Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1
The authors are not democrats.
|
Yes, as a rule anything that comes from the Atlantic is liberal or Neoliberal (imperialist liberal - look at its editors and their histories).
You won't find anything in that publication that is defensible outside of those parameters that has any realistic grounding in modern political definitions. As an entity whose mission it is to push liberal politics, it is no more a journalistic entity than is the Washington Post.
RHINO "conservatives", to include the Neoliberal editors of the Atlantic, can continue to insult the intelligence of the average American by asking them to buy their disingenuous claims that they are conservatives.
However, the real and continuing effect of that demand is that conservatives recognize the dog and pony show, identify it for the institutionalized and insidious political duplicitousness that it represents, and as a result there is a loss of trust and confidence in a fair system that, by its nature, would have easily identifiable actors.
And that's how you get Donald Trump and all those will will come after.
The Atlantic editor's perfectly represent the cuckoo bird (referencing the bird's behavior of taking over another bird's nest with its own eggs) "conservative" class who for decades have hijacked elected positions through saying one thing to the base while serving neoliberal interests.
The Right just permanently ousted their domestic liberal agenda from the party. This is how you get so many supposedly former "Right wing" pundits now shifting to be officially Left wing.
Take Jeffrey Goldberg, head editor of the Atlantic, as a perfect example. This is a man who served in the Israeli Defense Force. He's a prominent Neocon-Neoliberal who always gave lip service to supposed "Right wing" politics while primarily serving to move Neo-liberal foreign policy forward (aggressive Mid East action) while acting as a cuckoo bird gatekeeper against the domestic policy interests of the Right wing base.
His cuckoo bird function on domestic policy just got ousted from the nest.
What did he immediately do?
He moved from the Right to the Left (ostensibly), and proved his apparent defection by coming out of the liberal closet with a wholly intellectually insulting piece in the Atlantic criticizing Benjamin Netenyahu.
It was as big of a disingenuous positioning piece as I have ever seen. An American Neocon political pundit who is so ideologically aligned with Israel that he chose not to serve in the United States Army but in the Israeli Army, is now aligning himself with criticism of Israel after he lost his position as a domestic policy gatekeeper for the Right?
Prepare yourselves to get f*&$#@, Left Wing base.
The so called "conservative" political class represented by the editors and contributors of the Atlantic really do have nothing but contempt for the American people and their intellect, to include that of the Liberal base.
What Jeffrey did was reason the following:
He has two agendas as a Neoliberal: a foreign policy agenda and a domestic agenda.
The foreign policy agenda is effectively advocated for by both parties.
His primary prior position, in spite of his self-positioning as a former conservative, was as a gatekeeper to prevent any significant implementation of the actual domestic policy interests of the Right Wing base.
Thus, no longer having his cuckoo position in the Right wing nest, and his foreign policy being effectively implemented by both parties, he loses nothing (except significant political credibility and trust) by merely formally moving to the Left side of the isle to continue to work his primary job: that of a domestic policy gatekeeper against the interests of the Right Wing base.
But liberals are cuckooed by that same political class. The Leftist base has largely been ineffective at identifying them (see Obama's deification). Though, there is push-back at the far margins. That marginal protest may become more relevant over time.
One of the problems is that the Leftist base fully shares the Neoliberal domestic agenda. That should, but doesn't, cause the Leftist base to question the true long term purpose of its politics. One would think that antifa would wonder why its social politics are largely similar to those of George and Jeb Bush. But curiously it does not. The act of LARPing in edgy black balaclavas apparently tends to curtail critical thought.
The general dependence of the Leftist base on Neoliberal MSM narrative, to move its social politics forward, leaves it beholden to all politics of those outlets. It would never dare criticize those outlets in a manner that would actually be able to hurt them.
When the Left base is able to recognize the ideological inconsistencies at all, in spite of the elation from the large social policy boon that is has received in recent years from those outlets (a "boon" that also curiously led to the election of Donald Trump - be careful how far you allow yourselves to be led - political greed is a killer). These outlets have made themselves central to the Leftist agenda, and thus immune to effective Leftist base oversight of their journalistic ethics, practices, and foreign policy political endorsements.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
