Can The Left Keep Its Unstable Coalition Together To Mount A Populist Resistance?

A high is always using a low. If your protest gets positive coverage on television, someone up on high in the system is using you. If the president or political elite comment positively on your actions or fail to rein you in, then they support you and want more. If we look around at actions by the racial fringe of the Left and subsequent reaction by the political and media elite, we can see from their cues that they want conflict.

Did now-former President Barack Obama ever step out and ask for BLM or any other blacks to slow down the riots or rein in the violence? Recently, he gave an interview, in which he said that the old style of agitation was not the way to be anymore. He said this as he simultaneously complained about racism in office, and did so in an interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates, who has made a career out of whining about slights to white liberal audiences. Not once did Obama denounce the burning of cities, including Charlotte, which was a swing state. The elite Left wants more friction and violence. That is their cue, and we should not miss it.

Do you remember when the Daily Show destroyed Occupy Wall Street? It did in mid-2011. It was an actual example of Jon Stewart destroying something. The Daily Show did a segment mocking Occupy Wall Street. The message–and this is important–was that it was acceptable for the Daily Show viewers and social strata to turn on OWS. Recall that in October of 2011, when Occupy was at its peak, Rep. Nancy Pelosi said “God bless them” in reference to OWS supporters. The Daily Show did this one month later… but just in time for the cities to crack down on the OWS protesters and clean them out.

Occupy received plenty of media and political support when it was useful. This meant overlooking the violence (some sexual) at encampments. This also meant overlooking the scope creep that happened as it went from being about the failure to address Wall Street’s crimes in the crisis to standard issue Marxist societal overthrow. The Daily Show was the signal to viewers at home that these protesters were simply no longer useful and also actual fools (as the right wing had been pointing out), and that it was permissible to support the Democrat mayors that would beat them down and remove them.

It worked. It served an even bigger purpose, which was to dampen down populist frustration with Obama, as some people honestly considered him a guy who would go after the TBTF banks and help the little man on Main Street. The Left did not want a primary challenge to Obama. It would have mortally wounded him. There were some rumblings Clinton was considering it. Fortunately for Obama, the 2010 midterms had cleaned out a lot of potential challengers.

This dynamic will be important to keep an eye on in the Trump era as the Left tries to cobble together an opposition. We could easily see a replay of Occupy, but there will be no need for the media to rein it in to protect Obama. The trimming of any movement would be if it creates primary challengers. In the ensuing populist anger, it will be incredibly tempting for the Left to pluck random amateurs and create candidates. This can be manufactured amateurs when the full force of the Left’s media organs is behind it. Like the current free run of the racial agitators, this may be an unchecked force for the next four years.

There is no one stating the racial animosity should be pulled back. The Left is doubling and tripling down on their anti-white slogans. They are positioning Rep. Keith Ellison as the next Democratic National Committee chair. They want minorities fired up to go after Trump, who has become an avatar for all that is white. Nick Land states a Left populist wave will come, but that relies on the Left holding its pieces together for that united message. Fragmentation of the Left, as the pie they can split up either stagnates or contracts, is a probable outcome. Who is going to get a seat at the table if budgets are cut back: a white woman who was raped, a gay Asian man, a Hispanic immigrant, or a black lesbian?

After a while, even the Left’s foot soldiers will grow tired of playing privilege and victim rock-paper-scissors.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

11 Comments

  1. Ryan, Occupy Wall Street and other SJW movements are rooted in Wall Street machinations. How else do you explain the sheer ineptitude of a massive grassroots movement that was so hostile to centralized, stern leadership?

    John Stewart destroying the movement in a special and exposing their communist screeching to the wider American public was planned. Anyone who was familiar with the movement on the ground or any of its members realized quite quickly that it was a movement with no direction and no real purpose. Once the unions started paying members and non-members to attend their rallies, it became more and more apparent that it was a spigot for real anger towards Wall Street. And never forget that the primary members of Lulzsec and the hacking arm of the movement were quickly neutralized and flipped by Alphabet Soup agencies.

  2. These movements sre financed by Fake Charities, the big foundations. As long as the foundation cash flows in, the various factions have an interest in aligning.

  3. A high is always using a low. If your renegade gets indirectly positive coverage on television, someone up on high in the system is using you. If an unpopular president or political elite comment negatively on your actions or fail to rein you in, then they support you and want more. If we look around at actions by the political and media elite and subsequent reaction by the racial basis of the Right, we can see from their cues that they want conflict.

    Did President Donald Trump ever step out and ask for the men who supported him to stand firm against globalist finance, miscegenation, to riot, or to rein in the exploitation? Recently, he gave an interview, in which he said that he welcomed legal immigrants, embraced Israel, and would be working with Treasury and the Fed and that the old style of business was still the way to be. He said this as he simultaneously complained about violence against tax farmers, and did so with Paul Ryan looking over his shoulder, who has made a career out of being an ineffectual pariah before multi-racial liberal audiences. Not once did Trump denounce the mortgaging of white children, including New York, which was his own state. The elite Right wants more domestic docility and proxy warfare. That is their cue, and we should not miss it.

    Do you remember when Hillary Clinton clinched Trump’s win? It was in mid-2016. It was an actual example of Hillary Clinton destroying herself. She did a segment contrasting Trump’s supporters with her own unlikable seizure-ridden self. The message–and this is important–was that voting against her would somehow change things. Recall that in February of 2016, when Sanders was at his peak, Sec. Hillary Clinton said his proposals for dialing back the Fed were irrelevant. Sanders dropped out a few months later…but just in time for the DNC to crack down on the Sanders voters and clean them out.

    Sanders received plenty of media and political support when it was useful. This meant overlooking the anti-banking rhetoric (some serious) at encampments. This also meant overlooking the scope creep that happened as it went from being about the failure to address Wall Street’s crimes in the crisis to standard issue Marxist societal overthrow. Clinton was the signal to viewers at home that these dissenters were simply no longer useful and also actual fools (as the right wing had been pointing out), and that it was permissible to support the Democrat establishment that would beat them down and remove them.

    It worked. It served an even bigger purpose, which was to dampen down populist frustration with banks, as some people honestly considered ending the Fed and helping the little man on Main Street as a crucial issue. The Right did not want a fundamental challenge to the establishment. It would have mortally wounded a lifelong cuck and smarmy banker like Trump. There were some rumblings Clinton was considering it. Fortunately for Trump, the putty-faced praying and foam parties had cleaned out a lot of potential challengers, and the lack of pursuing Clinton’s donations from the House of Saud duly compensated her for taking the fall. Chelsea’s miscegenated offspring would benefit, becoming part of the historic Chosen and guaranteed intergenerational wealth and power.

    Trump is the one stating the racial animosity should be pulled back. The Right is now doubling and tripling down on their anti-white slogans. They are increasing support for legalized displacement and permanently entrenched Semitic control of Washington via blue-eyed Ashkenazi proxies laundered through the Trump gene. They want minorities fired up to go after Trump, who has become an avatar for all that is white, so that future elections can use a different variety of goy versus goy to make it all seem like progress. Ryan Landry is hopefully being paid for pretending that the details of the narrative of any given group of gentiles against some other group of gentiles is in some way a fundamental challenge to the Bank. Who is going to get a seat at the table if budgets are cut back: a white man who lost his job to a robot invented by his forebears but owned by Kushner, a white woman who spread her legs to a banker because she believed wealth was success, or a white blogger tricked into worshiping the King of Israel and believing a firmament prevents space travel?

    After this long, the Right’s foot soldiers are so focused on the media’s “Left” that they don’t care if nothing is really changing.

    1. Did you have two word doc outs in order to model the structure of your post after Landry’s? You have a strange way of expressing your disagreement and irritation. You need to work that out.

      1. Did you visit a website to flex your ad hominem? You have a normal way of attempting to avoid the specifics of an issue. Given our surroundings, you don’t need to work that out.

        1. Your blogspot is quite strange. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the combination of anti-fascism + ideological anti-semitism. I’m not sure why you commented here.

          1. I’m interested in truth, not in virtual territoriality. I’d love you to tell me what I got wrong. If you’re too concerned to comment in what you perceive as an outside venue, you can address me here (if our hosts don’t mind).

            Along that vein, you missed the point. The essay I think you’re referring to probably met the ADL’s definition of “anti-Semitism,” but it was actually neither anti-fascist nor anti-Semitic.

          2. I read the post incorrectly. The repeated use of the term “racist” threw me off.

        2. Ad hominem? Sure, whatever makes you feel better about your post.

          1. (Sorry for using a Latin term; I don’t speak that language, but the term is one of the “common logical fallacies” discussed on so many websites that I assumed it was widely understood. It means you attacked me rather than the details of my reply to Mr. Landry’s post.)

Comments are closed.