It's not political folx. It's about human rights. Unless you're a white supremacist?

In the article & video linked below, Bruenig depoliticises the BLM movement, (much like BLM does above) linking it with amorphous Christian principles, as though failing to support the Democratic Party & it's peripheral organisations (BLM) is a *religious* sin against God.
https://t.co/NBtaDNJeGn
Recruiting *God* for a capitalist movement that mystifies class relations in service of the Democratic Party, is so extraordinarily manipulative. This is the function of the Bruenig character, she's playing the role of a self appointed public cleric, depoliticising the DNC agenda
When you depoliticise your political interventions, as though GOOD PEOPLE all agree, then ALL dissent is seen as a personal attack. This is an extraordinarily effective tactic, one designed to foreclose public discussion by framing all critics as enemies of humanity.
AOC uses it to great effect. So does Bruenig. So did Felix regarding Euthanasia (you MUST love people being in PAIN — YOU EVIL MONSTER!).

This politics is bullshit. It CANNOT & WILL NOT engage with alternative perspectives. Any sustained voice of dissent is smeared & destroyed.
I don't hate anyone, including twits on the left. I disagree with them.

I'm not bitter. I disagree with them.

I haven't misunderstood their position. I disagree with them.

If dissent from ruling class orthodoxy makes you #DerangedAndAimeePilled, I'm all for derangement! 😅♥️😈
If everyone else is a fascist, white supremacist, bigot, homophobe, transphobe etc., if "phobias" and prejudice are the only conceivable reason why anyone might have different political commitments, you will excuse any inhumanity, all manner of brutality, from your own side.

More from All

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".