The Glass Onion
“I would not be a Moses to lead you into the Promised Land, because if I could lead you into it, someone else
could lead you out of it.” —Eugene Debs.
I very much enjoyed the 2022 movie Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery. It’s an explosive take on the classic
whodunit genre. I recommend it. And don’t worry, I won’t spoil the plot.
The movie’s detective, Benoit Blanc (played by Daniel Craig), uses the Glass Onion as a metaphor: “an object that
seems densely layered, but in reality, the center is in plain sight.”
During the classic Poirot-style reveal at the end, where the detective combines all the carefully revealed clues,
Blanc says that “the key to this entire case” was “staring me right in the face.” Thus he encourages us to “Look into
the center of this Glass Onion.”
I think that is crucial advice, especially for surviving a Trump administration. In the Trump era, it becomes
paramount to keep our minds sober. Unfortunately, news outlets and social media are of no use to us in this
respect. The fourth estate is failing us with their inability (or unwillingness) to focus on the clear center.
One good example of this problem is the coverage of Elon Musk, the richest man in the world.
During a speech he gave at Donald Trump’s inauguration, Musk saluted the crowd by putting his hand over his
heart, before he stretched his arm upward at an angle while keeping his hand flat—a classic Nazi salute. He then
turned to a different part of the crowd and repeated the gesture.
The media promptly erupted in debate; what could it mean? “Elon Musk Ignites Online Speculation Over the
Meaning of a Hand Gesture,” the New York Times reported in their characteristically abstruse prose. Benjamin
Netanyahu defended Musk by calling him “a great friend of Israel.” And British radio shows held panel
discussions about Musk’s true intentions.
Many suggested that Musk had merely been “excited,” which he expressed in an unintentional, weird gesture due
to him being autistic. Nonsense. I’m autistic and I have never performed a Nazi salute, unintentional or
deliberate.
It was a curious discussion, whether Elon Musk looked deliberately or accidentally like a Nazi, especially given
Musk’s history with far-right politics.
Consider everything we know about Musk’s views. From spreading COVID-19 conspiracy theories; platforming
right-wing charlatans like Tucker Carlson; publicly espousing the anti-Semitic “Great Replacement” conspiracy
theory; disowning his daughter because she’s transgender; and unbanning so many neo-Nazi Twitter accounts
after purchasing the website that hate speech increased to a point where companies stopped advertising on the
platform (The Washington Post reported that use of the N-word increased by 500% in just half a day after Musk
took over).
His company Tesla had to pay $137 million for racial discrimination after one worker described a culture “straight
from the Jim Crow era.” The Los Angeles Times reported that “Black workers [were] assigned to the most arduous
tasks in a corner of the factory co-workers called ‘the plantation.’ ” Black employees were frequently insulted as
“monkeys.” Musk responded in May of 2017 by sending a company-wide email telling his employees to be more
“thick-skinned.”
Musk grew up in apartheid South Africa. When the country’s left-wing Economic Freedom Fighters party called
for reparations in 2023 (around three-quarters of private farmland is still owned by white South Africans, despite
constituting about 7.7% of the population) Musk grossly maligned the party by claiming they were “openly
pushing for genocide of white people in South Africa.”
Musk also hates immigrants. Besides supporting the Republican Party—which featured “MASS DEPORTATION
NOW!” signs at the last Republican National Convention—Musk once shared a video of an NGO rescuing
immigrants in the Mediterranean Sea with the text, “Is the German public aware of this?”
“Yes. And it’s called saving lives,” the official account of the German foreign office responded.
“So you’re actually proud of it. Interesting. Frankly, I doubt that a majority of the German public supports this.
Have you run a poll? Surely it is a violation of the sovereignty of Italy for Germany to transport vast numbers of
illegal immigrants to Italian soil? Has invasion vibes…” Musk retorted.
This is paired with some thinly-veiled eugenics. Musk has frequently warned of declining birthrates, which,
according to him, presents a clear threat to the human race. But Earth’s population is still increasing. And while
the Global North’s population growth is slowing down, it too is still growing. Yet Musk remains preoccupied with
declining birthrates. “If each successive generation of smart people has fewer kids, that’s probably bad,” he
explained. So, “smart people” aren’t having enough kids? During his interview on Fox News with right-wing
performance artist Tucker Carlson, Musk blamed abortion and birth control for allowing pleasure without
reproduction, separating those two concepts, which he lamented. “If we don’t make enough people to at least
sustain our numbers, perhaps increase a little bit,” he told Carlson, “then civilization’s going to crumble.” How is
that possible given that the global population is still poised to reach 11 billion by the end of the century? The only
possible “concern” that obeys laws of coherent logic is that, with more immigration and interracial relationships,
the percentage of “pure” white people might be declining. That has been a staple of white supremacist folklore for
years.
Both Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk have publicly espoused the Great Replacement Theory, which claims that
Jews are surreptitiously increasing immigration from Africa and the Middle East into the West. The goal
supposedly is to undermine Western civilization, because either the genetic inferiority or cultural disposition of
non-white peoples makes them unable to grasp or appreciate the values of the Enlightenment. It’s an incredibly
racist and anti-Semitic theory that revolves around the innate barbarity of non-white people, as well as the
shrewd enmity of the villainous and beguiling Jews, and the superiority of a homogeneously white West. This
theory is ubiquitous among white supremacist groups.
Tucker Carlson once warned his Fox News audience that “The Democratic Party is trying to replace the current
electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people—more obedient voters from the Third World.”
After the October 7th attack in Israel, one neo-Nazi account on Twitter explained that he was “deeply
disinterested in giving the tiniest shit” about Jews, just because October 7th made them come “to the disturbing
realization that those hordes of minorities” (i.e. Arabs) that they “support flooding” into the West “don’t exactly
like them too much. You want the truth said to your face, there it is.” To which Elon Musk responded, “You have
said the actual truth.”
All of this, incidentally, would fit in perfectly in Nazi Germany. I know that social media has cheapened that
comparison, but I don’t make that charge flippantly. Even misogyny and transphobia are disturbing parallels
given the amount of evidence. I accuse Musk of misogyny not only based on his eugenicist views, which always
dovetails chauvinistic attitudes toward women, but also based on that rather quickly-forgotten story about him
exposing his penis to a flight attendant, before offering to buy her a horse in exchange for an erotic massage. His
company SpaceX paid $250,000 to buy her silence.
The Nazis were obsessed with sex and eugenics. They created a deeply sexist culture that hailed reproduction as
an almost holy virtue, and where abortions were outlawed only for white Aryan women (something Musk has
come appallingly close to advocating for). A natural extension of this reproduction-equals-virtue society involved
the persecution of those with unproductive sexual preferences, seen by extension as immoral. Between 10,000
and 15,000 gay men were sent to the concentration camps, identified by pink triangles sewn into their clothes.
They were tortured, castrated, and used for cruel experiments.
In this same spirit, the very first book burning in Nazi Germany was of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft
(Institute for Sexual Research). The Institute was founded by Magnus Hirschfeld, a gay Jewish sexologist, and
gave gender-affirming care to transgender Germans. The world’s first gender-affirming surgeries were performed
by Hirschfeld. The Nazis viewed the Institute as “degenerate” and burned its research, paperwork, and books in
what they called an “action against the un-German spirit.”
Elon Musk, adopting every far-right viewpoint in the book, disowned his own daughter because she is
transgender. He said she was “dead, killed by the woke mind virus.”
How, then, given all that we know about Musk, could the media debate the meaning of that salute?
We already know who this man is.
Neo-Nazis certainly didn’t suffer from confusion. White supremacist group White Lives Matter thanked Musk for
“hearing us,” and promised “The White Flame will rise again.” Another far-right group, the Proud Boys, posted
the clip of Musk with the caption, “Hail Trump!”
In contrast to the American and British media, the German press was far less ambivalent. Die Zeit—Germany’s
newspaper of record, so not an obscure left-wing publication by any means—bluntly wrote: “There is no need to
make this unnecessarily complicated. Anyone on a political stage giving a political speech in front of a partly
right-wing extremist audience … anyone who raises their right arm in a swinging manner and at an angle several
times is doing the Hitler salute.”
In response to all the criticism, Musk tweeted: “Bet you did nazi that coming.”
After the inauguration, he spoke to the German far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AFD) party, which has ties
to neo-Nazi extremist groups. Musk encouraged them to “be proud of German culture, German values, and not to
lose that in some sort of multiculturalism.” Germans, he said, should “move beyond … past guilt.”
In a nutshell, this is the problem with our contemporary pundits. Discussing whether Musk performed a faux pas
or a Nazi dog whistle is an exercise in self-ridicule.
Soon after Trump took office, Musk assembled a team of right-wing teenagers. The eldest of them is 25 and the
youngest is 19 years old. One of them just resigned after the Wall Street Journal found his social media posts
advocating for repealing the Civil Rights Act and adopting a “eugenic immigration policy.” His Twitter account
was rife with comments such as “You could not pay me to marry outside of my ethnicity,” “I was racist before it
was cool,” and “Normalize Indian hate.” Both Elon Musk and Vice President J.D. Vance—whose wife and kids are
Indian—advocated for this racist to be rehired. “I say bring him back,” Vance wrote on Twitter.
Musk, meanwhile, went after the Wall Street Journal reporter who uncovered the social media account. “She
should be fired immediately,” Musk tweeted.
The billionaire and his team of teenage goons illegally rampaged through several government departments
including the Treasury, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Department of Education. Musk and the teenagers
accessed the private information of US citizens (including social security, phone numbers, credit scores, and
addresses), most notably by compromising the Treasury’s payment system.
At both USAID and the Department of Education, employees were barred from entering their office buildings.
What the Democrats ought to have done was just barge right in anyway. Instead, some of them made speeches
outside about the Constitution. CNBC reported that Musk’s team “pushed the highest-ranking officials at the
Department of Education—even those recently appointed by President Donald Trump—out of their own offices,
rearranged the furniture and set up white noise machines to muffle their voices.”
When the media covered this, they spoke about the specific work that these government departments do—which
is missing the point. The main problem is that Elon Musk is ransacking the government. The media also invited
Democrats on their programs to talk about the Constitution and how Congress should decide whether an agency
gets shut down or not. While this is a better point, it ultimately still misses the mark. Trump supporters don’t care
about the tedium of government bureaucracy, that’s why they voted for him, he promised to wreck the system.
They think that slashing the budget of USAID means more money to spend domestically—they think it means
their lives will improve.
So, then, what should our media be covering?
It’s very simple: What we are witnessing is a takeover of the US government by the richest people on Earth. The
point is that any money saved by disbanding USAID will not go towards helping working-class Americans. It will
simply be hoarded in the Scrooge McDuck money vaults all billionaires have. Not a snowball’s chance in hell that
money ever ends up circulating in the economy.
This is the goal. The richest people and corporations on Earth spent millions getting one of their own, a shady real
estate tycoon, into the White House. They didn’t do that for fun. This is a class war. Our pundits should be honest
about that.
Even truly racist politicians usually use racism to cover up some agenda. Bigotry has always been a political tool,
wielded by cynically evil pragmatists and genuine fanatics alike, to galvanize popular support from stupid, angry
people. Directing hatred toward society’s powerless “Others” is a particularly effective smoke-screen to cloak
some elite political agenda, which, if expressed honestly, would attract vicious outrage from most people.
It is this agenda that we must discuss together.
Without understanding this, the media’s inability or unwillingness to focus on the broader picture leaves their
readers and viewers especially ill-equipped to traverse a Trump presidency.
The White House’s strategy remains the same from the first Trump administration: bury the public in a daily
barrage of outrageous “breaking news” headlines. Fatigue them to the point of confusion and apathy, whilst
wrecking the meaningful parts of the government at the behest of private capital.
Early in Trump’s first term, Noam Chomsky very clearly saw what was happening:
What’s
going
on
is
a
kind
of
very
systematic,
two-tiered
operation.
One
of
them
is
Trump,
Bannon,
you
know,
the
effort
to
make
sure
you
capture
the
headlines,
you’re
on
the
top
of
the
news,
one
crazy
thing
after
another,
just
to
make
sure
people
are
paying
attention.
…
While
everything
is
focusing
on
that,
the
Paul
Ryan
Republicans,
who
are
the
most—in
my
view,
the
most
dangerous
and
savage
group
in
the
country,
are
busy
implementing
programs
that
they
have
been
talking
about
quietly
for
years,
very
savage
programs,
which
have
very
simple
principles.
One,
make
sure
you
offer
to
the
rich
and
powerful
gifts
beyond
the
dreams
of
avarice,
and kick everybody else in the face. And it’s going on step by step, right behind the bluster.
And
you
take
a
look
at
the
cabinet,
the
cabinet
was
designed
that
way.
Every
cabinet
official
was
chosen
to
destroy
anything
of
human
significance
in
that
part
of
the
government.
It’s
so
systematic
that
it
can’t
be
unplanned.
I
doubt
that
Trump
planned
it,
my
impression
is
that
his
only
ideology
is
‘Me’,
you
know,
but
whoever’s
working
on
it
is
doing
a
pretty
effective
job,
and
the
Democrats
are
cooperating.
…
Meanwhile,
the
parts
of
the
governmental
structure
that
are
beneficial
to
human
beings,
and
to
future
generations,
are
being
systematically destroyed. And with very little attention.
When Trump illegally freezes all federal spending, cutting off healthcare to 72 million Americans on Medicaid,
only to backpedal his decision soon thereafter, it is part of the bluster. They are doing whatever they can to
remain the center of attention, it doesn’t matter what, the point is to do something. Or, more accurately, to be
seen doing something. Action for action’s sake.
The point is to sow chaos. When Donald Trump announces a trade war—saying he’ll put tariffs on all imported
goods from Canada and Mexico—America’s two largest trading partners—only to reverse his decision a few hours
later, it is part of the bluster.
When Trump renames the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America,” and subsequently bans an Associated Press
reporter who didn’t use the new name in his report, it is part of the bluster.
Part of this strategy reeks of Donald Trump’s political mentor Roy Cohn, who taught him to always be on the
offensive. Attack, attack, attack! Steve Bannon’s influence is also apparent. During Trump’s first administration,
Bannon planned a flurry of executive orders attacking immigrants. “All we have to do is flood the zone,” he said.
“Every day we hit ‘em with three things—Pang! Bang! Bang!—these guys will never, will never be able to recover,
but we gotta start with muzzle velocity.”
Bannon deliberately scheduled the announcement of the Muslim Ban on a Friday. He wanted liberals to have
ample opportunity to protest—which they rightfully did. Seeing angry liberals protesting at the airports meant
more media coverage, more headlines for the Trump team. Republican voters would think Trump was effective.
Even if Trump backed off the Travel Ban shortly afterward, it was still a sign of action. And to people with no
political understanding, seeing action is a political goal in and of itself.
Keeping a sober mind during a Trump term means understanding the actions behind the bluster. Nobody wins
Chess by killing or protecting pawns, it is the Queen that counts. That is not to say that the harm created by the
pawn game is negligible; Republicans are now waging a war on the most vulnerable members of society—mainly
immigrants and trans people (so far)—which we have to vigorously oppose. But remember, the Queen in this
game is money and power.
Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Tim Cook (Apple), Sam Altman (OpenAI), Shou Zi
Chew (TikTok), Sundar Pichai (Google), Rupert Murdoch, Bernard Arnault (Dior and Louis Vuitton), Howard
Lutnick (Wall Street investment banker), and Chris Wright (oil baron), all attended Trump’s inauguration. They
took seats usually reserved for governors, having paid Trump lavishly for the privilege.
Just one day after Trump’s inauguration, the combined wealth of 15 of the richest oil barons increased by three
billion dollars—from $317.86 billion to $321.17 billion. According to TIME:
Nearly
$23
million
in
oil
and
gas
industry
funds
went
directly
to
candidate
Trump
and
the
PACs
supporting
him during his recent election campaign.
At
an
April
2024
dinner
organized
with
[Harold]
Hamm
and
attended
by
oil
executives
from
places
including
Exxon
and
Chevron
at
Mar-a-Lago,
Trump
asked
attendees
to
donate
$1
billion
to
his
campaign.
He
told
these
executives
they
would
save
that
much
money
and
more
after
he
repealed
environmental
regulations
and fast track drilling permits.
Chuck Collins, co-founder of the Climate Accountability Research Project, said: “This is the payback for investing
millions and millions of dollars to get Trump elected, and clearing the way for members of Congress who are pro-
industry and climate deniers. This is what they paid for.”
Indeed, and they are by no means alone. Immediately after Trump’s election, stocks of private prison
corporations skyrocketed in anticipation of a boon: building the concentration camps required to deport millions
of immigrants.
The richest people on the planet did not spend billions of dollars getting Donald Trump elected to amuse
themselves, they expect a return on investment. They bought the White House and now they expect Donald
Trump to wage class war on their behalf. The parts of the government intended to protect people from
corporations will be smashed by the Republicans. And conversely, institutions meant to shield corporations from
oversight, or ones that police unions, will be strengthened.
Upon retaking office, Trump quickly reversed a ban on toxic pesticides that contain PFAS chemicals. These
pesticides were banned because they caused illnesses such as cancer and Parkinson's. They are especially unsafe
for children, but they are cheap to manufacture. If corporate executives are given the choice between making
more money by using cheap but toxic pesticides or growing healthy crops, they will choose to poison us every
single time.
Another executive order withdrew funding from medical research. Finding cures or treatments for diseases is not
often a profitable venture. It requires a lot of expensive trial and error. For this reason, corporations are loathed
to fund, for example, cancer research or attempts to make antibiotics that can combat antibiotic-resistant
bacteria. A lot of funding for this type of research thus comes from the government—or at least it used to.
Scientists will now be forced to restrict their energy to ventures that are certain to be profitable.
A closer look at Elon Musk’s actions also unveils the same obvious pattern. When a reporter inquired about a
double standard, Musk claimed that everything he does is transparent (which explains those aforementioned
white noise machines). “You can see, am I doing something that benefits one of my companies or not?” he replied.
“It’s totally obvious.” Correct, it is obvious. Virtually all of the agencies targeted by his so-called “department of
government efficiency” police his companies. Take the current Republican assault on the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, which Republicans tellingly never spell out in full, always calling it the “CFPB.” This agency
has saved US citizens $17.5 billion by tackling corporate fraud. A few days before Elon Musk called for the bureau
to be disbanded, he announced a deal with Visa to create a digital wallet for Twitter using a peer-to-peer payment
system. Such digital payment systems lack privacy protections and pose greater risks of fraud and debanking. The
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was in the process of regulating such peer-to-peer payment apps.
However just as Elon Musk got into the game, he fired the referee.
When Trump fired 18 inspectors general (who policed corporations) earlier in January, Musk’s companies were
conveniently left without oversight. According to The Lever:
The
Agriculture
Department’s
fired
IG
was
probing
alleged
animal
abuse
at
Musk’s
brain
implant
company
Neuralink.
The
Pentagon’s
fired
IG
had
reportedly
opened
a
review
into
Musk’s
contacts
with
foreign
leaders.
The
Transportation
Department’s
fired
IG
was
the
top
cop
at
an
agency
overseeing
several
probes
into
Tesla
over
its
remote
and
self-driving
vehicles.
The
EPA’s
fired
IG
oversaw
an
agency
that
had
multiple
lawsuits
against
Tesla.
And
the
Labor
Department’s
fired
IG
policed
an
agency
managing
17
open
investigations
against
Musk’s companies.
The State Department recently announced it would purchase $400 million worth of “Armored Tesla” from Elon
Musk. I remember when corruption had to be discovered, but now, in Musk’s own words, “It’s totally obvious.”
Since the news media are huge corporations themselves, owned by even greater conglomerates, this class war will
be little discussed.
But it’s not just the media. As Republicans are destroying the government and openly waging class war,
Democrats are cooperating. They have stopped being an opposition party.
Democratic Representative Jim Himes expressed his relief that Wall Street was still in charge on CNBC: “You
know, ironically for a populist president who’s standing up for the common man, he has populated his economic
team with Wall Street guys, [Scott] Bessent, et cetera. Now these are guys who at least know what they’re doing,
right? You may disagree with them politically but they know what they’re doing. I actually think the economy is in
relatively good hands with those guys.”
On February 1st, Democrats chose a new DNC (Democratic National Committee) chair. They could have voted for
Faiz Shakir, Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager, but instead, having learned nothing from 2024, they voted for
Ken Martin. During Martin’s candidate forum, he said, “There are a lot of good billionaires out there that have
been with Democrats, who share our values, and we will take their money. But we’re not taking money from those
bad billionaires.”
Earlier this year in January, 58 Democrats—46 in the House and 12 in the Senate—helped pass the Laken Riley
Act. The bill is named after a young woman killed by an undocumented immigrant. Immigrants do not commit
more crimes than home-born citizens—studies even show they commit fewer crimes overall. But Republicans
capitalized on her murder by making Riley the figurehead of victims of their fictional immigrant crime wave. The
Laken Riley Act mandates undocumented immigrants be imprisoned without trial if merely accused of any
crime—even shoplifting. Okay, so we’re finished with laws, finished with the Constitution, and finished with
human rights. Furthermore, the bill allows states to sue the Department of Homeland Security (which includes
Immigration and Customs Enforcement) if their citizens are victimized by an undocumented immigrant.
Even before that, in December of 2024, Republicans added a provision to the National Defense Authorization Act,
banning the military’s active-duty health insurance program (TRICARE) from treating gender dysphoria in
children. House Speaker Mike Johnson said it was necessary to “end the radical woke ideology being imposed on
our military.” 81 House Democrats voted in favor of the amended bill, and all but 10 Democratic Senators voted to
enact the legislation. Evidently, giving $895 billion to murderous weapons industries is more appealing to
Democrats than keeping Republican lawmakers out of doctor’s offices and protecting transgender children.
“When tens of millions of low-income and middle-class families are struggling to survive, we supposedly don’t
have the resources to help them,” Bernie Sanders wrote at the time. “But when the military-industrial complex
demands another massive payout, Congress is happy to oblige—with almost no questions asked.”
While Republicans were at a beach resort in Florida, Trump announced a blanket freeze of all federal spending.
Upending, among countless other things, Medicaid, school meal programs, rental assistance, clean water
infrastructure upkeep, disaster relief programs, farmers assistance programs, child-care assistance grants, and so
many more things. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt tried to bizarrely justify the freeze by claiming
Elon Musk had discovered “that there was about to be 50 million taxpayer dollars that went out the door to fund
condoms in Gaza.” “That is a preposterous waste of taxpayer dollars,” she said. Trump later doubled down on the
lie—literally—by claiming that 100 million dollars was spent on sending condoms to Hamas.
In response to the freeze, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told Senators to downplay policy responses but
to instead pick one of Trump’s cabinet nominees at random and vote against their confirmation in protest. What’s
particularly revealing and frightening is that Democrats should already be opposed to every single one of Trump’s
cabinet picks. They should be voting against them anyway. Democrats then announced that they scheduled an
“emergency virtual caucus meeting” for the next day. As 72 million people were suddenly without healthcare, the
Democrats promised to discuss it… the next day.
What was the Democratic leader in the House, Hakeem Jeffries, talking about during this time? “Iran is at one of
its weakest points in decades,” he said in a speech. “We can’t take our foot off the gas pedal until Iran is brought to
its knees—for the good of the world.”
That was shortly before he flew to California to meet and lobby with Silicon Valley tech executives.
Meanwhile, as Jeffries was begging for money in The Golden State, in the Senate, Chuck Schumer put New Jersey
Senator Cory Booker in charge of formulating a response to Trump. Booker made a PowerPoint presentation for
his fellow Democrats. He advised them to post on social media, including once a day on Facebook and three to
five times a week on LinkedIn.
On February 2nd, Democrats finally admitted to the New York Times, “We have no coherent message,” in an
article headlined, “Democrats Struggle to Oppose Trump”:
In
private
meetings
and
at
public
events,
elected
Democrats
appear
leaderless,
rudderless
and
divided.
They
disagree
over
how
often
and
how
stridently
to
oppose
Mr.
Trump.
They
have
no
shared
understanding
of
why
they lost the election, never mind how they can win in the future.
Newly elected DNC chair Ken Martin said the Democrats have a “messaging issue that we have to fix.” That
assertion is false. Democrats do not have a messaging or branding problem; it is much worse than that. The
Democratic Party could easily adopt badly needed and already popular policy positions—such as universal
healthcare, getting corporate money out of politics, becoming anti-war, making it illegal to hoard over a billion
dollars in your bank account, and raising the minimum wage—and all they’d have to do is write it on a wooden
sign and stick it in the dirt, that alone would make them more popular. They don’t advocate for these things
because they don’t believe in them. It’s not a messaging issue, it’s a policy issue. The Democratic Party has
nothing to offer people besides crumbs. I’m sure that in 2028 people will vote for the crumbs before voting for the
Republican famine, but a popular party it is not.
And they wonder why they’re in this mess.
None of what I’ve explained here is particularly novel. It’s merely our understanding of the problem which has
slowly seeped away over generations.
In 1931, the American scholar John Dewey wrote about the need for a new political party:
At
the
present
time
it
seems
almost
silly
to
advance
an
argument
for
the
formation
of
a
new
party.
In
a
general
way
the
need
for
one
speaks
for
itself,
and
clamorously.
Of
the
first
ten
persons
you
meet
who
have
no
definite
connection
with
one
of
the
old
parties,
either
officially
or
through
some
form
of
self-interest,
at
least
seven
or
eight
will
not
question
the
fact
that
a
new
party
is
needed.
What
they
will
question
is
the
practicability
of
trying
to
form
one.
For
the
old
parties
are
so
firmly
entrenched
throughout
the
nation,
and
the
organizations
are so closely bound to the business system, that unorganized individuals feel themselves helpless.
…There
has
long
been
an
indifference
to
political
parties.
Masses
of
voters
have
been
more
than
apathetic;
they
have
been
jaded.
They
have
lost
all
confidence
that
politics
can
accomplish
anything
significant.
They
have
even
accepted
the
cynical
belief
that
the
parties
are
dominated
by
big
business.
But
the
present
revulsion
against
parties
has
two
striking
characteristics
which
make
it
unique.
Every
depression
has
produced
a
certain
amount
of
revulsion,
but
usually
it
has
assumed
the
form
of
a
repudiation
of
the
party
in
power
and
a
general
support
of
the
other.
In
the
next
campaign
this
sentiment
may
be
sufficiently
strong
to
elect
a
Democratic
President,
but
the
sentiment
will
not
be
accompanied
by
any
hope
or
expectation.
On
the
contrary,
it
is
generally
believed
that
organized
finance
and
industry
have
already
taken
this
possibility
into
account
and
are
casting about for a candidate who will be ‘reasonable’—a practical synonym for subservient.
…The
Republican
party
has
played
the
role
of
Providence.
It
has
told
the
people
that
its
leaders
in
alliance
with
big
business
are
the
guardians
of
that
general
prosperity
which
is
attained
under
the
direction
of
organized
capital.
It
has
declared
that
when
big
capitalists
were
made
prosperous,
a
general
state
of
welfare
would
seep
down
and
be
enjoyed
by
the
masses.
It
was
not
for
the
masses
to
do
anything;
they
had
only
to
wait,
hold
out
their
hands
and
receive
what
the
gods
above
would
give
them.
The
masses
did
not
exactly
believe
this
gospel,
but
they
saw
nothing
that
they
could
do—and
so
they
waited.
The
conviction
that
prosperity
begins
above
and
then
descends
below
has
been
the
underlying
doctrine
of
every
Republican
policy
since
the
War.
…
However,
this
gospel
begins
to
be
questioned
when
the
income
of
the
majority
of
the
people
falls
below
a
decent
subsistence
level,
as
it
has
during
the
present
depression.
Providence
can
maintain
itself
securely
only
when
it
provides.
A
self-professed
Providence
which
not
only
does
not
provide,
but
shakes
the
very
structure
of
economic society and endangers the elementary securities of life, is a self-confessed fraud.
Unfortunately
for
the
permanent
prospects
of
the
Democratic
Party,
its
leaders
prematurely
accepted
the
gospel
truth
of
the
doctrine
that
prosperity
descends
from
above.
For
the
Democrats
during
the
process
of
assuring
people
that
they
would
be
just
as
‘safe’
as
the
Republicans,
and
in
assuring
big
business
—and
asking
for
campaign
contributions
on
that
basis—that
they
would
be
as
good
and
obedient
boys
as
the
Republican
leaders,
not
only
habituated
themselves
to
the
Republican
mode
of
thought,
but
committed
themselves
to
the
policy
of
alliance
with
big
business.
…
The
generally
acknowledged
absence
of
genuine
leadership
in
the
Democratic party is a necessary by-product. No carbon copy of an original can pretend to leadership or force.
…Whatever
may
be
the
convictions
of
individuals
within
the
parties,
the
parties
themselves
are
property-
minded.
In
the
clash
between
property
interests
and
human
interests,
all
their
habits
of
thought
and
action
fatally
impel
them
to
side
with
the
former.
They
make
concessions,
but
do
not
change
the
direction
of
their
belief
or
behavior.
…
fundamental
needs
cannot
be
met
by
the
insurgents
in
the
old
parties
or
by
a
coalition
of
those
elements.
They
can
serve
a
useful
purpose
in
obstructing
the
worst
measure
of
predatory
greed;
they
are
useful
brakes.
But
it
is
Utopian
to
expect
that
they
can
recreate
the
parties
under
whose
standards
they
eke
out
their
precarious
existence;
for
these
parties
are
too
committed
and
habituated
to
purposes
and
policies
diametrically
at
war
with
their
intentions.
The
dough
is
too
extensive
and
too
sodden
for
the
leaven
to
take
effect.
They
might
form,
conceivably,
the
nucleus
of
a
new
party.
But
their
own
ideas
will
remain
truncated
and
half-formed
until
they
break
loose
and
associate
themselves
openly
with
new
interests,
needs
and
compassions.
So, in summation: Glass Onion is good, the media suck, Elon Musk sucks, Trump sucks, Democrats suck, and
capitalists especially suck.
What we are witnessing are the richest people on Earth consolidating their power. Their goal is to steal even more
money and power. That is all this is about. Remember that the center is always in plain sight. Don’t be distracted
and protect those targeted by the regime as best you can. That about sums it up.
Keep your wits, friends. You’ll need them.
Postscript:
Even though it is not the focus of this article, I want to briefly mention an update on the genocide in Palestine.
This is an ongoing crime against humanity that can’t just be ingored or looked away from.
Last year in March, Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner spoke at Harvard University about the real estate
opportunities in Gaza after Israel “cleans up” the Strip. He advocated for Israel to ethnically cleanse the Gaza
Strip (saying, “I would just bulldoze something in the Negev, [and] I would try to move people in there”) and
build a luxury Zionist resort on the beach. “Gaza’s waterfront property could be very valuable,” he said while
practically salivating.
Trump recently repeated the same proposal. From TIME:
President
Donald
Trump
proposed
on
Tuesday
that
the
U.S.
should
‘own’
the
Gaza
Strip,
‘level
the
site’
and
develop
it,
explicitly
calling
for
displacing
2
million
Palestinians
from
their
homeland
as
the
region’s
leaders
struggle to maintain a fragile ceasefire.
During
a
wide-ranging
press
conference
with
Israel’s
Prime
Minister
Benjamin
Netanyahu,
Trump
laid
out
a
sweeping
plan
for
the
U.S.
to
colonize
Gaza,
level
it
and
build
resorts.
‘I
don’t
want
to
be
cute.
I
don’t
want
to
be a wise guy, but—the Riviera of the Middle East. This could be so magnificent,’ Trump said.
The next phase in the colonization of Palestine has started. The open-air prison is no longer fit for purpose, all of
its inhabitants must leave their ancestral homes—Right of Return be damned—so that Zionists can suntan at a
luxury waterfront resort. Joe Biden must be pleased.
Here, too, the Democrats are more than complicit; they are enthusiastic cheerleaders. Even Jon Ossoff, a Jewish
senator from Georgia who supports Israel and voted to give them billions of dollars worth of “security assistance,”
has not evaded the ire of Zionist groups such as AIPAC and the ADL, as well as his Democratic colleagues. His
crime? Supporting a bill introduced by Bernie Sanders and several other progressive lawmakers—some of them
Jewish—to block the sale of some offensive weapons (totaling over $20 million), such as guided missiles, mortars,
tanks, and F-15 fighter jets.
Georgia State Representative Esther Panitch, a Democrat, now supports an anti-abortion Republican radical,
Governor Brian Kemp, who wants to overturn the Affordable Care Act and further privatize health insurance, to
take Ossoff’s seat in the next election. “[Brian] Kemp has done things that I am fighting against every day,”
Panitch said. “But it is a different level of betrayal that Ossoff has committed.”
There is currently no organized opposition either to Trump or the genocide in Palestine.
On the contrary, the US establishment en bloc is deeply committed to the complete ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
We must in turn be dedicated to its liberation from the river to the sea.
February 17 2025