumer of content. I wanted answers to his direct questions! See here for someone else making the same point:
https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/2057105784102699274
That's Glenn again. TBH, I'm not too interested in getting involved in Glenn's podcast feud. Leftist infighting used to be about which parties you supported. Now, it's about which podcasters you stan.
I know it's Glenn, I was being silly.
But you had suggested you were going to answer his direct questions. His direct questions were not about a "podcast feud" - they were about applying **your own criteria** of accusation and innuendo to other cases. If you are not willing to apply your own criteria to those cases, ok. But just know that this is called special pleading: https://www.logicalfallacies.org/special-pleading.html
Great to see someone connect the dots around these absurd takes from podcast people. This, too: “Too often, American audiences let mainstream media talking heads with no connection to actual political movements dictate what those movements should do.” It describes so much NYT involvement in politics in particular. It’s how they end up endorsing people like Amy Klobuchar for president, who didn’t come anywhere near winning her own state primary. Or sending columnists like Frank Bruni on TV the morning after the 2016 election to say Dems lost because they were too far left on “boutique issues” like trans rights (https://fair.org/home/nyt-protects-its-pundit-who-dismissed-trans-rights-as-boutique-issue/). That people like him are invited on TV to do political analysis, when he seems to have only shifted from being a restaurant critic to writing political commentary because he developed gout, is absurd.
"Valorizing himself and his co-host Ana Kasparian for 'taking a chance' (by which he means they said things on their podcast), Cenk...." I must say, that one made me do a Christoph Waltz, "Ooh, that's a bingo!"
😂
“Right-wing brothers” - yeah, no. I’d sooner trust a pit viper.
At no point in the last decade have these people given us any reason to trust them.
I hate this timeline so much
1. Why are you giving a podcast named after genocidaires by a bunch of talking heads whose most recent significant activity was “why I left the left” grifting the fig leaf of calling them leftist/left-leaning?
2. I feel like the phrase “personal vendettas against the Soviet Union” is both an understatement and dancing kinda close to the flame of Soviet apologia. Of course, I freely admit that I’m a little bit hypervigilant for the ol’ “US Bad -> Soviet Union Good -> Russia Good -> Putin Good” pipeline that a lot of nominal leftists fell down when Putin invaded Ukraine.
I'm not saying there weren't some valid critiques of the USSR, especially during Stalinism. I'm pointing out that some ultra-leftists let their personal feelings against other leftists drive them into neoconservatism. Because that did happen.
I also agree that the leftist praise for Russia is silly. Putin and Yeltsin did what the CIA could never do — end the Soviet Union.
I’ve always personally laid most of the blame at Gorbachev’s feet for introducing unemployment without also introducing some sort of UBI.
When did Butch Ware attack PSL? He called out DSA-LA for endorsing a billionaire who apparently made part of his fortune in for-profit prisons. But what (if anything) did he do to PSL?
The video is in here. Butch claimed Peace & Freedom revoked a promise of a gubernatorial position on the left unity slate. And "PSL only gets motion on tik tok."
https://www.joewrote.com/p/butch-ware-the-art-of-leftist-grift
Damn we really are cooked
Jesus Christ is this long. And boring. And incredibly selective of the facts. And filtered through the prism of "What Joe believes".
And in the end a truly bad faith argument which reveals the eternal downfall of "the Left" (wrongfully expanded to include liberals): taking a narrow and unnuanced position on everything and attacking anyone who doesn't hew precisely to that position.
It doesn't even engage honestly with the many reasons BJG and many others are disappointed with AOC. Ugh.
You’re surprised my Substack is “what I believe”?
Hilarious. Hey look. Another retard who believes in dog rape. That's hilarious.
Do you believe the earth is flat and the Zionists flattened it? LOL.
Jeeeez this was hard to go through. First, let me start by saying, “shame on you”. AOC actively supported the genocide. She did that. You cannot dispute that. Kamala vowed to maintain Biden’s genocidal policy in Israel, and AOC obfuscated for and defended that genocidal administration. She worked to get genocidal war criminals elected for her own self-interest.
On a side note: it seems like you, yourself, voted Kamala. Meaning that you actively and knowingly participated in supporting a genocide. You got off your ass, put your shoes on, and went to vote for genocide to give yourself a marginally better life. How are you different than MAGA? You engaged in the same hyper-individualism that they do. You voted to murder toddlers for your own self-interest. At least MAGA voters can say they were dumb enough to be duped. You KNOWINGLY supported genocide.
Now. Back to the point.
It doesn’t matter how disgusting MTG is or was. She didn’t support genocide. AOC did. And, instead of holding AOC accountable, you defend her. She still supports Zionism. She is a liberal Zionist. Two states is a lie. Israel stole it all. Anyone who says “two states” is lying. There is no two states. There is only Israel with a Jewish supremacist minority in power.
So here you are defending the genocidal Nazi; while condemning the anti-genocide conservative who is also a little racist. From my perspective, your liberal ass is WAAAY more disgusting than MTG for the simple fact that you support genocide. You can cosplay as an anti-Zionist all you want, but you keep supporting genocide and Jewish supremacy.
You do not hold genocide supporters accountable. You do not hold yourself accountable for supporting a genocide. Who the fuck are you to judge MTG for anything? You are a hyper-individualist child killer.
There was no anti-genocide candidate running in 2024* and therefore any attempt to assign moral weight based on voting for a pro-Israel presidential candidate in 2024 is less than worthless. Please learn about concepts like “harm reduction” before attempting to broach this topic again.
*: The Spoiler Party That Should Have Committed Seppuku After 2000 does not count
So you admit to supporting genocide for your own self-interest. You admit to actively participating in a genocide by KNOWINGLY voting for a genocidal administration in order to preserve your own self-interest. The ends justified the means. It’s “I don’t hate the gays or the immigrants, I just wanted lower taxes” vs “I don’t support genocide, I just wanted abortions and unisex bathrooms for trans people”. What’s the difference?
You are MAGA. You are the problem.
Learn to read, you infant.
We can further expound. 56 people killed under ICE detention in the Obama/Biden years. More deportations than Trump to date. Where was the outrage? Where was the concern for harm reduction? How about when migrants were getting whipped on horseback during the Biden admin? Where was the outrage? Where was the concern for harm reduction.
You people care only about decorum and optics. You will murder mountains of toddlers to maintain your decorum and optics. You are Nazi scum
And would “not voting” have changed any of those outcomes?
Look buddy if you wanna advocate for violent resistance then go for it, but right now all I’m hearing is the whining of a little shitstain who thinks elections are all about personal moral purity.
How are you missing the point? You ACTIVELY and KNOWINGLY participated in genocide. How are you better than MTG? She didn’t actively or knowingly support a genocide. She didn’t do the evil thing. YOU DID! You took action to support a genocide for your own self interest.
And, unfortunately revolution isn’t coming because Americans are far too stupid and disjointed to successfully accomplish one. No, there will be no revolution. Only collapse. And that was coming with or without Trump. Trump isn’t the disease. Trump is a symptom of the disease that is liberalism. Trump hasn’t murdered millions yet. Obama has. Biden has. Bush has. That doesn’t mean that Trumps better, but it does mean that you are the SAME exact scum that would vote for Trump.
You are not better than MTG. OBJECTIVELY.
I did. Learn to understand context. You made the case for harm reduction. I’m making the case that you still participated in the most evil act humanly imaginable. My argument is that you are no different than a Republican. You are both two sides of hyper-individualistic imperialist liberals who put your own self interests at the forefront of your ideologies; while brandishing the shield of “ethics” and “virtue”. You are literal Nazis.