Stark Truth. Listen here.
Robert Stark and Co-host Pilleater talk to rhe Adventure Kid. His Moniker is based on the erotic manga series Adventure Kid. The Adventure Kid describes himself as a Locofoco, Jeffersonian, Red Tory, Christian anarchist. and Socially Conservative Socialist
Robert and Pilleater discuss the films The Amazing Panda Adventure, and The Crush with Alicia Silverstone
Pilleater’s youtube interview with The Adventure Kid
The Adventure Kid’s interest in Anime, and the avant garde anime of the 70’s and 80’s vs. the “disneyfied” anime of today
The Anime Angel Cop, which has fascist themes
Batman: The Animated Series as the Adventure Kid’s ideal utopian society, and the Art Deco, Film Noire, aesthetic
Art, Architecture, Peter Moruzzi’s book Classic Dining: Discovering America’s Finest Mid-Century Restaurants
Old School R & B, Bobby Brown’s Korean love interest in New Edition’s If It Isn’t Love, and “Death and the Maiden” (The Verlaines song)
Alt porn, Porn stars Nina Hartley, Mia Khalifa, Nadia Ali, Bailey Li, Priya Anjali Rai, and Robert’s favorite erotic model Emily Bloom
Avant Garde filmmakers Gaspar Noé, Harmony Korine, Alejandro Jodorowsky, and John Waters
Kerry Bolton’s Artists of the Right, Wyndham Lewis, and Italian Futurism
The origins of the Alt-Right in Avant Garde Culture
How The Adventure Kid’s views have evolved since starting out as an SJW Obama supporter
The Alt-Right, Alt-Left, Anarchism, and why the Adventure Kid does not want to be pinned down to one movement, and considers himself a man of multiple movements
The Adventure Kid’s interest in Counter-Currents and Keith Preston’s Attack the System
Bill Kauffman, the America First movement, and the early 20th Century Populist Movement including Robert M. La Follette
The Adventure Kid’s Black Identity, assimilationist vs. Black Nationalist, Afro-Asianism, and how that relates to his interest in the Alt-Right
Social Conservatism and Christianity
The Adventure Kid’s Left leaning views on the Environment, Drug Legalization, Banking, and Healthcare
Donald Trump, and why the Adventure Kid supported him primarily because of trade and immigration, and where he is disappointed with Trump
Economic automation, Robots as a solution to mass immigration, and the need for a basic income
Some interesting thoughts from an anarchist on Facebook.
“My fear was that jokes about helicopter rides would be escalated into calls for outright genocide, which is actually starting to happen.
Some “anarchists” or “alt-right” have begun the dehumanization process of a group of people by generalizing them all as “degenerates.”
If anyone is familiar with history, this is the same thing Hitler started doing to the Jews, except he based his dehumanization tactics on an ethnic\religious group rather than a political group.
This mentality shakes me to the core, because I have maintained the idea that anarchists could keep their perspective and dignity—and that their beliefs were the opposite of murder and mayhem. But it seems like their dignity and decency has been perturbed by recent and apparent culture wars.
With that said, this is not to justify people on the economic left who choose to vandalize or destroy property. It is not to condone this childish, aggressive behavior. Indeed, I rail against this aggression and weakness of philosophy as well. However, I honestly had higher expectations of people who promote modern, libertarian anarchism. I thought they knew the dangers of dehumanizing others and trumpeting violence against economic groups as the answer. I thought they could move beyond this urgency to shed blood.
It turns out they were weak minded and desirous of warfare. Turns out they were not really freedom lovers, but hate mongers hellbent on tasting the blood of their enemies.
So I will ask any “anarchist” who have these Freudian murder fantasies a few questions: what can you do for peace instead? How can you deescalate an increasingly volatile situation without stoking the fire? How can you reign in your growing desire to hurt others? How can you better relate to others even if they are unhinged and ready for violence? How can this be resolved?
My hope is that these people talking loosely and non-jokingly about extermination can come to terms with their impulses, and we can find better ways to solve the current cultural crises.
I don’t want to see this escalate anymore.”
And my response:
For those of you who don’t know me, I have extensive history and connections in leftist activism from previous movements, but I’m essentially a pariah now because I split with them when the the SJWs seized power from the older relatively moderate activists and went full authoritarianism. None the less.. I’m still in all those social circles and I see the discussions going on behind the scenes.
Is the state fracturing within itself? I always thought the end of the empire might come when some total nutcase got elected president and essentially ran the system into the ground. Meanwhile, C4SS director and ATS uber-critic Goofy Gillis is going totally off his meds over Trump (although I actually agree with much of what he is proposing).
By Betsy Woodruff
The Daily Beast
Late Saturday night, in the jam-packed baggage terminal for international arrivals at Washington Dulles International Airport, dozens of lawyers and hundreds of protesters watched as the first major Constitutional crisis of the Trump presidency played out.
The day before, Trump signed an executive order barring people from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States. But many people traveling to the U.S. from those countries—including legal permanent residents of the U.S.—were already in the air and couldn’t turn around. As a result, airports across the country turned into lawfare zones, with cadres of volunteer lawyers squaring off against bureaucrats in the Customs and Border Protection agency. Late-night rulings from federal judges made a legally unprecedented situation even more dramatic, with all three branches of the federal government—congressional, executive, and judicial—warring with each other. At stake: the lives and safety of people trying to legally enter the U.S.
At about 7:30 p.m., a boisterous crowd of several hundred pro-refugee protesters had circled around the “International Arrivals” baggage claim at Dulles—flanked by police who cleared a passageway so people getting off planes could get through. Protesters waved signs saying refugees were welcome (some signs read “Welcome” in Arabic), denouncing President Trump, and calling for Christians to show Christlike love to people fleeing terrorism. They carried “Welcome Home” balloons and they sang songs.
And there were chants, including “Let them see their lawyers now!”
There were dozens of lawyers, brought together by the International Refugee Assistance Project. A handful actually practiced immigration law, and dozens more with non-immigration backgrounds—bankruptcy, litigation, you name it—showed up to try to help.
Early in the evening, a huge piece of news broke: Two federal judges, Ann Donnelly of the Eastern District of New York and Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia, had made rulings that would stall the implementation of Trump’s anti-refugee executive order.
An interesting interview with an “anti-fascist” that references the concept of pan-secessionism. Here’s the relevant excerpt:
Without understanding the way that those ambiguous ideas are applied in different milieus, like with national anarchism and autonomous nationalism and those sorts of things, radicals can fall for easy platitudes. Pan-secessionism is another great example. When radicals start talking about the need for separatism without a clear, cosmopolitan follow-up strategy, they leave ourselves wide open to their influence and the insinuation of fascism and the ability for fascist ideas and movements to gain ground in the radical milieu and also in the broader subcultures and in mainstream cultures. When they start talking about ethnic separatism—particularly white separatism, whether de jure or de facto—they’ve basically given up the field.
I think that people in the radical milieu are very disconnected from the impact and effect that they have and their ideas actually have on the mainstream. People often look to radicals to get a sense of direction, particularly vis-a-vis subcultures, so if fascists are given a pass to influence subcultures then the mainstream is far more likely to accept them piecemeal on the basis of accepted ideas and attitudes which are very deleterious. For example, you’ve probably heard of people who you might have thought of as a left wing or a radical saying things like “I don’t believe in equality” or “equality is nonsense” or “I don’t believe in freedom,” or that kind of thing. These kinds of statements seem geared to impress people or shock them or both, but does all that really work for us?
While pan-secessionism is a tactical concept, not an ideology, and has nothing to do with either fascism or anarchism or even national-anarchism per se, it is interesting to observe how these “anti-fascism” hysterics actually help to build the wider ARV-ATS program, largely by serving as the de facto promotional division for our tendency. We’re easily ten times more “famous” because of these people than we would be without them and, as they say in the entertainment business, “there ain’t no such thing as bad publicity.” These guys are the satanic rock protestors of the present era.
These folks are mostly oriented towards the jihad against “straight white cisgendered Christian male” hegemony, or whatever the latest rendition of this perspective includes while ATS is oriented towards the actual overthrow of states, ruling classes, and empires. However, I am for the building and expansion of all forms of anarchism, and oppositional subcultures generally, including the ones that are non-ATS affiliated and which may even be vehemently anti-ATS. To the degree that these guys are contributing to the delegitimization and fracturing of the system generally, they are contributing to our cause.
I can’t say I have any problem with any of this either. Much of this article is predictable anti-Trump hysteria. Last night, I asked a long time friend of mine, a lifelong Communist from France in his 60s, what he makes of the US Left’s “Trump is a fascist” hysteria. His response was, “They don’t know what their talking about.” Pretty much. But notion of “Trump as a fascist” may be a useful Sorelian myth or Platonic “noble lie” if it motivates the liberal-Left coalition to go into full oppositional mode on the liberal end and create chaos in the streets on the far left end. Fracture, fracture, fracture…
By Kevin Carson
Center for a Stateless Society
In movements like the struggle for economic justice or against the authoritarian state (Occupy, Black Lives Matter, etc.), we usually see arguments for “diversity of tactics” made by radicals against liberal criticism of black block tactics like smashing windows and things of that sort. There’s still a lot of that kind of criticism, obviously — for example liberal reactions to the smashing of Bank of America windows, torching of limosines and whaling the almighty tar out of neo-Nazi celebrity Richard Spencer. But lately, since Trump’s election, I think there’s been at least as much criticism — much of it quite contemptuous — from Leftists dismissing liberal tactics like peaceful marches, factual corrections of Trump’s lies, denials of legitimacy, etc., as ineffectual (“This is not how you beat fascism”). And I think appeals to diversity of tactics apply just as much to the latter case as to the former.
I can’t say I have any particular problem with this. While there’s nothing particularly radical or revolutionary about what is being described in this article (it’s just standard left-liberal, social-democratic reformism with predictably cliched stances on every issue), I’m all for the blue tribe developing a stronger presence in the red zones, just as I am for the development of a stronger red tribe presence in the blue zones, not too mention an insurgency by the urban lumenproletariat against the localized manifestations of the system. Fracture, fracture, fracture…
By Spencer Sunshine
Everyone is familiar with the election map that shows the two Americas: a vast swath of red stretching across the country with a few blue patches clinging mostly to the coasts. This unbroken red block has been the cornerstone of what’s looking like a catastrophic political future for people of color, LGBTQ folks, immigrants, health care, reproductive rights, civil liberties, Social Security, the environment, and the list goes on.
So its no surprise that debate is raging among progressives about the White working class people who voted for Trump. Should these voters be uniformly dismissed as racist deplorables or should progressives try to appeal to them with populism?
I can’t believe this article actually appeared on the Psychology Today website.
By Gregg Henriques
This past academic year we have seen a number of examples of political correctness “gone mad” on college campuses. We have seen many conservative speakers having to cancel their talks, we have seen Ivy League students becoming hysterical about some benign comments about Halloween costumes, and we have seen Emory students freaking out and protesting to the university president because someone scrawled Trump 2016 in chalk on the campus grounds.
As a psychologist who has a long standing record of concern about patriarchy, racism and social justice issues, I certainly am not someone who dismisses “political correctness” in its entirety. We should indeed be attentive to issues of power and privilege approach these issues with reflection. However, over the past decade, I have found myself increasingly concerned with political correctness evolving into an oppressive righteousness that are in many ways deeply misguided and incomplete and there is definitely a need to push back against it when it spills over into absurdity.
I recently (re)discovered a wonderful frame that allowed me to crisply state what is wrong with modern academic leftist “political correctness” from none other than the eminent philosopher Fredrick Nietzsche. I was reintroduced to these ideas in the context of a course I was taking on Existentialism. After detailed study of many cultures, historical contexts, and various philosophies, Nietzsche articulated the view that there are two broad moral views or moral frames of mind, that of master morality and of slave morality. Slave morality is concerned with issues of justice, fairness and protection of the weak. It is called slave morality because its emphasis and focus is on those who are powerless, controlled or in positions of minority. From my unified perspective, especially that of the Influence Matrix (see below), slave morality can really be thought of as “horizontal”, red line, or affiliative-love morality. The emphasis is on placed on equality, sensitivity and connection.
This is a new piece published by the leftist “watchdog” group Political Research Associates by Matthew Lyons, who has previously critiqued yours truly (see Lyon’s original critique here and my reply here). Lyons’ latest piece on the Alternative Right is available on the Political Research Associates website. Read it in full here. Lyons’ report includes a discussion of ATS generally and yours truly specifically. Here’s the relevant excerpt:
“…self-described anarcho-pluralist Keith Preston has continued to participate in Alt Right forums, for example speaking at National Policy Institute conferences and on The Right Stuff podcasts. Preston is a former left-wing anarchist who moved to the Right in the 1990s and then founded the group American Revolutionary Vanguard, which is better known today by the name of its website, Attack the System.67 ATS brings together a number of right-wing currents, including National-Anarchist, libertarian, White nationalist, Duginist, and others, among it editors and contributors, but Preston’s own ideology is distinct from all of these.68
An interesting interview with leftist anti-fascist Matthew Lyons who argues that Trump may represent a ruling class faction that seeks a new direction beyond neoliberalism. Listen here.
With #DisruptJ20 actions taking place in only a few days, many are wondering both what far-Right forces will do in response to massive protests that are planned in Washington DC and across the country, and how will the insurgent far-Right continue to maneuver now that Trump is in office. Wanting to think critically about these questions as well as how to place Trump politically, we caught up with long time anti-fascist author, Matthew Lyons who writes for Three Way Fight, which offers analysis on a wide variety of far-Right forces and anti-fascist struggle.
We discuss several topics, including why fighting the far-Right is important, why the Alt-Right has gotten so much media attention the last year, looking critically at the far-Right concept of ‘globalism,’ and also a discussion on Trump and fascism which revolves around this essay from CrimethInc. Lyons does a good job of addressing that within the ruling class there is not always unity and that often there are competing ideas of how to organize capitalism and govern the State. What remains to be seen with Trump is if he only represents only a slightly different face to neoliberalism or if he will try and create something much different along Nationalist and military lines, which Lyons argues is possible.
My recent interview with “The Fascist Pigs” podcast. Listen here.
Activist and anarchist political theorist Keith Preston of attackthesystem.com/ comes onto the podcast to discuss anarchy, fascism, the altright, Jews, diversity, unions and the general political and historical landscape.
I’d say this article is hysterical leftist paranoia. Neoliberalism and cultural leftism are friends, not enemies. The inequality of wealth that we see rising is similar to what happened during the industrial revolution when the rise of the liberal bourgeoisie paralleled the growth the proletarian class. It’s amazing how many of today’s leftists miss elementary observations that are compatible with basic Marxist theory.
It’s the supposed illiberal forces that are actually the ones that are taking some kind of stand, however modest, against neoliberalism. The National Front, for example, is the most leftwing party in France in terms of defending secular republicanism against reactionary Islam, the social safety net against global capitalism, and national self-determination against EU and US imperialism. The “right wing reactionary” parties of Europe are not trying to restore the ancient regime or the classical bourgeoisie, much less historic fascism. They’re trying to restore the middle class of the pre-neoliberal era.
Here’s a good way to look at it. The former middle class people in the West who have sunk into a reproletarianized labor force in the era of globalization are like the once largely independent peasants that began to make up the ranks of the urban industrial proletariat following being run of their land by enclosure and forced to move to the cities to find work in the factories.
Similarly, the once somewhat prosperous modern Western middle classes are now being reproletarianized thanks to globalization, and are no longer working in high wage manufacturing jobs with job security but are instead being forced into working in superstores, fast food joints, and call centers.
The Democrats’ loss on the eighth of November this year can, and still should, be made into a teachable moment for the American left and left-of-centre. The Democrats thought that they could win an election, under our current electoral rules, on the strength of a coalition of professionals, plutocrats and the traditionally-‘underrepresented’ minorities (blacks and Hispanics). But they lost, in a major way, among their traditional bases in rural areas and among white working-class voters; and this cannot be attributed solely to factors like racism (even though, yes, racism still is a real thing and we need to take real steps to counter it). Nor, it must be noted repeatedly and insistently, did the Russians have anything to do with why the Democrats lost, except indirectly.
No – there are three big reasons that the Democrats lost big in these distressed (but not minority) areas. The first one is the economy, and this is where the Democrats’ rears got handed solidly to them, with Clinton making less than no effort to appeal to working people in ‘old economy jobs’, cosying up to the big banks, and backing the same big corporate-friendly trade policies that hurt American workers throughout the entire election. The second one is foreign policy, where most white voters (and most voters in general) wanted a drawdown from wars that never seem to end and never seem to be winnable. And they particularly took a more doveish view on Syria than Clinton did.
But the third reason that the ‘left’ lost so heavily in these areas, is because they just didn’t bother with them. ‘Flyover country’ got written off. The people who live here got called ‘deplorables’. Those of us who supported Bernie in the primaries (again, most of us coming geographically from the rural North and Rust Belt areas) were accused by Clinton proxies – wrongly – of being ‘privileged’ and ‘entitled’. In short: locality (and in particular locality based in those parts of America which have been traditionally anchored in the ‘old economy’) no longer mattered to a Democratic Party, which now seems to value its jet-setting cocktail-party set, and its control over the commanding heights, over any other considerations.
By Chris Shaw
Gramsci rightly identifies that in the modern political environment, simply recognising actors as either public or private, in the realm of states or markets respectively, is problematic. Unfortunately the crux of international political economy has accepted this modernist doctrine, tacitly deifying the rationalist discourses of action and modernity which underlie such conceptions. For a large bulk of IPE, as well as other social sciences such as economics and political science, this is the held belief. Rationalism guides human action, which inevitably means a continuous desire for capital accumulation, the expansion of capitalist cultural doctrines, and the belief that the individual is entirely the scope of investigation.
But of course this public/private discourse is far too simplistic to truly understand the extent of social relations and arrangements which provide governance and institutionalisation. Gramsci noted that in the public sphere, there exists a dialectic of civil society (the collection of organic institutions that range from the mannerisms of society to the voluntary governance arrangements such as townhalls and churches) and the state (which is perceived as the mechanism of implementation, mainly reliant on coercion and top-down infrastructure). The way a functioning public government works is by reconciling these two (seemingly non-reconcilable) sides. Thus most modern states, particularly those in the Global North, rely on the combination of a coercive state framework and a civil society infrastructure which legitimises the coercive practices and top-down authority. Thus states, to a large degree, rely on not just pure monopolised violence, but also on legitimising ideologies which allow it to create discourses and frameworks that may well have been rejected by civil society in its capacity to be a separate sphere of public government.
Equally, the private side of this dialectical equation is in many ways constructed by these statist and domineering discourses. The development of a capitalist mechanism of accumulation, grounded in private property and the control of the means of production, came almost entirely from the state’s mandate of it. Large scale ownership of production outlets and the relations of wage labour, where artificial economic classes were created, are entirely developments of the state in its accumulation of land during the enclosures, its encouragement of state credit through the development of central banking, and its destruction of the organic feudal relations which preceded this capitalist construction. This is not to say that private property relations cannot exist without the state. A multitude of tribal forms of property as well as elements in the feudal system proves this to be false. However, the extent to which private property relations inform modern society, and the importance this is given, is a creation of statist dynamics, which is justified both through coercion (as seen in the enclosures) and the development of a justificatory doctrine (modernist concepts of rational human action and the deification of a business class) which brings civil society onside.
By Christopher Caldwell
New York Times
Not even those most depressed about Donald J. Trump’s election and what it might portend could have envisioned the scene that took place just before Thanksgiving in a meeting room a few blocks from the White House. The white nationalist Richard B. Spencer was rallying about 200 kindred spirits.
“We are not meant to live in shame and weakness and disgrace,” he said. “We were not meant to beg for moral validation from some of the most despicable creatures to ever populate the planet.” When Mr. Spencer shouted, “Hail, Trump! Hail, our people! Hail, victory!” a scattered half-dozen men stood and raised their arms in Nazi salutes.
Mr. Spencer, however you describe him, calls himself a part of the “alt-right” — a new term for an informal and ill-defined collection of internet-based radicals. As such, he poses a complication for the incoming president. Stephen K. Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News, whom Mr. Trump has picked as his chief White House strategist, told an interviewer in July that he considered Breitbart a “platform for the alt-right.”
Perhaps we should not make too much of this. Mr. Bannon may have meant something quite different by the term. Last summer “alt-right,” though it carried overtones of extremism, was not an outright synonym for ideologies like Mr. Spencer’s. But in late August, Hillary Clinton devoted a speech to the alt-right, calling it simply a new label for an old kind of white supremacy that Mr. Trump was shamelessly exploiting.
Sponsored by none other than former Stalinist turned jingoist David Horowitz.
By Sophia A. McClennon
In late November three blocks from the White House, a group of leaders from the so-called alt-right, who many consider to simply be white supremacists, gathered for an annual conference called the National Policy Institute. Their goal was to discuss and debate the opportunities offered by a Donald Trump presidency for their white nationalist plans. In the wake of a rise in hate crimes, the meeting sent a chill throughout the nation.
But making America whiter “again” is not the only thing we need to fear with a Trump administration. Only two days after the alt-right convention in D.C., Turning Point USA launched Professor Watchlist, a website designed to call out college professors who “discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”
As Rebecca Schuman wrote for Slate, in other circumstances, these might be two unrelated events, but “as the president-elect’s surrogates cite Japanese internment as a ‘precedent’ for what may come, any ‘watch list’ of any sort is worrying.”
Trump’s inability to handle any sort of critique and his bullying of reporters and the media all suggest that we are about to enter an era of censorship, threats to free speech and other forms of suppressing dissent. When the “liberal” media come under attack it generally isn’t long before the “tenured radicals” come under fire, too.
I can’t say I’m particularly impressed with this article. It’s basically just a regurgitation of the standard liberal-left line that criticisms of political correctness are merely a case of right-wingers protecting their vested interests by spinning tall tales in order to divide the commoners and distract them from their supposed true interests (meaning liberalism or socialism). In fact, this is the standard response that the Left has always offered to ANY criticisms of leftist authoritarianism (e..g anti-Communists were really just apologists for Western imperialism and capitalist vested interests).
Reasonable people can disagree on how pervasive PC actually is when compared to competing philosophies (like neoconservatism, Christian fundamentalism, the alt-right or whatever). But it’s clear that PC has a very commanding presence in many institutions, particularly academia, most the mainstream media, self-style progressive corporations like Mozilla or Starbucks, mainline religion, etc. Of course, there’s also hard PC (the kind you find among lunatic SJWs on campuses) and soft PC (the kind Joe Biden or Tim Kaine probably believe in).
As a reviewer of my book on this topic recently said:
“Mr. Preston prefers the term “totalitarian humanism” over “political correctness,” though he explains it is not original to him. Its totalitarian nature is clear to anyone who, because of it, has had to face a threat to his job or a demand by a homeowners’ association to remove a Christmas tree, or certainly to anyone who has ever refused to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding.”
We could add to this many other examples such as the treatment of James Watson, Lawrence Summers, Kevin MacDonald, Norman Finkelstein, Brendan Eich, Tim Hunt, Ayaan Hirsa Ali, etc, etc. as well as the fact that alt right groups have to meet in public facilities under police protection. Or the banning of Chick-fil-A in Boston (an irony given the historic meaning of the phrase “Banned in Boston”). Not to mention actual violence carried out by antifa groups.
All of this is not equivalent to Stalinist or Nazi repression, but it’s an indication PC actually exists.
By Moira Weigel
A leftist writer describes how the Left has managed to shoot itself in the ass by acting like fools.
By Conor Friedersdorf
The coalition that opposes Donald Trump needs to get better at persuading fellow citizens and winning converts, rather than leaning so heavily on stigmatizing those who disagree with them. Chief among the problems with stigma as a political weapon?It doesn’t work.
So I declared after election day. And today, to start exploring the subject more deeply, I offer a case study of stigma wielded both needlessly and counterproductively.
The backdrop is the intra-left debate about “identity politics.” Did they cost Democrats the 2016 election? Or not? Is that even the right question? The subject was on Bernie Sanders’s mind when a woman in the audience of a post-election speech he gave declared that she wanted to be the second Latina senator and asked for advice.
Sanders expressed agreement that the political process needs more people of color. Then, perhaps thinking of Hillary Clinton’s failed “I’m with her” campaign, he advised:
It is not good enough for somebody to say, “Hey, I’m a Latina, vote for me.” That is not good enough. I have to know whether that Latina is going to stand up with the working class of this country, and is going to take on the big money interests… This is where there is going to be division within the Democratic Party. It is not good enough for someone to say, “I’m a woman! Vote for me!’” No, that’s not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry.
Here’s where stigma begins to enter the picture. In The Washington Monthly, contributing writer Nancy LeTourneau argued that Sanders demeaned his Latina questioner.
Weak and corrupt liberal and social democratic politicians, masking their sell out to neo liberal corporatism behind a mask of snobbish cultural liberalism, have betrayed the working class.