39 Comments
Apr 20Liked by Andrew Lowenthal

Like all wokesters, it’s all about power and control. This is the pathology of the unconscious but well intentioned individual. They project their shadows upon the rest of us and then appoint themselves as knight in shining armor whose role is to slay the dragon. They always kill and maim and harm and cause tragic mass suffering and dismay because at the end of the day their crime is that they are unconscious spiritually undeveloped children play acting at being adults. At the end of the day, their sin is unconscious hubris and worship of self.

Expand full comment

So, most women.

Expand full comment

I doubt it.

Expand full comment

Read that last sentence again.

Expand full comment

Fascinating. Her woke statements are virtue signals to help her maintain power. The Democratic Party has lost all understanding of its voter base by seeing someone like her as emblematic of the party.

Expand full comment

You say that but the Democratic voters seem largely captured and bound to the DNC party ideology. I’d flip your statement and say the Democratic vote is blind to what the party has become.

Expand full comment
Apr 21·edited Apr 21

Agreed. The feral and sociopathic political animals (power-seeking politicians and top aides) as well as woke limousine liberals (ideology-driven upper and upper middle class, including also likely intelligence community operative Maher) who invest far more resources in the Democratic Party's functioning are certainly the conscious ones here.

The harried lower and middle class Democratic Party voters (who see no alternatives to believe in) have been ignoring the signals that something's seriously wrong. However, whether most of them are in real denial, or most are actually pretty aware and too frightened/overwhelmed to protest, is worth our getting clear about, to flip that power.

Expand full comment

Mussolini would rightly call Maher a Fascist because she believes in the merger of government and corporate power.

Expand full comment

The evidence appears to put her as an active member of a psyops perpetrated upon the American public to gain complete control over our minds, perspectives and control over our own lives. She is also a member of the young globalist WEF. Is she not? Like Hilliary, Soros and most of the Trudeau government.

The plot is before the eyes of those who see,

And unfortunately the Democratic Party has been completely captured it seems. They vote like a flock of sheep, like a cult they insist on not platforming opposing views and they rarely answer questions. Their views have become dogmatic and irrational.

Every thing they do to perpetuate tyranny they accuse Trump/republicans of doing. Their hypocrisy is on full display yet they are blind or act blind to it.

My guess is the pact was made back in 2008 when corporations,politicians and intelligence agreed to bail out the bankers. It was a pact with the devil of fascism.

Expand full comment

I don't think that they're blind. They may be ignorant, but they're not stupid.

Expand full comment
Apr 20Liked by Andrew Lowenthal

Great article. Nails the key point.

Expand full comment

A lot of people who call themselves liberal or leftist blindly tribally follow folks like Ms Maher.

Expand full comment

I accept she isn’t woke, nor is she left. She is Deep State, embedded within various orgs, now NPR, to further DS agenda. Nothing else. She likely despises the people of the left, as she despises the people of the right. She works for the agenda. Her fealty is to that.

Expand full comment

Actually, it is Liberals who aren't Liberal anymore. And there's no denying their astonishingly warped, anti-liberal positions on so many issues.

Expand full comment

This is an interesting characterization, but my view is that you’re only half right on this. She isn’t “liberal” in the classical sense, to be sure. But I do believe that she is a radical “leftist.”

Expand full comment

The postmodernists have succeeded. Words no longer have any agreed upon meaning.

Expand full comment

Meet the new boss

Same as the old boss

The only difference is that she says the authoritarian shit out loud.

Both sides are fascist as we can see with con-vid and the current horrible genocide. They're all cowards and slaves to the machine, which is why they go along with war.

Expand full comment

Wow…and ow! This post is more of the painful pulling off of the bandages covering the rot underneath whatever the bloody hell it is that is driving the crazy train of society these last fifteen years or so.

Expand full comment

Concerning Wikipedia, for anyone who is familiar with the Roman Palanski story, I about how he raped a child vaginally, anally and orally with the use of alcohol and hoarse tranquilizers, was convicted and confessed by the way, then jumped bail and is now living in France, you should check out the Wikipedia page on the guy, not only do they sound like his personal lawyer but actually try to make him sound like a great guy.

Expand full comment

I mean, Meryl Streep loves the guy

Expand full comment

And that’s an understatement my friend, for she acts orgasmic at the very sight of him.

Expand full comment

“But Katherine Maher is not a liberal or a leftist.” You start with this statement, but conclude she is in cahoots with the various government controlled entities within the government and outside the government, including, academia, NGO’s and NPR. In today’s world, you cannot travel in those circles without being a liberal woke leftist.

Expand full comment
Apr 21·edited Apr 21

You're confusing Leftism with Marxism. A common enough problem, as it goes back a century and a half.

But Leftism is about nothing if not (small-d) democracy. Marxism, on the other hand, is about totalitarianism, in which dictatorial shadow powers at the top, hijack by psychological means clueless Leftists below-the-top, to create ideologically intolerant, "by any means necessary" armies against all aspects of a society -- *allegedly* implementing democracy. But it is hybrid war, not negotiation, while only the latter is the true stuff of politics.

The battle is against Marxism, not Leftism. We need to rediscover that Leftism means fairness (thus democracy is important) and healthy societal connections. It is the complement to Rightism, which is about freedom and the individual. Both are necessary to a functional nation.

Expand full comment

Interesting take, I’m going to quibble over the notion that leftism means healthy societal connections. Leftism (to me) means a reliance on government to expand and solve society’s problems, I’m thinking of the welfare state in particular. A strong welfare state means that citizens start relying on the culture of dependency, in order to attain what is needed from the government and not through society,….this eats away at the social fabric, as citizens have less incentive to engage with family, friends, communities, religion, mutual aid societies to support each other.

For example, I’m thinking of when this country was founded, there has to be strong social ties because government wasn’t going to save anybody. Today, we are bowling alone as leftism expands government and cuts down culture and societal connections.

Do agree that the battle is with Marxism and that threat is still strong and present in America.

Expand full comment

Thank you for your thoughtful replies. Sorry about my delay here responding.

"Leftism (to me) means a reliance on government to expand and solve society’s problems, I'm thinking of the welfare state in particular."

That's a contemporary conservative POV. If viewed only in our current context, IMO it contains a perfectly reasonable complaint about typical "Leftists" today, both the leaders and the followers, having decayed into corrupted morals and thus social dysfunction. One that I agree with, even though I think of myself (currently, and *necessarily provisionally*) as a Leftist (maybe, more about that later).

The problem, however, is that getting rid of the Leftsist POV would leave a big hole in what I'd call the most fundamental basis in a 'natural political theory', in which a government provides a framework both for a society as well as for individuals. Simply put, Rightists focus on the individual, Leftists focus on the society. The important thing is that adequate, and continual, and negotiated, attention to *both* of these "sides", or complementary pieces, is necessary for a healthy society. You yourself agree that the citizens need to get "what is needed" from "society" ... but apparently you look at the government, in some way, as not part of society. Why? Especially if "We the People" are supposedly running it!

Sure, it's quite corrupted and dysfunctional now, but why is it not possible for us to develop a *process* for continually fixing it, so it's like the healthy parts of society? Because relying on a static structure, e.g. the Constitution, is necessary, but never enough. "Government" is assumed by modern Right as *by necessity* dysfunctional, and that it *must* decay into an unaccountable and destructive entity. Nonsense. Did the founding fathers do that? No.

The "Reaganesque" attitude is a recipe for disaster, as eliminating government (whether it's removing regulations, or defunding police) at the limit results in Mad Max, or government by unaccountable warlords. These warlords do exist today of course, the Left has always complained about them intra-nationally, but the Right should also recognize they also exist as globalists. There is no "minimal government" that will keep all things running smoothly, it always needs balancing.

So I say that what politics should do (and political independent voters often do), in addition to fixing government corruption and making incremental governmental improvements (so that one doesn't confuse a bug with a feature) is decide which of the two (individual or societal support) deserve priority *in a context* and at a *point in time*, rather than as a permanent need represented by an ideology. Otherwise, (among other things) an entropic natural process rewarding survival of the fittest (which can happen via corrupted gov, or corporatism, or oligarchy, or anything else) may, over time, reduce population, not just to (what conservatives especially call) the "good people", but rather to something uncomfortably approaching zero. IMO, this is primarily due to the one-directional march of technology (another long topic), and the fact that sociopathy/psychopathy has never been successfully dealt with.

When the terms Left and Right were invented during the French Revolution, they were not opposites, but instead joined at the hip, along with a third term now all but abandoned (and you can probably guess what happened there): "Liberté [freedom], égalité [equality], fraternité [brotherhood]". The terms were eventually set at war with themselves, notably by Marx, and so at this point in time it's considered some kind of normal but eternal jihad between the Good people and the Bad people, promoting respectively Truth or Lies, switching which is which depending on one's personality type relative to the general population, and vs the not so distant past in the US when opposite sides were generally respected.

I think that was accomplished by the continually updated plans of divide-and-conquer by the elites, and it's enjoyed a smashing success. So, two hundred plus years after the French Revolution invented them, however, Left and Right have been twisted FUBAR three times and back again. But from what I see, the common threads of individual/societal attention keep on coming back, and in fact, that's why we *always* have L and R in politics. But our getting worked up about which one is "wrong" relying on our current shape-shifting, FUBAR'd definitions avoids our solving problems. Just the way the top layer likes it.

Expand full comment

So much good stuff. Let address the things that stand out to me.

“Simply put, Rightists focus on the individual, Leftists focus on the society.”

Response: I think that’s correct. Also, I think the left focuses on law/government to run society, the right focuses on culture. The left focuses on inequality, right focuses on opportunity. The left is good at starting/creating movements, the right is good at managing institutions. These are all generalities, there are of course exceptions to each of these notions,…but directionally I feel these things are true. And for a society to progress, there needs to be balance between these forces.

“You yourself agree that the citizens need to get "what is needed" from "society" ... but apparently you look at the government, in some way, as not part of society. Why?”

Response: The purpose of the federal government is NOT to provide for the needs of society or for individuals. That’s up to citizens, communities, local/state governments in a free society.

Per the charter (constitution), the federal government exists to protect the rights of the citizens and to provide for the general welfare of the States (domestically anyways, foreign affairs are a different matter).

If we say that the federal government is to provide for the needs of citizens and society, then that takes the relationship of parent (govt) / toddler (citizen), where the parent will use all the power at their disposal to do everything to protect and smother their toddler for the sake of safety. And since the constitution doesn’t mean much anymore in restraining government (thanks to some misguided 20th century Supreme Court decisions), that means government is going to grow without restraint (like we see today), because any government has a one way propensity to grow its influence unless it is actively restrained.

Instead, the relationship should be more of a parent / teenager type, where the parent encourages and recommends, but doesn’t smother the teenager. The States are another matter, depending on the culture of the voters and State constitutions, some States (like CA) will be govt heavy on providing for safety and equality, other States (like TX) will be govt light. That speaks to the great diversity of this country.

Because relying on a static structure, e.g. the Constitution, is necessary, but never enough.

Response: The dysfunction of our federal govt exists because we have NOT been faithful to the principles in the document, in my opinion. For example, the rise of the administrative state has greatly expanded the executive branch and created a monarchy out of the presidency. With such great expanded power that resides outside of the constitutional boundaries, both political interest groups now fight for the presidency like the various factions fighting for the ring in “Lord of the Rings.” Political factions lose civility, decency, integrity, and respect for their opponents because so much is at stake with the presidency, not so much that political factions want to better manage society with its powers, but more that they don’t want their political enemy to grab power and ruin the country. This gives rise to people like Trump.

Also, this encourages Congress to act in a dysfunctional manner – there is no reason to do the hard work of compromising and passing legislation when the King of the executive branch can just pass decrees.

We also see trickle down effects into our local democracies and our political culture. I’m a little embarrassed to say that I don’t know who the mayor is of my city of 300K+ population, but I certainly can tell you who the president is. That’s the inverse of what a healthy, American society should look like.

There all sorts of negative downstream effects with our betrayal of the constitution.

"Government" is assumed by modern Right as *by necessity* dysfunctional, and that it *must* decay into an unaccountable and destructive entity.

Response: Government by nature wants to grow/expand/control society because it is the only entity in society that controls the power of coercion. Unless it is actively restrained and pruned, it will eventually grow to be destructive. There are no natural checks and balances on government like there is on citizens or corporations. That’s how power works in society, in my opinion.

The "Reaganesque" attitude is a recipe for disaster, as eliminating government (whether it's removing regulations, or defunding police) at the limit results in Mad Max, or government by unaccountable warlords. These warlords do exist today of course, the Left has always complained about them intra-nationally, but the Right should also recognize they also exist as globalists

Response: Two things – what exactly did Reagan do to eliminate government or remove regulations? He believed the federal govt was too big (cut welfare) and that States should do their duty to serve the citizens (engage in welfare, if that’s the wish of the voters). Even so, Reagan did very little to actually cut government.

And the right seems to over-recognize the problems that globalists pose. I’m not sure if it was COVID or Trump, but the right today is more anti-globalist than ever in my lifetime. Whether it is the Gates Foundation, Soros, pharmaceutical companies, endless wars, etc……the right has turned more populist and more critical of elitism and it is the left that has becoming more globalist. Notice for instance on college campuses, it is the left that is using administrations (like at Harvard) to crush dissent from conservatives or even biology professors who dare to say they are two sexes. In the 1960’s, it was the leftists who were fighting (not joining) administrations. Things have changed.

Expand full comment

(I've gotten this far, so far...)

"The left is good at starting/creating movements..."

Agreed. I'd say this is because the "starting point" in establishing a government that supports its constituents is the atomic constituent, the individual. In other words, the foundational priority of the Right -- freedom -- logically comes first in managing society, while that of the Left -- fairness -- emerges in reaction to it. This happens perpetually, because there are always, eventually, reactions to the consequences of freedom.

"...the right is good at managing institutions"

They are good at conserving what has been established. (I joke that I am now both a leftist *and* and conservative, in the sense that the Constitution provided a proper framework, while woke "leftists", often unwittingly, want to abandon its advantages wholesale in a totalitarian .)

"[Providing for] the needs of society or for individuals [is] up to citizens, communities, local/state governments in a free society."

That's reasonable when the dominant society has common values. In America, especially since the emergence of the post-WWII New Left, that's not been the case.

"Per the charter (constitution), the federal government exists to protect the rights of the citizens and to provide for the general welfare of the States (domestically anyways, foreign affairs are a different matter)."

Sure -- per the Constitution, which is primarily, and by design, a bare-bones framework. But Congress, per that framework, can legally write *any* laws that don't conflict with the framework, regardless of the normative preferences of the founding fathers. (The big normative exception is the Bill of Rights, notably and thankfully put into the Constitution as a promise kept following ratification.) That's why I have to laugh when some rightists say, for example, that the U.S. cannot legally be a socialist country.

"... Instead, the relationship should be more of a parent / teenager type ..."

So, in this discussion (preceding and afterward) about the proper role of (federal) government, you are identifying normative judgments. And, IMO, they are largely sensible, and have often worked well when dominant. But, from what I understand, they simply are not legal requirements per the Constitution. Where you and I part ways, I think, is again the level of freedom vs (negotiated) fairness that is going to exist.

"The dysfunction of our federal govt exists because we have NOT been faithful to the principles in the document"

Right. The executive branch, with its vast bureaucracy, most notably IMO the rogue intelligence agencies, is now the 800-lb gorilla running the country.

"when the King of the executive branch can just pass decrees"

When too much of the government is operating in unaccountable secrecy -- not just to the people, but to Congress and even the president -- it is simply not a democratic republic.

(more later)

Expand full comment

I'd also add that leftism, and the strong support for an expanded welfare state at the federal level, engages and encourages in ongoing unconstitutional measures. The purpose of Congress is to support the general welfare of the States and not support the specific or targeted welfare of the citizens.

Now we can agree that there are certain measures that would be good for society, social security or SNAP, but these things are not constitutional as it currently stands. If I were to use inflamed, but not inaccurate words, I'd say that until the constitution is revised to reflect these anti-poverty programs, leftism engages in an ongoing insurrection of the constitution and American democracy. I'm sure people will disagree with that sentiment, just calling it as I see it (or read it).

Expand full comment

You need to understand what those terms actually mean.

Expand full comment

the woke cult abhors the truth

Expand full comment

My FlameGram to Peter Dutton and Paul Fletcher just now:

We are approaching ANZAC Day. DO YOU AND PETER DUTTON NOT UNDERSTAND THAT OUR BEST YOUNG MEN DIED FIGHTING EXACTLY THE POLICY YOU ARE NOW ESPOUSING?

No wonder you will NEVER get back in government: you are absolutely and utterly out of touch with the public on this issue.

Vladimir Putin never demanded that Facebook and X censor the footage of the terrible Crocus theatre massacre. SO YOU, DUTTON, AND ALBANESE ARE SHOWING THE WORLD THAT YOU ARE MORE REPRESSIVE THAN HE IS. NICE GOING.

Australia is leading the world: IN CENSORSHIP. You, Dutton, and Albanese are making our country into a laughing stock in the world.

History shows that the truth ALWAYS comes out eventually. You, Albanese, Chris Minns, Michelle Rowlands, and Julie Inman Grant WILL BE EXPOSED AS THE CLOSET TOTALITARIANS YOU ARE.

No, it is not "different" now because of social media. NO, the Chief of Police of NSW is NOT the sole source of "the truth" in the world. That you would even consider such a ridiculous idea shows us all what absolute dangerous and anti-Australian clowns you all are.

YOUR RIDICULOUS POSITION ON TRYING TO SHIELD THE AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC FROM THE TRUTH WILL BACKFIRE IN YOUR FACES. It didn't work during Covid and it will not work now.

RIDICULOUS. DISGUSTING. ANTI-FREEDOM, ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, AND AUTHORITARIAN.

OUR ANZACS ARE ROLLING IN THEIR HALLOWED GRAVES.

STAND FOR AUSTRALIAN VALUES. STAND FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH. GET BACK ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY.

Expand full comment