[Satire] Sinema Aides Reveal Her Pact With Satan

“She literally has the devil on speed dial,” says terrified intern

A special Halloween-time investigation by Russell Dobular

Senator Krysten Sinema this week denied claims that she sold her soul to the devil in exchange for earthly power and riches after several former and current aides came forward to make the accusation. 

“Can’t anyone just be bought off anymore?” Sinema replied to one reporter inquiring about her alleged connections to Lucifer, adding, “I also don’t appreciate the sexist ‘in thrall to the Devil’ trope. When it’s a man, he’s simply corrupt. When it’s a woman who’s violated every principle she ever claimed to hold, all of a sudden everyone thinks she’s gone to a crossroads in the middle of Tempe, stripped naked under a full moon, sacrificed an animal of some sort in the delicious night air, possibly an armadillo, and given herself completely to the Dark Lord, body and soul. It’s just wrong and I won’t stand for it.”

Still, rumors persist that through her voting record, Sinema is preparing the way for the antichrist foretold in the Book of Revelations, under the direction of one or several demonic entities. 

According to Arizona State University lecturer and demonology expert, Dr. William Hellstrom, Sinema’s journey from Green Party candidate and immigrants’ rights activist to human pharma cash vacuum attachment is typical of those who sell their souls to the Devil.

“We see this again and again throughout history,” he said from inside a protective circle made up of hastily scrawled ancient runes, “Caligula, Napoleon, even Atilla the Hun; they all started out with noble intentions, but in the end they weren’t able to resist the Prince of Lies. How do you think Nancy Pelosi made $150 million dollars as a sitting member of Congress anyway?  Sinema has already racked up her first million and believe me, she’s just getting started.”

Perhaps most disturbing is the series of disappearances connected to Sinema’s office. Since she was first elected to the Arizona State House in 2011, no less than 12 of the Senator’s interns and staff members have gone missing under mysterious circumstances. 

The pattern has not gone unnoticed by some of the parents and partners of the missing, who have created the non-profit Loved Ones of Missing Krysten Sinema Aides and Interns (LOMKSAI), with the aim of pressuring law enforcement to investigate. 

Mary Cafferty, spokeswoman for the group and mother of one of Sinema’s alleged victims said, “It’s very clear that something evil is going on in that office. Who holds up a vote on lowering prescription drug prices, then just runs off to the gym like nothing happened?  Her familiars in the police department need to stop conspiring with the Beast and do their jobs.”

One wan and clearly terrified intern who spoke only on condition of anonymity painted a chilling picture of life inside Sinema’s office, “Everyone has to wear a sweater because it’s always freezing, even in the middle of summer and that’s without air conditioning. It can be 90 degrees out and you can still see your breath. Of the staff that was here when I started, I’m the only one left.  And also, I’ve been having these crazy dreams of her scratching at my window, asking to be invited in.  And after every disappearance, she seems, like, I don’t know . . . younger.” 

Here she paused, her eyes darting nervously as if afraid someone might be listening, before whispering, “I’m afraid I’m going to be next.”

This is a developing story. 

Thank you for reading. We are a completely independent outlet, and so if you enjoyed this content, you can help us create more of it by making a secure donation via PayPal, or become a member at Patreon.com and access exclusive patron-only content. Thank you for your support.

Follow us on all of these platforms to stay in touch:

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Listen to our latest podcast below and subscribe to our podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastboxSoundcloudor any podcast player you use.

Dissident Detox Hour 10/17: Rogan Confronts Gupta, Bernie & Manchin Spar, Trump Threatens a Boycott Due Dissidence

Photo: Elizabeth D. Herman, NYT (altered for use)

Alexander Sammon on the Unmasking of Centrism’s Emptiness and Corruption

Alexander Sammon, staff writer at The American Prospect, wrote a recent article entitled “The Undignified Demise of Centrism.” In it, he concludes:

“Centrism, now, is imperiled as a political orientation not for its competitive viability, but for the emptiness and corruption that has been exposed at its heart. Not a single young voter, or someone politically up for grabs, can look to the leadership of Kyrsten Sinema or Scott Peters and see a politician with a positive vision for governance and society, one they could believe in, knock on doors for, or turn out to vote for.”

As negotiations continue over the Biden administration’s infrastructure plan, so-called “centrist” Democrats in both the House and Senate have raised objections to the $3.5 trillion reconciliation package championed by both progressives and the White House.

Moderates holding up the legislative process by insisting that plans be watered down is nothing new. But Sammon argues in his piece that what is unique to this particular fight is that this time, centrists aren’t even bothering to disguise their obstructionism as anything but what it is: hollow and nihilistic corruption.

Kyrsten Sinema is teaching a college course on fundraising (yes, that’s right) while refusing to offer any rationale for her objection to the Build Back Better Act.

Joe Manchin is steadfastly (and successfully) chipping away at Biden’s climate proposals while raking in huge amounts of money from the fossil fuel industry, and having gotten rich off his own coal company which he founded in 1988.

Congressman Scott Peters, as Sammon cites in his article, all but openly admitted the corrupting influence of pharmaceutical donations on his decision making process, insisting that refusing their donations would be tantamount to “defunding” his campaign and “let[ting] Republicans win.”

Unlike most intra-party fights where centrists play an active role in negotiations and submit their own counteroffers to more progressive proposals, this time they’re making no such effort. They’re simply saying no for the sake of it, offering the American people no explanation other than the one many are arriving at themselves, which is that centrism as a governing philosophy is both morally and intellectually bankrupt, and bolstered by nothing more than the undue influence of corporate money in politics.

Alexander Sammon joined our podcast for a deeper dive on this topic. Click the player below to hear our full conversation, and subscribe to the Due Dissidence podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastbox, Google Podcasts, or any major podcast player.

Thank you for reading. We are a completely independent outlet, and so if you enjoyed this content, you can help us create more of it by making a secure donation via PayPal, or become a member at Patreon.com and access exclusive patron-only content. Thank you for your support.

Follow us on all of these platforms to stay in touch:

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Listen to our latest podcast below and subscribe to our podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastboxSoundcloudor any podcast player you use.

Dissident Detox Hour 10/17: Rogan Confronts Gupta, Bernie & Manchin Spar, Trump Threatens a Boycott Due Dissidence

Photo: Senate Democrats

After Years of Courting Affluent Suburbanites, Democrats Deserve Kyrsten Sinema

by Keaton Weiss

As you’ve probably observed if you’ve been paying any attention to the ongoing negotiations over infrastructure spending, Democratic lawmakers and voters are growing increasingly frustrated with Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema. She is one of two Senators currently preventing the passage of a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill which would finance long overdue additions to the social safety net, including universal pre-K and expansion of Medicare.

Whereas her partner in crime, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, has at least gone through the motions of making a counter-offer, Sinema has been defiantly silent throughout the process, dodging the media and her own constituents, and instead meeting behind closed doors with her corporate donors.

Her silent obstructionism has many Democrats upset that she is inflicting further damage upon an already embattled Biden White House by denying the administration a sorely needed legislative win. Progressives always knew Sinema would be a problem, even if many did support her challenge to Republican incumbent Martha McSally in 2018, but even her fellow “moderates” seem to be catching on to the fact that she’s an enemy of progress.

And while moderate liberals’ increasingly open disdain for Sinema is a positive development overall, these same Democrats ought to remember that their party, since the 2016 election, has tailored its messaging and policy positions specifically to court affluent white suburban voters – the very people who elect Senators like Kyrsten Sinema.

Progressives were told in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns that Bernie Sanders, while exciting to the young, progressive base of the party, couldn’t win a general election because his ideas were too “radical” to be embraced by this emerging cohort of upper-middle class suburban voters – or, as Rahm Emanuel branded them, “Biden Republicans.”

And so, in both primary contests, the party brass put its thumb on the scale against Sanders’ candidacy, in favor of centrists who they felt would deliver them this new coalition of well-to-do suburban centrists who were liberal on social issues, but economically more conservative. These kinds of voters were critical to putting Sinema over the top in her 2018 Senate bid, as well as to the Democrats’ overall success in those midterms. They’ve been been explicitly catering to them ever since.

It therefore stands to reason that the party would eventually face the very crisis in which it now finds itself. Sinema is a newly elected moderate sent to Washington by fiscally conservative independents, and she’s acting accordingly. Democrats can be upset about this all they’d like, but they have only themselves to blame for their current predicament. Because Sinema, an eccentric bisexual who votes against minimum wage increases and the strengthening of social programs, represents the exact kind of voter Democrats welcomed into their party with open arms these past three election cycles (2020, 2018, and 2016).

And so, the current stalemate within the party between progressives and centrists makes perfect sense. The very premise of the Democratic Party – a party “for the little guy,” funded by wealthy donors and corporate interests – is a laughable self-contradiction. Should anyone be surprised that it’s having trouble unifying behind even the most modest of public investments like hearing aids for senior citizens?

Comedian and political commentator Graham Elwood aptly describes the Democratic Party as “Goldman Sachs with a rainbow flag.” Tell me that isn’t spot on, and tell me it doesn’t describe Kyrsten Sinema to a tee. If you can’t (and you can’t), then it should come as no surprise that the party of corporate wokeness and virtue signaling neoliberalism is eating itself alive in a doomed effort to negotiate its way out of its own inherent and inescapable paradox.

The Democratic Party had a chance, in 2016, to become the kind of party that would have no problem passing legislation like the Build Back Better Act. Party leadership vehemently opposed such a shift, and a majority of Democratic voters followed their lead. This embarrassing public implosion in which the party “for the people” can’t even unify behind measures as basic as adding dental coverage to Medicare, is just punishment for their disgraceful behavior these past five years.

Unfortunately, we’re all collateral damage.

Thank you for reading. We are a completely independent outlet, and so if you enjoyed this content, you can help us create more of it by making a secure donation via PayPal, or become a member at Patreon.com and access exclusive patron-only content. Thank you for your support.

Follow us on all of these platforms to stay in touch:

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Listen to our latest podcast below and subscribe to our podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastboxSoundcloudor any podcast player you use.

Dissident Detox Hour 10/17: Rogan Confronts Gupta, Bernie & Manchin Spar, Trump Threatens a Boycott Due Dissidence

Photo: Instagram

Progressives’ True Test Arrives as Biden Signals Major Infrastructure Compromise

On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that President Biden, in meetings with House Democrats, has significantly lowered his goals on additional infrastructure spending. Until now, he has thrown in with progressives who insisted on passing a $3.5 trillion package in addition to the $1 trillion bipartisan bill.

Biden’s new ceiling is apparently $2.3 trillion, a drastic reduction from an already compromised number (as Bernie Sanders has repeatedly stated, progressives initially wanted a $6 trillion deal).

Up to this point, House progressives have wisely touted their support from the president, and attached themselves to Biden’s “Build Back Better” agenda. Perhaps it was their legitimate claim to Biden’s allyship that emboldened them to hold firm at their $3.5 trillion price tag, as they have maintained their position over the past several weeks despite pressure from moderates in the party and their corporate backers.

Now that Biden has essentially caved (editor’s note: surprise, surprise), progressives’ true test has arrived. They now must have the courage to remain steadfast in their demands without the cover that comes with attaching themselves to the leader of their party, the President of the United States.

Now that Biden has signaled that the high end of the settlement will be more like $2.3 trillion, the same progressives who banded together to block the $1 trillion package last week will have to publicly defy party leadership – including the president – if they want to drive that amount higher.

Whether they have it in them to do that remains to be seen. In the American Rescue Plan negotiations, House progressives didn’t put up a fight to keep Bernie Sanders’ minimum wage provision in the bill after eight Senate Democrats teamed up with Republicans to defeat it. So if past is prologue, there’s little reason for optimism.

If there is cause for hope, it’s that they have publicly dug in already on this infrastructure fight, and that caving now would be seen as yet another humiliating defeat for the Left. Pramila Jayapal instantly rejected at Joe Manchin’s ludicrous $1.5 trillion offer, saying plainly, “That’s not going to happen.” Whether she and her caucus can maintain that same level of confidence without clear support from party leadership is now the big question regarding the fate of the infrastructure bill.

Lauren Steiner, activist and host of The Robust Opposition, joined us on our podcast for a deep dive on the state of these negotiations. Click the player below to hear our full conversation, and subscribe to the Due Dissidence podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastbox, Google Podcasts, or any major podcast player.

Thank you for reading. We are a completely independent outlet, and so if you enjoyed this content, you can help us create more of it by making a secure donation via PayPal, or become a member at Patreon.com and access exclusive patron-only content. Thank you for your support.

Follow us on all of these platforms to stay in touch:

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Listen to our latest podcast below and subscribe to our podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastboxSoundcloudor any podcast player you use.

Dissident Detox Hour 10/17: Rogan Confronts Gupta, Bernie & Manchin Spar, Trump Threatens a Boycott Due Dissidence

Photo: AFGE

You Don’t Change the Party, the Party Changes You: AOC’s Iron Dome Vote Proves This Point

by Keaton Weiss

Whether to DemExit or to primary centrist Democrats and elect progressives within the party has been a contentious debate in Left circles since the 2016 election. Those in the latter camp argue that the party can be reformed from within if enough insurgent candidates can successfully defeat incumbent moderates. A common retort among the former is some version of the phrase, “You don’t change the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party changes you.”

Those words loom large this week, as on Thursday evening, Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez switched her vote on the funding of Israel’s “Iron Dome” from ‘no’ to ‘present’ just moments before the tally was finalized. Fellow Squad members Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, and Cori Bush, were among only 9 representatives who voted against the $1 billion investment in Israeli’s military defense.

Among the possible explanations for AOC’s last minute change of heart is that she is considering mounting a primary challenge against Chuck Schumer for his Senate seat in 2022, and that were she to be perceived as anti-Israel, it would sink her chances. There’s also some speculation that her district will be redrawn to include Riverdale, a section of the Bronx with a sizable Jewish population.

Whether these political conundrums occurred to her just in time to change her vote, and whether or not they factored into her decision, are unknowable unless she herself offers her own explanation (she was also spotted exchanging words with Nancy Pelosi shortly before the vote). In any case, it’s fairly obvious that she wanted to vote ‘no,’ but ultimately lacked the conviction to do so, and that this was a purely political decision and not a moral one.

Of course, the #FraudSquad contingent of the online Left will have a field day with this, as they’ll point to yet another instance of AOC waffling on issues of importance to her progressive base (another recent example was her ‘present’ vote on $2 billion of Capitol Police funding).

And while it’s easy to sympathize with their disgust, we should also see this as a profoundly sad story. Reportedly, AOC had to be consoled by her colleagues on the House floor, as she seemed to have broken down in tears in the moments before and after the vote.

Perhaps she cried because she finally realized that the pressures of Washington had actually changed her. Once a renegade firebrand set to spearhead the progressive takeover of the Democratic Party, she now found herself having to break from her fellow Squad members and betray her values for purposes of protecting her own power. At just 31 years old, less than a year into her sophomore term, she had already compromised her principles in such an obvious way on an issue of particular importance, not only to her, but to her closest allies in Congress as well. Rashida Tlaib, the United States’ first Palestinian Congressperson and friend of AOC, gave a powerful floor speech against the funding bill, denouncing the Israeli government as an “apartheid regime.”

Parting with her most trusted and esteemed colleagues, especially on a matter as personal to them as this one, could not have been easy for her, which much better explains her emotional reaction than that her tears were somehow fake, as has been alleged by some in both Right and Left wing media circles.

Let’s not forget that in the wake of the 2020 election, when progressives were being blamed for Democrats’ House losses, AOC gave an interview to The New York Times in which she openly floated the possibility of quitting politics altogether. She lamented that Washington was “extremely hostile to anything that even smells progressive,” and said that “the odds of me running for higher office and the odds of me just going off trying to start a homestead somewhere — they’re probably the same.”

This is one of many examples when AOC has spoken publicly about the challenges of overcoming institutional and political pressures as a progressive Congresswoman.

We should also recall her statement in the aftermath of her 2018 victory in which she expressed a willingness to buck the system to the point where it might cost her her seat. In a video for Justice Democrats released in January of 2019, she proclaimed, “If you’re a one-term Congress member, so what? You can make 10 years’ worth of change in one term if you’re not afraid.”

Unfortunately, it seems now that she is afraid – afraid of party leadership, afraid of her own electorate, and afraid of what the future has in store for her as a politician.

And so rather than bludgeon her with #FraudSquad hashtags and accusations that she’s “sold out” her base, I think we ought to encourage her to ask herself that very same question: if you’re a one-term Congress member, so what?

Is she cut out for this, or would she be of greater service in some other capacity (we know from her previous quotes that she’s asked herself this same question from time to time)? She’s a giant star at this point who undoubtedly has a plethora of options in terms of how she can best influence the world she hopes to change. Is Congress the best place for her to do that, or is it not? She needs to revisit this question. Because right now, it seems she’s on the all-too-familiar path of young starry-eyed idealists who think they can change the system, only to find years later that the system has changed them.

At this rate, it won’t be too long before she sounds just like Nancy Pelosi did in her September 2019 interview, where she said, regarding progressives’ push for Medicare For All, “All of these issues – single payer and all that – I have those signs in my basement from 30 years ago.”

Will AOC be singing that same tune sooner than later? It sure looks that way. But as a young woman with a massive following and bona fide celebrity status, there’s no need for her to resign herself to such a depressing fate. Perhaps she should quit, as she suggested she might last year, and try to affect change from outside the system.

At the very least, she needs to rediscover her cavalier spirit as an activist who’s not afraid to lose an election or upset party brass. Because by casting such a blatantly hypocritical vote as this one, she’s betrayed the very coalition that propelled her to power in the first place – something for which she instantly felt remorse the moment she did it. She doesn’t have to do this anymore; the decision is hers to make.

We discuss this further in the video below. Click the player to watch, and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more videos:

Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this content, you can help us create more of it by making a secure donation via PayPal, or become a member at Patreon.com and access exclusive patron-only content. Thank you for your support!

Follow us on all of these platforms to stay in touch:

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Listen to our latest podcast below and subscribe to our podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastboxSoundcloudor any podcast player you use.

Dissident Detox Hour 10/17: Rogan Confronts Gupta, Bernie & Manchin Spar, Trump Threatens a Boycott Due Dissidence

Photo: USA Today

Liberals Chose to Forfeit the Working Class in 2016, Yet Still Blame The Left for Their Loss

The Supreme Court recently voted 5-4 not to intervene and block the implementation of Texas’ anti-abortion law SB8, which bans all abortions past six weeks and offers monetary incentives for citizens who report anyone “aiding and abetting” an abortion.

Predictably, liberals took to Twitter and expressed their frustration at anyone whose support they feel Hillary Clinton was entitled to in 2016, and once again blamed Jill Stein voters and ‘Bernie or Busters’ for the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

The only thing more tiresome than listening to these complaints is responding to them, but it is worth reminding everyone that the Democrats ran exactly the campaign they wanted to in 2016. They knowingly and willingly shunned the working class, and instead attempted to woo moderate Republican suburbanites into Hillary’s camp. This strategy was articulated out loud and on camera by Chuck Schumer, who proclaimed with great confidence that “for every blue collar Democrat we will lose in Western PA, we will pick up two, three moderate Republicans in the suburbs of Philadelphia.”

What this means is that the Democrats consciously chose to give up on blue collar voters, because they thought they could replace them with upper-middle class suburban whites (President Obama spending his final weeks in office pushing the TPP is a perfect encapsulation of their plan in action). Swapping out the working class for their professional managerial class counterparts was of course particularly tempting for centrist Democrats, because the latter group’s policy priorities are much more compatible with the party’s elite donor base.

And so, the Democratic Party deliberately alienated the Left in 2016. They never liked them much to begin with, and they saw that election as a golden opportunity to replace them with moderate Republicans, a more natural constituency for their neoliberal agenda. It was their calculation, their gamble, and ultimately, their mistake.

That high profile liberals pile on the Left every time a SCOTUS decision goes against them only exposes the contradiction within the Democratic Party that makes true “party unity” impossible. Centrist liberals want to welcome these moderate conservatives into their coalition, but still feel entitled to the votes of Leftists and working class voters who aren’t interested in sharing a political party with comfy suburbanites who are indifferent to their plight.

This is a circle that can’t be squared, which is part of why Democrats have trouble winning elections in the first place, and also why the party proves itself so impotent in its efforts to combat the Right. The only answer to laws like SB 8 is a united Left in which all of its siloed factions (reproductive rights advocates, climate advocates, labor advocates, etc) agree upon one platform that satisfies the needs and demands of everyone involved.

Without a mass movement based on true solidarity and empathy, the Right will win every time. Relitigating 2016 won’t change this basic truth.

We discuss the Texas anti-abortion law, the liberals’ blame game, and what’s needed for a viable Left response, in episode 119 of the Due Dissidence podcast. Click the player below to hear our full conversation, and subscribe to the Due Dissidence podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastbox, Google Podcasts, or any major podcast player.

Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this content, you can help us create more of it by making a secure donation via PayPal, or become a member at Patreon.com and access exclusive patron-only content. Thank you for your support!

Follow us on all of these platforms to stay in touch:

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Listen to our latest podcast below and subscribe to our podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastboxSoundcloudor any podcast player you use.

Dissident Detox Hour 10/17: Rogan Confronts Gupta, Bernie & Manchin Spar, Trump Threatens a Boycott Due Dissidence

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Andrew Cuomo’s Legacy Exposes the Hypocrisy of Democrats and Their Voters

by Russell Dobular

If God is a novelist, he has a disposition towards the trite, the obvious, and the too on-the-nose.  Case in point: Andrew Cuomo.  If one wanted to write a book whose theme was personal and political hypocrisy, you couldn’t do any better than to produce one in which liberals rally around one notoriously corrupt bully, in order to demonstrate their rejection of another.  In the annals of liberal idiocy, the cult of Cuomo ranks right up there with running Hillary Clinton for President and Michelle Obama unironically describing real-life war criminal George W. Bush, as her “partner in crime.”

Some may object that we didn’t know about Cuomo’s lechery until Lindsay Boylan opened the floodgates by coming forward. But we knew enough to know that Cuomo was a lying degenerate from way back. If you ask a Democrat which state in America is the most corrupt, they’re likely to name a Republican stronghold like Florida, or Texas, but in reality, based on the number of its political leaders prosecuted and convicted, that honor goes to Cuomo’s very own Empire State. The Governor’s response to that was to shut down the Moreland commission, which had been charged with investigating corruption in the state and going to war with Attorney General Preet Bharara who demanded that its files be preserved as possible evidence. This all played out even as his top aide was sentenced to six years in prison for bribery.  

And that’s just scratching the surface of what we already knew about Cuomo before the pandemic. Once it started there were a lot of voices speaking out against his newfound status as champion of the people and exemplar of good government. There were the front-line health care workers pointing out that New York had the worst outbreak on Earth, partly because Cuomo had been cutting the budget for public health and city hospitals for years. There was Assemblyman Ron Kim, begging anyone who would listen to look into the connection between Cuomo’s donations from the Greater New York Hospital Alliance (GNYHA) and the liability shield he created for nursing homes, thereby protecting them from lawsuits connected to Covid related illness and deaths in their facilities. Combined with Cuomo’s policy of forcing nursing homes to take Covid patients (a policy that might have led to the death of Kim’s own Uncle), it’s estimated at least 1,000 elderly New Yorkers died needlessly even as Democrats were loudly celebrating their “Cuomosexuality.”  Knowing his braindead and singularly incurious fan base would never hold him accountable, Cuomo even cut the Medicaid budget during the pandemic

And yet, right up until State Attorney General Letitia James dropped her report confirming the credibility of claims that 11 women had made against the Governor ranging from crude flirtation to sexual assault, only 21% of NY Democrats thought Cuomo should resign and 50% actually wanted him to run for a fourth term. Remember, these were the same people who couldn’t jack off at night without Tweeting a reference to Trump’s “grab ‘em by the pussy,” comment on Access Hollywood.  But when it came to Cuomo?  Fuck it. Franken. Have to stop eating our own, etc., etc.  

So, listen, God, we have a few notes on the manuscript. We’ve put them all here in this podcast. Take it in, maybe do some edits, ‘cause this whole Cuomo thing?  It’s just not credible that so many people would be so scorchingly hypocritical all at the same time without any of them noticing, much less that an entire political party could be made up of people like this. I dunno, maybe throw in a spaceship, some dinosaurs, that’s up to you, you’re the artist. Just, do better. I mean, just look at this montage of the media praising a man that every political insider on the planet knew was a goon and a bully.  Who’s going to believe this is real?

We discuss Cuomo’s resignation and more on episode 117 of the Due Dissidence podcast. Click the player below to hear our full conversation, and subscribe to the Due Dissidence podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastbox, Google Podcasts, or any major podcast player.

Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this content, you can help us create more of it by making a secure donation via PayPal, or become a member at Patreon.com and access exclusive patron-only content. Thank you for your support!

Follow us on all of these platforms to stay in touch:

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Listen to our latest podcast below and subscribe to our podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastboxSoundcloudor any podcast player you use.

Dissident Detox Hour 10/17: Rogan Confronts Gupta, Bernie & Manchin Spar, Trump Threatens a Boycott Due Dissidence

Photo: Diana Robinson

Don’t Mourn, Organize: How to Respond to Nina Turner’s Defeat

by Birrion Sondahl (originally published on An Appeal to Reason)

Joe Hill wrote this in a telegram to Bill Haywood shortly before he was executed by the capitalist state on trumped up charges for murder:

Goodbye, Bill, I die like a true blue rebel. Don’t waste any time mourning. Organize!

As Joe Hill’s lawyer said:

The main thing the state had on Hill was that he was a Wobbly and therefore sure to be guilty.

The same is true of anyone who supports working class struggle today. While execution is generally the last resort of the ruling class and reserved for non citizens, it is not beyond them. The fate of progressives running in the Democrat Party is not death, but rather smear campaigns and lies, shunning and shaming. We saw this clearly with Bernie and we have seen it again with Nina. No lie is too much for the establishment when it comes to stopping progressive momentum. Nina Turner was willing to tell truth to power and this is an unforgiveable sin for the establishment. The biggest liars have the greatest success in the Democratic Party. The truth tellers do not last long.

I understand the pain of electoral losses. The Bernie campaigns were especially brutal, but every loss hits deeply for those who donated and campaigned with their hard earned money and time. I know the volunteers for Nina worked incredibly hard and put their souls into this fight. Yet all the Dems had to do was manipulate the media and spend a few million in attack ads (and perhaps use a little fraction magic) to defeat a very strong grassroots campaign. And this is one of the primary issues of running progressives in Democratic Primaries. No matter how many volunteers and how much dedication you have, the establishment controls the narrative. The people wanted Bernie – record breaking donations and volunteers showed that. We got Joe Biden. The people wanted Nina Turner and we get Shontel Brown, who is under investigation for ethics violation. The change the party from within strategy is clearly busted.

Even when progressives win, they are still treated as the enemy by the party. Nancy Pelosi disparaged and marginalized the squad and when they could have prevented her from being reelected as speaker, they still voted for her. This is the power of the party. What good are progressives when in order to be accepted by the party they have to support Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden? The end result of cooperating with corporate Democrats is embarrassing. Could anyone imagine in 2016 that Bernie Sanders would end up in this degrading interview?

The answer does not lie in corporate parties like the Democrats. They have shown us that they will spend more time and money defeating Medicare for All and a Green New Deal than on defeating neofascist Republicans. As the saying goes, with friends like these, who needs enemies? Democrats are not the lesser evil, they are simply a different flavor of evil.

What Nina does after her loss is up to her. What we do now is up to us. We need to be building real movements, not expending energy within a corrupt party. The Democratic Party has not moved left, all they have done is drag progressives right. The Democratic Party will block progress until it is destroyed. This could have been done from within if Bernie had been willing to be truly revolutionary. As Bernie did not take that step, it is now up to us to lead the way to a brighter future, a future free of corporate control.

Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. He has not come; he never will come. I would not lead you out if I could; for if you could be led out, you could be led back again. 

– Eugene V. Debs

It has always been the people that must free themselves. Working class solidarity is the answer. The Democratic Party does everything they can to prevent class consciousness and working class movements from gaining real traction. Do not mourn electoral losses, organize working class movements. Our future depends on it.

**To read more of Birrion Sondahl’s work, subscribe to his substack by clicking here.**

Thank you for reading. We are a completely independent outlet, and so if you enjoyed this content, you can help us create more of it by making a secure donation via PayPal, or become a member at Patreon.com and access exclusive patron-only content. Thank you for your support.

Follow us on all of these platforms to stay in touch:

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Listen to our latest podcast below and subscribe to our podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastboxSoundcloudor any podcast player you use.

Dissident Detox Hour 10/17: Rogan Confronts Gupta, Bernie & Manchin Spar, Trump Threatens a Boycott Due Dissidence

Photo: Darrell Nance

Nina Turner Lost Because Democratic Primary Voters Almost Never Get Anything Right

Nina Turner entered her primary for Ohio’s 11th Congressional District with massive advantages in name recognition, fundraising, and polling. In fact, as recently as June 1, her lead seemed insurmountable; she was polling at 50% to Shontel Brown’s 15. When Hillary Clinton endorsed Brown a couple of weeks later, progressives mostly laughed it off, seeing as Turner seemed like a lock to win anyway.

But Clinton’s intervention was the beginning of an all-out blitz by the Democratic establishment to destroy Turner’s campaign and install their preferred moderate candidate. James Clyburn, as well as other senior members of the Congressional Black Caucus, would endorse and campaign for Brown. Centrist-aligned Super PACs flooded the airwaves with attack ads against Turner which ranged from inane to downright dishonest. In the end, they were successful; Brown defeated Turner on Tuesday night by a comfortable margin.

Since Turner’s loss, several articles have been published explaining why she fell and what it means moving forward. Normon Solomon’s piece entitled “Nina Turner’s Loss is Oligarchy’s Gain” points out that Ohio has open primaries and that high profile Republicans like Bill Kristol openly encouraged members of his party to vote for Brown. Alexander Sammon wrote in The American Prospect that Brown’s victory is “a blueprint for super PAC takeovers of elections and campaigns going forward,” citing the Brown campaign’s shady relationship with such PACS as well as the impact of their attack ads down the home stretch of the primary contest.

But it was David Sirota who got it the most right, tweeting out the following:

Indeed, “more Dem voters want a corporate government than something else.” This is self evident to a large degree, seeing how these primaries continue to materialize. And even to the extent that Democratic voters don’t really want a corporate government, but are rather duped into voting for one, this can be explained by Democratic voters’ overwhelming support for establishment media outlets that steer their support towards centrist candidates over progressives (even in cases like this one where the progressive starts with a massive lead). According to a 2020 Gallup poll, Democrats’ trust in the media registered at 73%. When independents were asked the same question, 36% expressed confidence in media. Republicans, 10%.

And so while this particular contest was of course corrupted by big money and Super PAC intervention, we have to remind ourselves of two very important things:

First, big money interests will always interfere in elections, and they will always do so against the progressive in the race.

Second, and more importantly, there is a very good reason that such interventions are more effective in Democratic Party primaries than they are in Republican ones: 73% of Democrats trust the media, as opposed to 10% of Republicans. This means that Democratic voters are more likely to fall for dishonest Super PAC ads, because they’re psychologically predisposed to believe everything they see on television. These are the kinds of people who may actually think that Snapple really is made from the “Best Stuff on Earth.”

Democratic primary voters take orders from their party leaders and media idols. This explains why the party’s last ditch effort to coalesce behind Joe Biden 48 hours before Super Tuesday was so shockingly successful, and it explains why Nina Turner’s 35-point polling lead evaporated once the party bosses made their preference known.

Therefore, while observations about the influence of “oligarchs” and the like are undoubtedly accurate when it comes to summarizing this campaign, the banality of the voters themselves can no longer be excused or ignored. Democratic primary voters are simply awful. They cannot be trusted, under any circumstances, to make the right decision, which is why I myself predicted Turner would lose to Shontel Brown way back on our March 2nd podcast (skip to 33:22 to hear for yourself if you’d like).

The Democratic Party is a dead end for Leftists and progressives not because of Hillary Clinton and James Clyburn, but because of the millions of primary voters who take their cues from them. After all, Super PACs exist on the Right as well, and millions of dollars in Super PAC money was spent to destroy Donald Trump’s candidacy in the 2016 primaries. It didn’t work against Trump because Republican voters, unlike Democrats, don’t trust the media, and instead actually think for themselves about who they want to nominate. We might not like how they think or what they think, but at least they think.

Democrats don’t think. Democrats obey. They do what the party wants them to do. And so, to put it quite simply, there is no future in the Democratic Party, because the Democratic Party is full, from top to bottom, of Democrats.

We discuss Turner’s defeat more thoroughly in episode 116 of the Due Dissidence podcast, featuring Rod Brana from The People’s Party. Click the player below to hear our full conversation, and subscribe to the Due Dissidence podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastbox, Google Podcasts, or any major podcast player.

Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this content, you can help us create more of it by making a secure donation via PayPal, or become a member at Patreon.com and access exclusive patron-only content. Thank you for your support!

Follow us on all of these platforms to stay in touch:

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Listen to our latest podcast below and subscribe to our podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastboxSoundcloudor any podcast player you use.

Dissident Detox Hour 10/17: Rogan Confronts Gupta, Bernie & Manchin Spar, Trump Threatens a Boycott Due Dissidence

Photo: Paul Becker

Blue Pilled: The Left Should Take Credit for the Progress Being Made, Not Deny It

One day into Joe Biden’s presidency, Liza Featherstone published a piece in Jacobin entitled “If Joe Biden Moves Left, You Can Thank the Left.” The thrust of her argument was that the Left should take credit for any progressive actions Biden takes, pointing to years of Left organizing and activism against all odds that brought progressive economic policies into the mainstream, particularly since the 2016 Presidential primaries.

After Biden’s first 100 days, however, much of the online Left seems committed to doing just the opposite. As the Biden administration passed a $300 per month, per child UBI, and has recently proposed plans for funding guaranteed paid leave and universal pre-K, many on the Left seem determined to minimize the significance of these plans, going as far as to accuse progressive House members of “gaslighting” their supporters by acknowledging and applauding such progress.

On the one hand, this should come as little surprise. After all, a great many podcasters and YouTubers have built their brands around criticizing the Democratic Party from the Left. We’re among them. And there is undoubtedly a wealth of material for critics of Joe Biden to sink their teeth into. His failure to lead on the minimum wage, neglecting to explicitly and unequivocally endorse the Amazon workers’ union efforts in Bessemer, Alabama, deception surrounding the ongoing role that the U.S. will play in the Saudi war on Yemen, are three important and legitimate criticisms among a plethora of others.

But to deny the significance of programs like children’s UBI, paid leave, and universal pre-K, is to deny reality. Currently, the average American family spends 23% of its income on childcare, while family benefits account for an embarrassingly low 0.64% of GDP. UBI for parents combined with universal pre-K and paid leave will obviously have a tremendous positive impact on the ease of family rearing in a country that has fallen woefully behind the rest of the developed world in this respect.

By pretending otherwise, the Left not only appears bitter and delusional, but worse, they project their own powerlessness and irrelevance to the rest of the country. If Leftists disavow these programs and accuse those who tout them of being compromised “gaslighters,” “sellouts,” or “careerists,” we signal that we want nothing to do with the proposal and passage of the very policies we have been advocating for so long.

Is this really the road we want to go down? Do we want to cut off our noses to spite our faces, just because we don’t like the president or the party in power? Do we want to project our own irrelevance by denying our role in promoting these popular Left policies that are finally seeing their day in the sun?

A much better approach would be to tout these accomplishments as our own. The Hill recently published an article entitled “We must thank Sanders for Biden’s success.” That sounds a lot more like it. It’s not about giving Biden credit, it’s about giving ourselves credit for forcing these ideas into the mainstream.

We discuss this and more on episode 112 of the Due Dissidence podcast. Listen to our full conversation by clicking the player below:

Subscribe to the Due Dissidence podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastbox, Google Podcasts, or any major podcast player!

Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this content, you can help us create more of it by making a secure donation via PayPal, or become a member at Patreon.com and access exclusive patron-only content. Thank you for your support!

Follow us on all of these platforms to stay in touch:

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Listen to our latest podcast below and subscribe to our podcast on Apple, StitcherSpotifyCastboxSoundcloudor any podcast player you use.

Dissident Detox Hour 10/17: Rogan Confronts Gupta, Bernie & Manchin Spar, Trump Threatens a Boycott Due Dissidence

Photo: Gage Skidmore