For readers who crave short, snappy reads—whether you’re pressed for time, commuting, or just looking for a quick gateway into bigger ideas.

The Monthly Review is a curated preview of the topics, stories, and opinions I explore on New Outlook—from bite-sized insights to deep dives. Let’s jump in!

➊ DRAWING LINES IN THE SAND

★★★★★
New Outlook Recommends
Why I’m Not Replying to My Old Socialist Friend
Written by: Adam B. Coleman
Published: April 17, 2026

Speaking Wrong At The Right Time

Why I’m Not Replying to My Old Socialist Friend

A week ago, I received a text message from someone I was friendly with years ago. He is a self-proclaimed socialist and someone I met back when I used to be a Democrat…

Read more

a month ago · 175 likes · 56 comments · Adam B. Coleman

I feel like I could’ve written this article today because it literally aligns with my own experience, down to the part about not wanting to reply to a recent message from an old Leftist friend, with whom our last conversation revolved around their belief in the urgency of the George Floyd riots during COVID.

For some of us who think critically and independently about politics and culture, and as a result learn to adapt our perspectives based on the pursuit of the truth, returning to spaces or friendships that were primarily anchored by impenetrable, woke/identity politics is just an exercise in futility.

We want to have enlightening conversations with free thinkers who can open up our minds to new ideas and perspectives we’ve yet to discover, even if we don’t fully agree. We don’t want to be stuck inside cyclical, cult-like activist conversations that demand we view every happening from the lens of victimhood and oppression — it’s quite draining, and uninspiring.

➋ “RACE” IS AN INDUSTRY — ONCE YOU SEE IT, YOU CAN’T UNSEE IT

I wrote this in May 2024, for a much longer piece I’ve been meaning to release. It captures everything we’re seeing today in organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center.

For the pharmaceutical industry to maintain its monopoly on the market, it must not only be willing to regulate and prevent the takeover of natural remedies to ailments, it must also be willing to be distribute then eventually recall products that may be known to be harmful to its customers.

The Strategy: 
1. Create the problem
2. Create/Prescribe the solution
3. Create lifetime customers 

Think of RACE as an industry. For institutions, organizations, and individuals whose entire ethos is built upon racial advocacy, they must be willing to do whatever it takes to keep the industry going, even if it means keeping people wrongfully obsessed with their identity rather than their intrinsic values. These institutions MUST be willing to push narratives that may not be in the betterment and wellness of their support base, but that serve the interest of the “movement,” at large — advancing the idea that racism is more pernicious today than it ever was.

By default, the same strategy applies:

1. Create the problem (Say anything and everything is the result of RACISM — see individuals and activists in the limelight such as Jemele Hill, Amanda Seales, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Ibram X Kendi, the women in the WNBA league, etc.)

2. Create/Prescribe the solution (Advance the “solutions” that your organizations have developed such as forced DEI Trainings, discriminatory hiring quotas, etc)

3. Create lifetime customers (Cultivate new generations of people who embody victimhood and are primed to search for AND *manufacture* racially based events — see Jussie Smolett etc.) 

➌ DON’T SAY HIS NAME…

I think the Left have a visceral reaction to the mention of Joe Rogan’s name because, historically, his platform is where echo chambers go to die. Ideas and opinions are poked around and pushed to their limits, to test their veracity throughout the course of 2+ hours.

If you are committed to believing that your perspective is the one and only way of understanding the world, and you’ve carefully crafted an impenetrable echo chamber around that belief, it would make sense that what Rogan represents would be perceived as an assault on your entire being.

People fear having to face new information that shatters their entire worldview and what they once believed to be true. And if they can avoid it at all costs, they will do so. That, I believe, is the underlying reason why many huff and puff about how much they hate Joe Rogan or other such figures — they do not want to face the illusion-shattering truths that could be exposed at any given moment by an expert or well-knowledgeable individual on the show.

And yes, I’m well aware that Rogan, in recent years, has unintentionally allowed his platform to be molded into a PR pitstop by the leading tech magnates and political figures in DC. This recent overview (see below) reveals that much. That aside, the point above still stands.

➍ IS IT A FILM OR REALITY? THE ABSTRACTION OF WAR

As much as we may write about it, I don’t think we can truly come to grips with what it’s like to have entire neighborhoods leveled, in an instant, by blood-thirsty maniacs in both Israel and the U.S.

You get so used to watching people’s lives erased or displaced on screen that you can’t truly know what that degree of destruction and despair must feel like.

Sycophants — be they MAGA-ites or Israel loyalists — who continue to support these deplorable acts of war do nothing but show where their priorities are. At a certain point, you’re not only telling the world about your political alignment and worldview, you’re simply broadcasting your lack of humanity, or the ability to think about the dangerous, longterm ramifications of these harrowing events.

➎ GOVERNING IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

The age of presidents posting and tweeting consequential policies and wartime actions on social media platforms really needs to come to an end.

➏ THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO… HMMM

Is it not alarmingly odd that Trump spent the entire first year of his second term not remotely fazed about getting to the bottom of how he was almost assasinated, and what entities or governmental bodies may have been responsible? How has that managed to escape being one of the top focal points of this administration?

Makes you think…

➐ SEEING THINGS FOR WHAT THEY ARE

If this administration truly valued peace, it wouldn’t have appointed some of the most psychotic, power-hungry, establishment figures in the world into key leadership positions.

A successful administration is only as great as the principles of those it chooses to give the reins of power to.

➑ TRUST THE EXPERTS?

People will tell you to trust the experts until they encounter experts whose findings debunk their entire worldview.

➒ POLITICS AS RELIGION

When politics becomes your religion, you live and die by the destruction of your political opponents.

➓ THE DEMORALIZED CITIZEN

Some people are searching for any reason to believe in the narratives that validate their ideology. These are the types that are most easily manipulated by propaganda.

That’s a wrap! Hope you enjoyed this edition of The Monthly Review. If something resonated, drop a like, leave a comment, and let’s discuss further. Share this with a friend. Thank you for reading, subscribing, and supporting this project. Until next month!

Share

For readers who crave short, snappy reads—whether you’re pressed for time, commuting, or just looking for a quick gateway into bigger ideas.

The Monthly Review is a curated preview of the topics, stories, and opinions I explore on New Outlook—from bite-sized insights to deep dives. Let’s jump in!

➊ TUCKER INTERVIEWS GLENN GREENWALD

★★★★★
New Outlook Recommends
Glenn Greenwald: War Updates, False Flags, and Netanyahu’s Desperate New Attempt for Power
Released: March 16, 2026

Independent journalist Glenn Greenwald on the erosion of free speech under the Trump administration, Israel’s influence in the U.S., the ongoing Iran war, and much more.

➋ THE “DO OR DIE” CULTURE

You either buy into “calling out” everything as racist, sexist, etc, or you risk being labeled as one of the people contributing to those issues. In today’s culture, there are no nuances or spaces for independent thought.

Many years ago, when I took up the habit of curiously asking my friends about a variety of culture war issues (on race, pronouns, reparations, etc), I was always labeled as “anti-black,” “the embodiment of self-hatred,” “homophobic,” “transphobic,” etc. All of that simply because I dared to ask questions about issues that I was sincerely curious about. And these were my so-called friends.

It goes to show that the movement, and the revolutionary culture that drives it, takes precedence over any other relationship or dynamic. In the same way that neighbors and family members put one another through “struggle sessions” during Mao’s Cultural Revolution, so, too, are today’s revolutionaries.

The age of healthy, philosophical debates — getting to hear opinions and ideas that you may not necessarily agree with but that may deepen your understanding of the many ways one can think about any given issue — seems to be over. It’s been over for many years.

Revolutionaries do not want to debate. They do not care to discover a new outlook on familiar topics, or to understand the areas where their ideas may be logically flawed. What they do care about is coercion, censorship, cancellation — anything that will prevent their worldview and ideas from being critically challenged. When you feel entitled enough to believe that your view is the only worthwhile view and everyone else is on the wrong side of history, then of course you’d have no issue using force against your so-called opponents, censoring them, and, if you must, resort to completely destroying their lives.

➌ “THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE”

“Thank you for your service.” 

That age-old expression that makes American officials appear as if they actually care about the people who lay their lives on the line for their useless wars.

I guess it’s always been missing the part that’s rarely ever said out loud:

“Just make sure to never speak out of turn or against our forever wars.” 

➍ WHEN STRATEGY IS MADE TO APPEAR RANDOM

Foreign policy is nothing but a highly strategic game, with real human lives as pawns. It seems there are no decisions made on the global stage without an intensive calculus behind it.

Which makes me also realize that on the cultural stage, there are no decisions the U.S. (and its media) makes — on race, gender, or other similar issues — whose outcomes have not been fully considered prior to being deployed into the mainstream.

We are all watching highly skilled propagandists at the helm of power.

➎ WOKE, ON THE LEFT & RIGHT, FOLLOWS THE SAME PLAYBOOK

Woke Left: DEI for “oppressed” class.

Woke Right: DEI for pro-Israeli class.

➏ CANDACE OWENS IS HER OWN WORST ENEMY

Candace Owens is likely the most difficult political commentator to support. Her incessant devotion to dig into the true story of the killing of Charlie Kirk — when no one else seemed interested in doing so, including the former spokesperson’s own Turning Point USA organization — has been nothing short of groundbreaking.

But now and again, Owens’ zealousness — or whatever it is that makes her bypass facts in pursuit of what she feels during her investigation — gets in the way. Her latest investigative series into Charlie Kirk’s widow Erica Kirk, titled Bride of Charlie, puts this phenomenon into full focus as Owens sloppily attempts to make something out of nothing through a handful of episodes. Her consistent speculation, inferences, and conflation of events while digging into Erica Kirk’s background only weakens the case she’s spent months building against TPUSA, the organization’s pro-Israel donors, the Trump administration’s handling of the investigation, and Erica Kirk herself.

What started as a serious investigation into a cover-up now looks like a clown show that can be easily lampooned for its unserious detours — and many on the internet who aren’t fans of Owens, for one reason or another, are already doing that.

I’ve found many of Owens’ discoveries into the Charlie Kirk case more than revealing, but she readily shoots herself in the foot with her non-journalistic approach, giving the likes of sniveling commentators like Ben Shapiro some credence when they say that commentators like Owens are simply chasing after nothing but clicks and money. I used to disagree with that take because Owens seemed steadfast in her pursuit of the truth, and that rehearsed line was always the go-to attack against journalists and truth-tellers who are devoted to exposing truths that powerful people want to keep hidden. However, the more Owens relies on feelings and speculation rather than cold, hard facts, the more that accusation will hold true.

➐ BAMBOOZLED, ONCE AGAIN!

Obama strategically duped the Left.

Trump is strategically duping the right.

Perhaps it’s time you woke up to the reality of politics. But I’m afraid the 2028 elections will follow the same trend. And people will hope for a different outcome — and it won’t happen. Instead, they’ll turn around and repeat the same trend all over again.

➑ PAPERS OF FALSE RECORDS

The rationalizations of American corporate media outlets are never founded on principles, just whatever is in the interest of the US and its allies at any given time.

➒ A COMEDIAN HAS ONE JOB…

To point out the quirks and absurdities of the time, and as a result make you laugh and leave you with a new outlook on issues you believed you were familiar with. It is not to coddle audiences whose priorities are to never be offended or be confronted with ideas that they disagree with.

Want to know if a society is repressed? Observe how the comedians who refuse to toe the acceptable line are treated by the people and institutions of power.

➓ THE RACKET’S REBRAND IS NOTHING BUT A RACKET

Matt Taibbi has apparently just launched a new podcast “Today’s News” with Michael Tracey.

Tracey, the slop journalist known for calling every investigative journalist he’s no match for a conspiracy theorist nut is apparently adept at climbing the journalistic social ladder as he’s collaborated closely with Glenn Greenwald on his former System Update nightly show, The Young Turks, and now Matt Taibbi’s Racket News. Apparently, some of the top voices in independent media see something in Tracey that others like myself do not.

In recent weeks, Taibbi has taken his publication in a different route — unafraid to critically cover stories that may or may not offend his reader-base or power centers — perhaps to prove that he’s heard the criticisms of what his publication has become; what many refer to as an echo-chamber for Trump supporters. In a candid letter to readers, Taibbi announced that he’s taking a step back as Editor-in-Chief of Racket News, and rebranding and hiring new reporters, including a new Editor-in-Chief Emily Kopp, to evolve the independent news platform.

Racket 2.0’s rebrand hints at a publication that is putting opinions, off-handed takes, and audience-capture in the past, and instead focusing more on hard-hitting investigative journalism that moves the needle and is capable of building a new home for ardent reporters. The publication’s new slogan aptly captures its new philosophy: “We care if it’s true. We don’t care why.” For a journalist like Taibbi who’s never seemed all too interested in ruffling too many feathers, the slogan makes it clear that Racket News is putting the final nail in the coffin of political partisanship. There’s much to be excited about there.

However, hiring Tracey and launching a podcast that seems to make a mockery of the corrupt, dark alliance networks and operations that keep the country in a perpetual state of degeneracy and decline, all while castigating the journalists devoted to exposing said networks is as out of touch as a publication like Racket News can get amidst a rebrand.

What a complete joke. Mark my words: Taibbi and Racket News will regret this decision. Just wait for it.

That’s a wrap! Hope you enjoyed this edition of The Monthly Review. If something resonated, drop a like, leave a comment, and let’s discuss further. Share this with a friend. Thank you for reading, subscribing, and supporting this project. Until next month!

Share

For readers who crave short, snappy reads—whether you’re pressed for time, commuting, or just looking for a quick gateway into bigger ideas.

The Monthly Review is a curated preview of the topics, stories, and opinions I explore on New Outlook—from bite-sized insights to deep dives. Let’s jump in!

➊ ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN

★★★★★
New Outlook Recommends
All The President’s Men
Released: April 5, 1976

Finally watched All The President’s Men, and my god, what a film! For those not too familiar with President Nixon’s Watergate Scandal, the film serves as a great entry-point into the story, and the journalists who broke it wide open.

Over the years, I often heard journalist Matt Taibbi reference the film in almost every interview or podcast appearance while speaking about the industry of journalism and its fall from grace. In finally getting to see the film, I understand why it’s remained a point of reference by some of today’s leading independent journalists.

Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman’s portrayal of young, hungry investigative reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein was nothing short of outstanding. What I believe the film excels at is its portrayal of how investigative journalists slowly put a story together, piece by piece.

If you’ve yet to see the film, I highly recommend it.

➋ GLENN GREENWALD RETURNS TO SUBSTACK

By the time I arrived on Substack in 2024, Glenn Greenwald had pivoted away from the platform to launch his own daily news show — System Update — on Rumble.

For me, that was a huge disappointment. I’d arrived too late to enjoy the works of my favorite journalist. But that didn’t mean I couldn’t read through his Substack archives while still tuning in to witness his foray into video journalism.

Writing for me was a new practice in 2024, and no one had made me fall in love with independent journalism more than Greenwald. Prior to that, I was enamored by photojournalism and wanted nothing more than to walk in the footsteps of renowned photojournalist James Natchwey, without having to photograph war.

In discovering Greenwald’s work years after the Snowden NSA leaks, what I respected most was the prioritization of his independence throughout his works, even when he contributed to mainstream outlets. Additionally, his writing style stood out to me for his sheer ability to craft compelling narratives about current events while infusing them with contextual elements from the past that made the pieces feel comprehensive enough for any reader. More than that, I respected his integrity, consistency, and his principled approach to journalism. There are very few journalists who are able to avoid having their personal feelings dictate how they report on a story.

While I’ve thoroughly enjoyed what System Update has accomplished on Rumble over the past few years, I was incredibly excited to see Greenwald announce on February 9, that he’s making a return to Substack — the platform where he initially centralized his independent journalism following his exit from The Intercept, the investigative journalism outlet he helped establish.

(If you’d like to learn more about Glenn Greenwald, I wrote a piece a year ago — linked below — highlighting him as one of today’s most important voices in independent media.)

➌ CORPORATIONS IN CAMOUFLAGE

The thing about institutions — Big Tech, political organizations, Government agencies, etc. — is that they will continue to evolve and adapt their strategies to match and appeal to your sensibilities in the moment.

That new, social media tech company does not in fact care about your free speech.

That hip, young, and revolutionary politician, and his/her colleagues, do not in fact care about you (the people), your patriotism, or your interests.

That government agency does not in fact care about transparency or justice.

➍ USING “FREE SPEECH” AS MARKETING LEVERAGE

New social media companies claiming to be a “free-speech platform” is an updated version of up-and-coming politicians running for office claiming to be primarily funded by small-donors.

They know how to say exactly what you want to hear. And they get away with it, every single time.

➎ THE JOURNALIST’S PURSUIT OF THE TRUTH

Any journalist who thinks that he or she is such a towering font of knowledge that calls to more sources are unnecessary is a fool, and a liability. The fact that you never stop learning in this job is one of its best features.

— MATT TAIBBI

➏ SOCIETY IS IN DESPERATE NEED OF “GOOD JERKS”

The Woke clamor for “equality” and “inclusivity” until disabled people tell them to their face that they actually want to be treated equally by being included in jokes made by comedians.

To disabled people, that simple act is how they are made to feel seen as equals, not the performative, virtue-signaling acts that activists have normalized as advocacy.

Declarations that comedians are forbidden from making jokes at the expense of disabled people, or any member of the so-called protected class, because doing so would be regarded as offensive, an exercise in superiority, or an effort to “punch down,” actually do more harm than good. In such cases, efforts of “advocacy” actually strip disabled people of their agency and voices, effectively silencing and rendering them as useless.

➐ HOW THE PRESS SILENTLY COVERS UP FOR THE GOVERNMENT

“[The New York Times] hated to be beaten [to breaking stories], but didn’t really want to be first. The Times was scared to death of being first on a controversial story that challenged the credibility of the government.”

— BILL KOVACH, Cover-Up

➑ WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY

Your ability to tell uncomfortable truths when you are not in possession of real power or influence is not an accurate measure of integrity.

Kash Patel, Director of the FBI and Dan Bongino, former Deputy Director of the FBI are classic examples of this. Prior to the positions they held in the current Trump administration, they were both loudly against the establishment. However, their rise to positions of power within the FBI has come with a muzzle and a neutered stance against the same establishment they once decried.

➒ HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE PROPAGANDIST ELITES

Given the levels of propagandistic deception we’ve witnessed and uncovered in the last five years alone, it’s hard to believe anything in history as it is “officially” told.

➓ LESSONS WORTH LEARNING

Any crowd — no matter what label they carry — that attempts to smear, shame, or manipulate you for having an independent outlook on a variety of issues is the crowd you must abandon, immediately.

That’s a wrap! Hope you enjoyed this edition of The Monthly Review. If something resonated, drop a like, leave a comment, and let’s discuss further. Share this with a friend. Thank you for reading, subscribing, and supporting this project. Until next month!

Share

For readers who crave short, snappy reads—whether you’re pressed for time, commuting, or just looking for a quick gateway into bigger ideas.

The Monthly Review is a curated preview of the topics, stories, and opinions I explore on New Outlook—from bite-sized insights to deep dives. Let’s jump in!

➊ THE COLOR REVOLUTION PLAYBOOK

★★★★★
New Outlook Recommends
How to Overthrow a Government: The Color Revolution Playbook
Published: January 22, 2025

A brilliant explainer on the concept of Color Revolutions, and the six-step playbook frequently exercised by the U.S. to carry out regime change operations, often disguised as grassroots democratic movements.

➋ SAME PLAYBOOK, DIFFERENT SPORT

New social media companies claiming to be a “free-speech platform” is an updated version of new politicians on the block claiming to only accept funds from small-donors.

They know how to say exactly what you want to hear. And they get away with it, every-time.

➌ ON NEWSSTANDS: VANITY FAIR DELIVERS PARTISAN SLOP

Free Thinking Through the Fourth Turning with Sasha Stone

Vanity Fair and the Incurably Ugly Left

The Democrats have never been less popular than they are right now…

Listen now

5 months ago · 364 likes · 219 comments · Sasha Stone

As much as I’m not a fan of some of Sasha Stone’s recent Trump-obsessed coverage these days, she hit many of the points that was on my mind about Vanity Fair’s photo coverage of Trump’s administration.

This is what audience capture looks like. This is what corporate media and institutional bias looks like. This is what the culture has boiled down to — “slop,” as the kids like to call it. And the people gladly eat it up, believing they’ve accomplished something of note.

Were a conservative photographer assigned to cover a Democratic administration, and these were the style of photos that hit the newsstands, he’d be buried with hateful threats from readers and blacklisted by the entire industry. But alas, we know who runs many of these platforms, so that’s a far cry from reality.

They say “history is written by the victors.” Well, it seems that photographic flattery is exclusively reserved only for those who wield institutional power — i.e. the institutional Left.

➍ STEWART FINDS HIS SENSES UNDER A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION

I’ve been very outspoken about how feckless Jon Stewart has become since his return from hiatus after first leaving The Daily Show in 2015, just before the first Trump presidential term.

Admittedly, this is the best segment of his I’ve seen in the new iteration of his show:

➎ THE TWO SIDES OF THE IMPERIAL MACHINE

The empire needs its skillful orators and apologists like Obama, but it also needs its iron-fisted overt tyrants like Trump. It needs good cop presidents to manufacture global consensus and expand US soft power, and it also needs bad cop presidents to inflict the hard power abuses the good cops can’t get away with. Both are essential components to the operation of the imperial machine.

— CAITLIN JOHNSTONE

➏ HEALING FROM WOKE IDEOLOGY

An ideology that has deeply taken root like a parasite, for decades, within the American psyche, and has proliferated throughout every major American institution does not get wiped out in one presidential administration, with the single stroke of a pen. If you believe that to be the case, you are delusional.

The damage has already been done. There is no moving on without building anew from the ground up, across institutions. That takes decades… if that’s even a reality at this stage.

Hate to break it to you.

➐ “WOKE IS DEAD!”

For all those who continue to make pronouncements that “Woke is dead” and we need not speak to the irreparable damage it has done to society, here lies the parasitical remnants of Woke, controlling individuals within many of society’s power centers.

Brainwashed Doctor Exposed as Fraud on Live TV With a Simple Question — “Can men get pregnant?”

➑ WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS

“I wish that the public was more skeptical and the journalists were more adversarial.”

— LAURA POITRAS, Filmmaker and Director of Citizenfour and Cover-Up.

➒ VOTE FOR THE BEST LIAR

I’m convinced that a political campaign is an audition for how effectively you’re able to lie and deceive the people to buying into your narrative.

If you’re an adept liar, you’ll do well as president of the United States, when you’re required to tell bold faced lies to the public about domestic and international actions the administration is taking.

➓ ONE PROPAGANDA AFTER ANOTHER

An excerpt from the review of Paul Thomas Anderson’s film One Battle After Another in The Guardian:

"Bob is part of a heavily armed activist cell that attacks migrant holding prisons on the Mexican border..."

Perhaps, this narrative — of revolutionary activists on the Left thwarting the operations of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — is particularly why this lackluster film, from one of Hollywood’s best filmmakers, was so revered by many on the Left, while people like myself couldn’t help but see the film as a total disappointment.

All of that said, perhaps the film represented a decree of sorts, a playbook for how activists ought to confront the actions of ICE agents in their neighborhoods and cities. I’m convinced that this, among other things, is why the film has been endlessly celebrated as a “masterpiece,” and “the greatest film of the decade.”

Perhaps the film’s central motif is why we are continuing to bare witness to this eerily disturbing phenomenon: emboldened activists willingly putting their lives at risk, and in some cases, dying, in an attempt to interfere, inconvenience, or thwart the operations of, evidently, poorly trained and trigger-happy ICE agents.

That’s a wrap! Hope you enjoyed this edition of The Monthly Review. If something resonated, drop a like, leave a comment, and let’s discuss further. Share this with a friend. Thank you for reading, subscribing, and supporting this project. Until next month!

Share

AMIDST the chaotic January 3rd unveiling of the Trump administration’s national security strategy, there is no doubt that many have been trying to make sense of what has been slowly unfolding in Venezuela, and many other such regions — in South America and in the Middle East — that are currently within Trump’s scope.

Investigative journalist and television correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, on her most recent podcast episode — titled “Trump and Venezuela Explained: Clearly and Simply” — invited former Trump administration officials, from his first presidential term, to “clearly and simply” explain the unprecedented and unlawful abduction of Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro.

That the former Trump administration officials enlisted to explain his actions in Venezuela — Carrie Filipetti and Alexander Gray — were themselves key figures within Trump’s prior State Department, directly shaping the foreign policy and national security strategies they’re now tasked with analyzing, should not go unnoticed. It ought to be the lens through which everything they argue is filtered.

From Filipetti’s perspective, Executive Director of the Vandenberg Coalition, and the former Deputy Special Representative for Venezuela at the State Department, Trump’s actions in Venezuela can be analyzed as a trifecta: the operation, the messaging on the operation, and the ‘What comes next?’ phase.

On the operation, Filipetti had no qualms with the overall procedure of an unauthorized military operation to capture a sitting president of a foreign country, or the precedence it sets worldwide, saying:

“I give hundred percent, gold star remarks to everybody involved in the operation. I think it really demonstrated American leadership, American military prowess, our strength, standing by our word, and I’m really impressed by what the military was able to achieve. I never thought an operation like that was going to be possible in the first administration, so huge credit to them there.”

However, the messaging on the operation, she believed could’ve been more pointed and persuasive, instead of “hurting our own narrative” by openly declaring that the U.S.’s primary interest is in Venezuela’s oil and mineral resources. Filipetti argues that the Venezuelan regime’s illegitimacy, in addition to its human rights violations, should’ve been front and center in the messaging used to justify the administration’s actions against the Maduro regime. But her reasoning would essentially grant the U.S., and any other country with the military might to intervene in other nation’s affairs, free rein to do so. Filipetti backs up her support for intervention and the neglect of international law, saying “I think what we really need to acknowledge is that protecting the rule of law cannot possibly mean allowing a dictator like Maduro to usurp authority and repress his people with no consequence. So I actually view this [Maduro’s capture] as there being a responsibility for the international community to protect vulnerable citizens like those in Venezuela, and elsewhere.”

Remarkably, Filipetti’s point here only helps to confirm one thing: the U.S.’s State Department will employ whatever propagandistic narrative that is useful to America’s allies and its foreign interests, and detrimental to its adversary states. Were human rights violations and vulnerable citizens like those in Venezuela truly a concern for the U.S., both the Biden and Trump administration would’ve long intervened in Israel’s ongoing crimes against humanity and the destruction of Palestinian lives. Instead, they’ve funded Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israel to the tune of “at least $21.7 billion in military assistance” since October 2023, according to The Associated Press. A nation that prioritizes vulnerable citizens would’ve at least halted all funding to Israel to prevent further crimes against humanity.

Additionally, the critique of the military operation in Venezuela, Filipetti argues, comes from the failure of Americans to see the bigger picture — that U.S.’s national security depends on us removing the Maduro regime from power to ensure stability in the region, and secure a tenable partnership with the country. While the ends are understandable, the means — which Filipetti lauds — is what many on the global stage seem to be deeply concerned with. Her assessment acknowledges that the vestiges of Maduro’s regime still remain intact, and that there’s more work to be done — the release of political prisoners, a sweeping electoral reform to facilitate legitimate elections with observers, among many others — for a return to democracy. On a fundamental level, however, Filipetti fails to contend with the longterm ramifications of Trump’s “peace through strength” policy, featured in his national security strategy, which dictates: “Strength [read: coercion] is the best deterrent. Countries or other actors sufficiently deterred from threatening American interests will not do so.” If the U.S.’s priority is to ensure stability in the region, would this foreign policy approach not directly threaten stability by creating a more hostile relationship between the U.S. and Venezuela’s top allies: Russia and China?

That aside, what comes next for Venezuela? Filipetti is uncertain:

“I think our success in that aspect really hinges on our ability to transition them to democracy and push towards the democratic actors that are already in Venezuela.”

For administration officials like Filipetti, who romanticize the notion of America facilitating the transition of a nation like Venezuela toward democracy, they’re either naive enough to believe such a farcical and duplicitous statement on its face, or they’re simply adept at the propagandistic tactics and euphemistic language that is necessary to manipulate public opinion from within the State Department.

For Alexander Gray, Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, and former Chief of Staff at the National Security Council (NSC) under President Trump’s first administration, his assessment took on a more counter-strategic tone. Trump’s military intervention in Venezuela, according to Gray, was a long overdue procedure, required to neutralize the threat that Venezuela’s allies in Russia, China, and Iran posed to the United States:

“This is something that the United States really should’ve done in terms of reasserting our interests in the hemisphere. The number one issue here is that for decades, Venezuela has been a puppet of the Chinese, the Russians, and the Iranians. And we allowed it to go on in our hemisphere, in our backyard. And now we finally have pushed back, we’ve done something that not only was legally justified, but it’s something that from a geo-strategic standpoint, was essential and overdue.”

Gray argues that Trump’s move on Maduro was necessary because it reasserts America’s dominance and traditional foreign policy as it was, pre-Cold War era — what he refers to as “Hemispheric defense” — to deter the degree of intelligence and military influence that countries such as Russia, China, and Iran have in the Western Hemisphere. To him, Trump’s national security strategy is a return to the “fundamental issue in foreign policy, which is defend the homeland, defend the hemisphere.”

While this is a fair assessment, it entirely contradicts and nullifies Gray’s own take on Russia’s military actions in Ukraine in 2022. If Trump’s military actions can be justified as hemispheric defense against U.S. adversaries’ encroachment in the Western hemisphere, then Russia’s 2022 attack against Ukraine must verifiably be justified as its national security strategy against NATO’s eastward expansion toward Russian borders, and its aims to “restore its influence in the post-Soviet space,” according to The Ukrainian Review. But that view does not align with Gray’s outlook, which is on display on his Twitter/𝕏 feed, advocating that more U.S. funds be sent to help Ukraine resist Russia’s “unprovoked” invasion.

Furthermore, Gray believes the operation against Venezuela, and the impending actions against regions such as Cuba, Colombia, and the much sought after Greenland are pragmatic because of the message it delivers across the world:

“It sent a signal to the entire region, and the countries outside the region, like China and Russia, that we are serious. When the president says there is a Trump-Corollary to the Monroe-Doctrine, and we will not allow outside powers to meddle in our hemisphere, that’s a message to outside powers, but also to regional countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, Colombia, who might be tempted to engage in that kind of activity…”

There is, to be sure, a case to be made about genuine security threats in the Western Hemisphere. However, Filipetti and Gray’s justifications collapse when viewed in a global context. Their core assumption is that the U.S. should wield unconstrained military power wherever it chooses — particularly in the Western Hemisphere — while other nations must accept strict limits on their own strategic ambitions. If following America’s national-security playbook becomes condemnable only when others do it, then we are no longer dealing with principle, but with theater. And theater deserves to be treated as such.

Listen to the full episode here:

ANALYZING what countries classify as consolidated, transitional, authoritarian, or some other type of government can be a biased endeavor, based on the analyst or entity performing the analysis and their political interests. If there’s anything we’ve learned in recent years as the calls for “misinformation” and “disinformation” experts and institutional bodies (such as Global Disinformation Index, Center for Countering Digital Hate, and the U.S.’s Disinformation Governance Board) hit a deafening crescendo across the world in 2020, it’s that various organizations tasked with ranking or categorizing political information are often beholden to state-linked entities, not acting as impartial agents, and are often operating from a rigorous, ideological bias built into their analytical methods.

That preamble is a necessary primer before I offer my own analysis from my worldview, and in some cases, cite reading materials as well as organizations such as the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), whose research and findings largely inform Democracy Index data worldwide.

United States of America — Democratically Backsliding

In the Meaning of Democracy, Russia is sourced as a prime example of a democracy that is susceptible to falling out of its categorization as a transitional democracy. However, what is conveniently overlooked is that the very same reasons cited as to why Russia may be on the trajectory in the authoritarian direction can be used today to describe the United States’ own political trajectory from a transitional democracy to a polite authoritarian government; democratic backsliding as it is commonly referred to.

While the United States is classically referred to as a consolidated democracy, my arguments follow the logic presented in some of the reading material. This excerpt, from the Meaning of Democracy pages highlights my point (bolded for emphasis):

Since Vladimir Putin’s reelection as president in 2004 and continuing under his handpicked successor, Dmitry Medvedev (elected in 2008), the Russian government has engaged in numerous undemocratic practices, including arbitrary detention and rigged trials of opponents, repeated violations of the constitution, and extensive political corruption. There are competitive but not fair elections, multiple parties but one dominant establishment party, press diversity in the print media but with significant restrictions, and tightly controlled television news. Therefore a good case could be made that Russia should be classified as authoritarian, even though Putin (now in the position of prime minister) and Medvedev enjoy extensive popular support.

If these infractions qualify Russia (at the time the text was written) as a borderline authoritarian government, then we need a more serious look into the American government as it stands today. On the 2024 Democracy Index—relying on data sourced from the Economist Intelligence Unit—the United States is rated at 7.85 while Russia is rated at a measly 2.03.

In the United States, undemocratic practices are rampant throughout the nation’s politics and government. Rigged trials of opponents, extensive political corruption, and mass censorship, deplatforming, and debanking of dissidents—much like the issues cited in Russia’s analysis—are some of the undemocratic practices that have defined American life for much of the past few decades. In just the past five years alone, there are ample examples that illustrate this: the extensive lawfare by the Democratic Party against their Republican political opponent Donald Trump, the still puzzling story of how the same presidential candidate was almost assassinated on live television, the coordinated attempt to stifle the Hunter Biden laptop story by the New York Post to prevent Biden’s presidential campaign from facing ruinous scrutiny, the years-long Russiagate hoax promulgated by government insiders, politicians, and officials, now finally being exposed for what it truly was by the current administration, the backdoor collaboration of government agencies with Big Tech corporations that formed the newly established censorship apparatus that wiped off dissidents from digital platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube, as revealed by Matt Taibbi’s Twitter Files, the current Trump administration’s use of deportation as a tactic to censor and remove lawful permanent residents whose activism stand in opposition to the administration’s interests, and so, so many more.

In the same token, American elections are known to be fierce and competitive, but they have rarely ever been fair. What exactly do we mean by fair elections if the will of the people is always thwarted by the dominant establishment two-party system, and new third parties are routinely sidelined? Outside of the clear concerns about the issue of election rigging (voiced by both political parties at different points), there is no better example of the lack of fair elections in American politics than what happened to Bernie Sander’s unprecedented movement and campaign in 2016 and 2020, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s 2024 Democratic presidential campaign—both strategically sidelined and ousted by the Democratic National Committee.

Fair elections are impossible if the final candidates that voters are allowed to vote for are advanced to the debate stage, and ultimately to office, by lofty funding networks with interests directly opposed to that of the electorate. As Boss Tweed, a 19th-century American politician most notable for being the political boss of Tammany Hall, suggests, “I don’t care who does the electing, as long as I get to do the nominating.” It’s more about creating the illusion of a democratic society than actually providing one; that is no different from an outright authoritarian state—the outcome is inevitably the same: the subjugation of citizens for the interests of the elites in power.

In the Meaning of Democracy, significant restrictions of print media and a tightly controlled news is cited as one of the reasons that disqualifies Russia from being categorized as a consolidated government. However a quick look at America’s print and corporate news media reveals just how tightly controlled legacy media is in the United States. Stateside propaganda is of the highest order that those who are routinely propagandized do not even know that they are, and those who are mouthpieces for the establishment in news media believe themselves to be doing real journalism rather than serving as a state-backed stenographer. Across corporate news media platforms and publications, narratives exist in lockstep no matter the issue. Until one engages with independent media outlets (which routinely face constant censorship pressures from the establishment), honest and nonpartisan analysis of world news will rarely be encountered.

Noam Chomsky highlighted this issue of how American media is tightly controlled many years ago in his acclaimed book Manufacturing Consent, which illustrates the mechanisms by which publications and news shows filter world events through the establishment’s ideological and political lens. A Gallup poll from 2024 revealed that Americans’ trust in the news media is at a new record low. Reportedly only 31% of Americans still have trust in the news media, a nearly ten percent drop from a decade ago. Perhaps no better example depicts this than the recent news of PBS and NPR losing their funding, and rightfully so. As independent journalist Matt Taibbi puts it:

[PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting] should have run forever. National Public Radio ruined the enterprise, turning the country’s signature public news shows into an endless partisan therapy session, a Nine Perfect Strangers retreat for high-income audiences micro-dosing on Marx and Kendi.

There are plenty more cases that could be made against the United State’s so-called democratic government. But the point remains: of the seven democratic principles, the United States arguably fails on the first five. While the extent of the failures can be debated, it is unquestionable that the American government as it stands requires more objective scrutiny as it slides ever so closely toward an authoritarian government. And that’s no hyperbole as we collectively saw a preview of this during the COVID-19 era that locked citizens down, restricted access of unvaccinated citizens to essential needs and ability to work, and censored critical voices in medicine and in the intellectual arena who were challenging the narrative and solutions put forth by the government and pharmaceutical companies.

ON the heels of a covert military operation — sanctioned by the Trump administration — which has landed Venezuela’s leader Nicolás Maduro on United States soil to face charges for narco-terrorism and drug trafficking (according to official narratives peddled by the administration), the drums for more endless wars grow raucously.

At the helm: a boisterous, “America First” president, whose New Year’s resolution was, ironically, “peace on Earth,” and an administration comprised of an assortment of war-mongering officials salivating for the slightest taste of pillage, plunder, and profit.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump’s key campaign platform, to make America great again, included a vow to “prevent World War III, [and] restore peace in Europe and in the Middle East.” His plans to ensure economic relief also included a commitment to “end global chaos and restore Peace through Strength.” That was more than a year ago. Now, his administration’s actions, in its first year, seem to be directly undermining those very commitments.

While official narratives for Maduro’s sudden seizure from power asserts that the unprecedented action by Trump’s administration was “tied to a 2020 indictment from the U.S. Department of Justice” linked to narco-terrorism, Trump, at every turn, has made it beyond clear that the primary reason for U.S.’s intervention in Venezuela is for one thing, and one thing only: OIL!

During a January 3rd press conference, following the special forces operation that delivered Maduro to the U.S., Trump issued the following statement:

“As everyone knows, the oil business in Venezuela has been a bust, a total bust for a long period of time. They were pumping almost nothing by comparison to what they could have been pumping, and what could have taken place. We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country. And we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to do so.”

A day later, aboard the Air Force One, Trump reassured the press — instantly deflating the euphemistic narco-terror narrative, adopted by Republican senator Lindsey Graham, to describe the mission of the operation:

“…And the oil companies are going to go in and rebuild their system. They’re going to spend billions of dollars. And they’re going to take the oil out of the ground, and we’re taking back what they stole.”

That the Trump administration is somewhat transparent about its brazen actions is remarkable, especially compared to former administrations which were more adept at managing their corrupt actions through painstakingly curated narratives. This degree of transparency — not to be misconstrued with Trump’s claim that his administration is the “most transparent in history” — may be a symptom of a president, and an administration, who no longer believes in diplomacy, international laws, the constitutional procedure, or even the pretense needed to sway public opinion to justify the administration’s actions. It’s a bold declaration of authority over any guiding rules and regulations on the world stage. And that may very well be the precursor required to launch the U.S. into more unsustainable wars, across multiple fronts — a recipe for disaster.

By successfully removing the Venezuelan president from office, Trump has since felt emboldened to threaten the interim President of Venezuela Delcy Rodriguez of a worse outcome — “she will face a situation probably worse than Maduro” — should her government not fall in line with the demands of the United States. In the same span of time, the president has additionally made a series of hostile threats to a host of countries including Cuba, Mexico, Colombia, Greenland, and Iran, foreshadowing a U.S. intervention and/or regime change in those regions; an effort the president claims will strengthen U.S. allies in the Western Hemisphere.

Evidently, it’s only a matter of time before these unauthorized military actions, threats, and unprecedented events balloon into an inevitable crisis that is too late to walk back from. As the world watches on from the sidelines, the question is why Trump and his administration have suddenly resorted to ratcheting up tensions globally and provoking more wars than is necessary?

MONTHS AGO, I stumbled upon an intriguing interview between comedian Bryan Callen and filmmaker, writer and producer Adam Simon. The conversation covered a range of topics from the intelligence apparatus, propaganda, Hollywood, and covert military operations.

A particular segment of the interview caught my attention, echoing an insight I shared in an August 2024 Substack note about Hollywood film studios’ ongoing efforts to shift cultural norms away from traditional foundations in favor of what is framed as the “modern.” (Click below to read the full note.)

While discussing the inner machinations of Hollywood, Simon alludes to the reasoning behind the industry’s wholesale adoption of Woke, double-speak ideology, in the form of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). He posits that the trend we see in Hollywood today — the urge to supplant historical and traditional views with ones laden with identity politics — is simply a strategic maneuver meant to appeal to both ends of the cultural divide.

His theory suggests that major film studios and streaming companies such as Warner Bros., Paramount Pictures, Universal Pictures, Walt Disney Studios, and Netflix — similar to political donors who donate to candidates on both sides of the political aisle — stake their investments into narratives that wield opposing messaging: some that prioritize and/or mandate DEI principles, and others that advocate for traditional and conservative principles:

“…So same thing in Hollywood, they’re saying like ‘Hey, we’re supporting these artists, look at us — we’re doing great!’ And on the flip side of that with Chappelle— what you’re seeing with Tom Brady — they do the same with Woke. They go on the other side of that and go ‘Oh my god, man, I don’t know what happened, we did the all female Ghostbusters and it just tanked. I don’t know what the fuck happened.’ That’s by design. It’s by design because they have to have losses. And so what better way than the motherfuckers that are picketing and protesting about diversity and inclusion and all this stuff, that we give them what they want so they will go away, because it fails. That’s why.”

While Simon’s reasoning may be rooted in some truth — who knows?! — it underestimates the ideological views of proponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion. It assumes that it is in their nature to humbly accept defeat when faced with the failures brought on by the policies they loudly champion — that is rarely ever the case. And it wrongly assumes that advocacy for diversity, equity, and inclusion, as it is often practiced, is not about the gradual accrual of power. Spoiler: it is.

American author and public speaker, James Lindsay vividly illustrates this power maneuver, otherwise known as an “entryism” tactic, by DEI proponents in a riveting Twitter/𝕏 thread. (I highly recommend pausing to read the thread in its entirety to fully grasp the severity of this unassuming tactic. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it; it’s pervasive.)

To those who champion diversity, equity, and inclusion, there is no such thing as failure or accountability. Instead, what follows an unsuccessful movement is a swift pivot toward another grievance that affords them the opportunity to avoid accountability while pursuing yet another “altruistic,” noble cause. For this crowd, as Lindsay’s popular aphorism goes, “The issue is never the issue, the issue is always the revolution.” That is to say the ultimate goal of any such movement is never truly about resolving the issue it claims to be advocating for; instead, it’s about the revolutionary chaos it can continuously stir up as it contends for both position and power.

This becomes clear with movements such as the Marxist cesspool that is Black Lives Matter, Defund the Police, third-wave feminism and its castigation of men, the normalization of the idea that men can be women, and vice versa, the toppling of historical statues, Hollywood’s obsession with remaking classics by infusing them with modern ideological views, the institutional legitimization of race hustlers such as Ibram X Kendi, Nikole Hannah-Jones, et al., whose antiracism crusade advocates for new discriminatory practices to replace past discrimination, and so many more. What all of these movements have in common is a wake of ruins; a general state of disrepair that is rarely ever deeply contended with, as they vie for cultural and institutional power.

It’s fair to say, then, that Simon’s reasoning — for why Hollywood film studios continuously appease the demands of activists who advocate for DEI measures — completely misses the mark. While he argues that the studios adopt these ideological measures into their films to prove that such projects are naturally doomed to fail at the box office, his analysis overlooks one key component: DEI is rampant across every institution and industry, not just Hollywood. And evidently, the initiative has not been set up to fail in those other sectors.

So what then is the underlying reasoning? Why have DEI measures become so pervasive, especially in an industry such as Hollywood?

To answer that question requires some context from sixty years ago, during China’s Cultural Revolution under Chairman Mao Zedong. During this period, Mao set out to reassert his dominance over the Communist party. He influenced and mobilized Chinese youth to organize into militant paramilitary groups known as the Red Guards, whose sole mission was to restore social justice by purging perceived enemies of the revolution, destroying anything that represented the “Four Olds”: old culture, old ideology, old customs, and old traditions.

In essence, Mao and his Red Guards set out to destroy the old world, with a vision to establish a new world in its place. According to a Vox retrospective, “The idea was basically to tear down the vestiges of Imperial China and rewrite history centered around Mao Zedong — renaming buildings and streets, destroying cultural sites, and violently humiliating, and often torturing and murdering, anyone [intellectuals, teachers, clergymen] they accused of opposing Mao’s ideas.”

That revolution ravaged China for a decade, leaving temples and historical sites destroyed, traditional clothing and books banned or burned, religious practices abolished and replaced with worship and iconography of Mao, and over a million people dead.

Today, DEI represents a rehash of Mao’s “Four Olds.” Now, cultural norms based on centuries of tradition must be destroyed, redefined, or purged to make way for new cultural norms recently established based on “social justice.” Old monuments deemed “racist” and “oppressive” must be toppled. Old books including languages or characters deemed “not inclusive” must be banned or replaced with new books that promote what is acceptable under the guidance of DEI. Old classics, in literature, films, and cartoons, must be reimagined with a more “representative” and “diverse” casting. Honor classes must be removed from schools because particular “students of color” are under-represented. Classic art pieces in museums must be protested for removal due to claims of racism or exclusion. The concept of what a “man” or “woman” is must become the subject of heated debate rather than a straightforward biological reality. Essentially, anything representing normalcy as we’ve historically and traditionally understood it must be overturned.

In Hollywood, this phenomenon — to destroy the old world and establish a new one founded upon social justice values — is apparent not only in the DEI quota policy introduced by entities such as the Oscars in 2020, but more notably in the remakes of classics and franchise projects that film studios such as Disney, Netflix, and more continue to produce. On the surface, moviegoing fans see (and complain about) Hollywood remakes and franchise projects that stray too far from the original. What they fail to realize is that these projects are the modern vessels through which new cultural norms must be laundered and normalized for a new generation.

It was never about film studios “having to have losses” in order to appeal to DEI proponents, as Simon suggested. Rather, it was about entryism: the infiltration of institutions with an ideological worldview, their takeover from within, and the production of outcomes dictated by newly established principles.

WHEN I wrote about the moral crisis plaguing the nation in the aftermath of Trump’s attempted assassination in 2024, I had an eerie feeling that we’d just unlocked a pandora box that up until that point had been bolted and buried for decades. At the time, my concerns were twofold: that our generation might live to witness a series of legitimate political assassinations, and that a particular segment of the country had become so demoralized, propagandized, and ideologically captured that political opponents and those who intellectually disagree with their worldview must always be seen as adversaries worth humiliating, violently attacking, or outright eliminating.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk — the conservative political activist and former executive director of Turning Point USA, whose influence was brought to a screeching halt a month ago after succumbing to a gun shot during a live event on the campus of Utah Valley University — has brought these concerns back to the fore. The country remains divided, political animus boils fiercely beneath every issue, tolerance is at an all time low, and morality and mere decency continues to erode by the minute.

The cultural aftermath of the Kirk tragedy was succinctly captured by comedian Andrew Schulz when he asks “What did anybody learn from it? Nothing.” He continues, “Whatever everyone already felt, they just put on top of the issue.” And ultimately, he addresses the elephant in the room: the dehumanization project that people must partake in to uphold their ideological views. To those who opposed Kirk’s worldview, he was better dead than alive, because his beliefs defied everything they stood for. “It’s like people are really not seeing each other as human beings,” Schulz remarked.

When we think about deeply tragic events, especially those that are likely to have a rippling effect on the public, we imagine these moments as a signal to come together, reflect, and think of new and better ways to coexist so we can avoid similar tragedies in the future. What we have today is a far cry from that (take the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, for example). Tragic events no longer bring us together. They simply give us a new reason to drive a bigger wedge between us, find and exploit the faults in others, and become even more entrenched in our ideological beliefs.

These are signs of a society in collapse. Moral decency is a foreign concept. Empathy is nowhere to be found. Debate is frowned upon. And differences and nuance are reasons to be excommunicated, canceled, or censored. Survival is the game. And, ideologically, many in liberal and conservative circles believe it is either “us” or “them.”

We desperately need a way forward. And tragically, one of the few voices attempting to chart that course through intellectual discourse, whether one agreed with him or not, was killed for it.

For readers who crave short, snappy reads—whether you’re pressed for time, commuting, or just looking for a quick gateway into bigger ideas.

The Monthly Review is a curated preview of the topics, stories, and opinions I explore on New Outlook—from bite-sized insights to deep dives. Let’s jump in!

➊ DEMOCRACY? WHAT DEMOCRACY?

★★★★★
New Outlook Recommends
Why Modern Democracy Is Just A Polite Dictatorship
Published: June 19, 2025

A must-watch, this Philosophy Decoded video uncovers how democracies evolve into authoritarian systems, not through force, but through psychological manipulation, media control, and mass conformity. [Excerpt from Philosophy Coded]

➋ PODCASTERS: THE NEW KINGMAKERS

I think there’s a huge misconception in how people are assessing the new burgeoning relationship between politicians and podcast platforms, especially those spearheaded by standup comics.

The relationship keeps being framed as the politician “using” the podcasters for attention, influence, and status. That said politicians avoid corporate or independent journalism platforms for new podcast platforms by non-journalists because they want to manipulate the hosts and audience.

I feel like this analysis is missing the critical point of what it means to be a politician or state official: your relationship to media is always transactional, and in most cases, a collaborative endeavor; “I’ll appear on your platform if you’ll avoid these lines of questions.” No politician willingly appears on a platform they know is comprised of real, ethical journalists who will take them to task. Instead they routinely go where they know they’ll be safe, whether it be corporate or independent platforms. Their job is to seek out platforms that can be instrumental to their agenda, not ones that will create new problems for them.

Politicians appearing on podcast platforms today is no new concept in media and shouldn’t be framed as “podcasters and comedians are being used.” A smart politician will always find the safest platforms to propagandize the city, state, or nation. CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post etc do not exist as stalwarts of journalism. They’re not taking any Democrats to task in their reporting—that’s for a reason. And the same goes for FOX and other right-leaning news platforms as far as Republicans are concerned.

Instead of all this, our collective focus—which I wrote about months ago—should be on how the practice of journalism—real, standard, hard-hitting journalism—continues to be impacted by these types of shifts in media.

What does it mean for journalism when non-journalists are now steering the conversation and in an influential way? What responsibilities do podcasters have as owners of the new king-making platforms? What dangers lie ahead? How do we address them? These are questions I’ve been pondering over the past few weeks.

➌ NEW MEDIA AND PROPAGANDA

A reminder that some of those who occupy the new media space are just cut from the same cloth of legacy media.

That all of these conservatives uncritically fell in line and marched to the orders they were given tells you everything you need to know about political ideology on the left and right.

Megyn Kelly, when asked about the latest developments in the Epstein story recently, mentioned how much she “trusts” Dan Bongino because she’s known him for years and has never known him to be a liar. So ultimately she shares that she trusts his conclusions on the Epstein case.

Megyn has been great on a myriad of issues over the past decade, but I can’t possibly understand how a critical, independent voice in new media could possibly arrive at the “trust me bro” justification because she’s friendly with the person in question.

It doesn’t take a polticial wiz to understand that in politics, an ascent into a position of real power is almost always synonymous with the abandonment of principles that might’ve gotten you to that point.

These “new media” figures will continue to be exposed for their inconsistencies and their journalistic malpractice.

In the meantime, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald, and the like continue to model what true devotion to the pursuit of truth is, despite the amount of enemies it generates.

➍ POLITICS: A CASE OF POWER & CHOICE

While reading for a Political Theory class, I came across a perspective that illustrates why we often have such a divided view on politics, journalism, etc.:

You can either view political action as a way of making common decisions for groups of people (public choice), or you can view political action as a process through which some people are dominated by other people (use of power).

Your intrinsic outlook ultimately determines your actions. It’s why many are wholly committed to the utility of the two-party system while others are proudly anti-establishment dissidents.

➎ GLORIFIED HALL MONITORS

Mainstream “journalists” are basically glorified hall monitors.

They spend all of their time supervising conversations happening outside of their establishment and political bubble, and find ways to rein them in, censor them or deligitimize the individuals spearheading the conversations.

➏ ON IMMIGRATION

It took my father and mother—newly and legally immigrated to America from Nigeria—having two jobs each, having little to no help, and working incessantly from 1996 to 2001 before they were able to officially reunite with their son (me) and daughter.

They spent all of those years working tirelessly and dealing with the bureaucracy that it took to legally file for citizenship for both myself and my sister.

They didn’t see their kids for nearly six years.

When I was younger, I never appreciated the amount of work it took for them to make that happen. I was a kid after-all, and was more consumed with the thought that my parents were fine abandoning me for years. No doubt the separation has deeply affected our relationship. To this day, I’m still mending my relationship with my parents. No one tells you the amount of damage that a few years of separation does to the psyche of everyone involved, especially the kids.

So you can’t tell me that people—my parents, in this case, who are die-hard Democrats—who went through this type of ordeal to become citizens should have a soft take on illegal immigration in this country. It just doesn’t make sense.

➐ SOCIALISM, EXPLAINED (IN 12 WORDS)

There are lengthy lectures out there that do not explain socialism as succinctly as this graphic does:

Socialism is resentment disguised as compassion enforced by tyranny disguised as tolerance.

➑ FREE SPEECH VS. POWER

“The opponent of free speech is ALWAYS power.” 

— NICO PERRINO

No matter which political party is in power, it will ALWAYS stand in opposition to free speech. Biden’s Democratic administration proved that. Trump’s Republican administration is currently proving that.

➒ ILLUSIONS OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY

“I don’t care who does the electing, as long as I get to do the nominating.”

— BOSS TWEED, American politician most notable for being the political boss of Tammany Hall, the Democratic Party's political machine that played a major role in the politics of 19th-century New York City and State.

When people ask me why I don’t vote in their sham elections, this was always the reason. Those who end up on the debate stage or on the ballot are allowed to reach those checkpoints for a reason—by nomination, by lump-sum funding, and institutional endorsements. You are being pacified to death by the illusion of freedom and democracy. You’d like to believe that you actually wield some sort of power electorally, but you don’t. (Just ask those who voted for Trump just how that project is going at the moment)

➓ “REPRESENTATION” IS A FARCE

That’s a wrap! Hope you enjoyed this edition of The Monthly Review. If something resonated, drop a like, leave a comment, and let’s discuss further. Share this with a friend. Thank you for reading, subscribing, and supporting this project. Until next month!

Share

WITHOUT the influence of corporate media institutions (and now certain sectors of partisan independent news media), shaping public opinion becomes a rather difficult task for any state. From the manufacturing of consent for the War on Terror to the deceptive coverage of President Biden’s mental fitness for reelection, and the United States’ most recent drums of war with Iran, a well-coordinated, corporate media narrative, or propaganda, is always crucial for a state to bend the will of its citizens towards its own agenda. This form of political communication can be observed, firsthand, in the current Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein scandal.

Prior to Trump’s reelection, key figures that now occupy his cabinet—namely Kash Patel, Director of the FBI, Dan Bongino, Deputy Director of the FBI, Pam Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, and Vice President JD Vance—represented some of the most critical and trusted voices on the inquiry into the Epstein scandal. Patel and Bongino, especially, as recent as 2023, are on record making incessant calls for the release of all of the information pertinent to the case of the financier and sex offender who mysteriously died in prison six years ago, and for the prosecution of powerful figures involved in the scandal.

When these figures were nominated into the positions they now occupy within the Trump administration, the Make America Great Again (MAGA) constituency believed that these figures would be entering a corrupt establishment with a wrecking ball, finally exposing the depravity within the halls of government institutions. However, after several months of dragging out what was initially presented by Attorney General Pam Bondi as a phase-based release of all of Epstein’s client list (launched with the publicity rollout at the White House in February that featured conservative political commentators parading binders labeled “The Epstein Files: Part I”, the US Department of Justice and the FBI suddenly concluded this month that there was no such client list and that Jeffrey Epstein, in fact, took his own life while imprisoned. As the BBC reports:

The US Department of Justice and FBI have concluded that sex offender Jeffrey Epstein did not have a so-called client list that could implicate high-profile associates, and that he did take his own life - contradicting long-held conspiracy theories about the infamous case.

While campaigning last year, President Donald Trump promised to release files relating to the disgraced financier.

From Trump and Bondi to Patel and Bongino, their rhetoric on this matter had suddenly taken a swift and noticeable turn. The administration now heavily relied on favorable media outlets (including independent conservative podcasting platforms such as the Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro podcast, etc.) to normalize what is, on its nose, a coverup of the highest order. While Patel and Bongino made appearances on various corporate and independent media outlets in an attempt to sell the Justice Department’s conclusion on the Epstein Files to the MAGA base, and the country at large, Trump, on Truth Social (his social media platform) and during a press segment, chastised his supporters and journalists for continuing to obsess over the Epstein case.

For some Trump supporters, this was the final straw. The administration that was supposed to represent transparency, integrity, and order had quickly been exposed as just another form of the same establishment administration they’d voted against. This was a key turning point, and Trump’s administration is still reeling from this fallout today, even if only from a messaging standpoint—that he is not delivering on what his administration promised its voters. According to Newsweek, “the backlash on Truth Social reflects growing internal division among MAGA supporters, many of whom have spent months anticipating revelations from the so-called ‘Epstein Files.’”

In this particular instance, not only was Trump able to use his own social media platform, which Newsweek refers to as his “haven…where engagement overwhelmingly leans positive,” to influence the opinion of his supporters, his MAGA base also had the ability to use the same platform to voice their concerns and dissent as Trump attempted to sweep the Epstein case underneath the rug. The only issue here is that the Trump administration overestimated the loyalty of a segment of its own base and did not anticipate there would be any dissent among the MAGA constituency.

Nowadays, political communication via propagandistic narratives still have a stronghold on the populace, however a significant portion of the population have become attuned enough to spot the sophisticated narrative tactics employed by the state and its media tentacles. I, for one, am more excited for a world with critical thinkers and dissidents than subservient political lackeys who will swallow up any narrative tossed their way. That a sliver of Trump’s own base is critically engaging with the administration’s policies and actions—on the Espetin case and on more substantial issues—is a positive sign. People do not want to be manipulated into submission.

While support from Trump’s core base remains largely unaffected, the public fallout from this issue continues, especially for the key figures inside of his administration. According to a Guardian report:

An Economist/YouGov poll found that Republican voters who identify as “Maga” were more likely to approve of how the president is dealing with the Epstein investigation (56%) than those who do not (38%). Overall among Republicans, 45% approve and 25% disapprove, with the remaining 30% unsure.

Only time will tell how these polling numbers shift as time passes.

TODAY’S political landscape in the United States is heavily defined by a variety of clashing ideologies. And the political, cultural, and economical dilemma the country finds itself in, especially over the past decade, is the result of these warring views on how to live and organize society; arguably, this has been the case throughout history. Today’s ideologies, according to W. Phillips Shively’s Power and Choice, “are being shaped by conflicts over the environment, gender, religious values, and identity politics.”

Read more

For readers who crave short, snappy reads—whether you’re pressed for time, commuting, or just looking for a quick gateway into bigger ideas.

The Monthly Review is a curated preview of the topics, stories, and opinions I explore on New Outlook—from bite-sized insights to deep dives. Let’s jump in!

➊ A NEW SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM

★★★★★
New Outlook Recommends
Podcast: The Jimmy Dore Show
Episode: “Trump & Palantir Creating Surveillance System Worse Than China”
Published: June 6, 2025

According to former HUD Assistant Director Catherine Austin Fitts, Elon Musk’s main objective in his work with DOGE has been to scoop up and aggregate enough data to allow him to institute a social credit system and deploy what she calls a “control grid.” [Excerpt from The Jimmy Dore Show]

➋ LEGACY MEDIA TAKES ON NEW MEDIA

The soft rebrand of all the major legacy media outlets is happening around the edges:

1. A few weeks ago, CNN hosted standup comedian Tim Dillon for an hour-long interview—a thing they would’ve never done a few years ago. The interview was an attempt to indirectly smear Dillon and others in his circle, but it failed horribly.

2. Now New York Times interviews standup comedian Andrew Schulz. Once again, a voice they would’ve never allowed near their brand just a few years ago.

These platforms are doing everything to align themselves with the new media after independent podcasts have proven to be the element that transforms election outcomes. Legacy media is desperately studying new media and its hosts, while also attempting to delegitimize them at the same time. This recent New York Times interview featuring comedian Andrew Schulz puts this on display.

What’s fascinating about both this NYT interview and the CNN interview with Tim Dillon is that these so-called journalists, and publications at large, get to see firsthand how their usual steam-rolling, shady, linguistic tactics against guests do not work against comedians. At every turn, they are politely—though I hate that these comics are even polite about it—called out for being disingenuous in their framing and their attempt to formulate a deceptive narrative.

When you are a so-called journalist within legacy media institutions like The New York Times and you’re asking a standup comic with a popular podcast whether or not he has a responsibility to ask politician guests “difficult questions,” you immediately reveal that you are everything but an actual journalist. The first order of action for any serious journalist would be to ask why his very own employer—The New York Times—does not ask politicians (especially those they’re politically aligned with) any difficult questions.

Perhaps if they did their jobs as journalists, they wouldn’t have to spend time wondering whether a standup comic asked a politician tough questions.

➌ THE ART OF WRITING WITHOUT PANDERING

In 2024, a show—Shogun—whose overarching narrative was driven by its female characters captivated audiences across the world. In just 10-episodes it embodied the pinnacle of writing strong female characters in modern cinema.

There was no “boss woman” narratives.

No “perfect” female characters absent flaws.

And no pandering to Woke feminist audiences.

Why? Because the story was the story. The women’s characters were powerfully written because the writers understood how to depict REAL women and the struggles they faced during the period the show is set in.

It was never complicated. It just takes more common sense and less activism.

➍ THE FRACTURED LEFT

That The Daily Show still has a plethora of rotating hosts is ironically representative of the Democrat’s abject failure in messaging.

They don’t know who their audience is. They don’t know what the electorate want, nor do they care. So what do they do? They go for the catch-all solution: they throw everything at the wall, and throw every type of host that checks all of the identity boxes into the weekly rotation, hoping that something sticks.

While they do this, the only messaging they manage to communicate on a consistent basis is that they are severely fractured, lost, and without a unifying vision. Simply put, they have no brand. And without a brand, mission, or consistent messaging, who’s going to believe that you’re actually paying attention to what the people want?

➎ PRINCIPLES LACKING

It’s a sad reality when you realize that the people who consider themselves dissidents were only waiting to choose their own preferred establishment leaders.

➏ TIM DILLON REACTS TO KASH PATEL’S BOLD FACED LIES

You really have to be in such a delusional state to leave all of your hope in political figures on both the Left & Right.

Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, Trump, and many others in the current administration are LYING (pretty terribly, if I might add) right to your face 😂 and MAGA supporters are behaving like good little obedient boys and girls who lack critical thinking skills, or common sense for that matter.

Does belonging to a particular clique matter that much to you all that you will willingly accept lies as truths just to protect your “side”?

It’s sickening to watch how little integrity people really have when their party rises into power.

➐ POLITICAL CHUMPS

The political naïveté of standup comedians who have large platforms in the new media space is laughable. They’re just as much a part of the problem as the media institutions they believe they’re challenging.

If you still believe there are “good people” in the Democratic Party and Republican Party, once again, I’ll let Malcolm X tell you himself:

➑ EMOTIONAL HIJACKING—A PROPAGANDIST’S DREAM

If corporate media and activist groups can get their constituents to viscerally and emotionally react toward political figures or policies without reason, they’ve done their job.

In this way, they’ve manipulated people enough to the point where people feel like they never have to listen to anything their politicial opponents have to say, because, well, “they’re simply evil. And we don’t listen to evil people.”

There is never an attempt to understand the underpinning philosophy of the figures they disagree with. Instead, the only response is always a knee-jerk, raging response that condemns one’s opponents before having heard out the reasoning for their beliefs.

This is quite the propagandistic tactic because it not only effectively poisons one flank of the political aisle, it also affords those who weaponize it to avoid ever having to defend or debate their positions in a concrete way.

➒ DYING FOR NAUGHT

I don’t think I fought for the country.
I fought for some politician’s view on something.

— A VETERAN ON YOUTUBE

➓ NO STONE UNTURNED

If you’re an independent journalist who gets to sit down with a politician, and you’re still giving benefit-of-the-doubt interviews, you’re part of the problem.

What we saw from independent journalists when AOC was first running for office or Vivek Ramaswamy a little while back, should never happen again. Serious journalists, including my own Glenn Greenwald (who’s since spoken about how duped he truly was when he first interviewed AOC), soft-balled these politicians, as a result of hoping that they’d be different.

Journalists of this kind should never give an inch to any of these politicians. The goal should always be what Tucker Carlson managed to pull off in his interview with Ted Cruz — make them expose themselves, their lack of principles, their faulty logic, their woeful ideologies, and their total abdication of the American people.

That’s a wrap! Hope you enjoyed this edition of The Monthly Review. If something resonated, drop a like, leave a comment, and let’s discuss further. Share this with a friend. Thank you for reading, subscribing, and supporting this project. Until next month!

Share

For readers who crave short, snappy reads—whether you’re pressed for time, commuting, or just looking for a quick gateway into bigger ideas.

The Monthly Review is a curated preview of the topics, stories, and opinions I explore on New Outlook—from bite-sized insights to deep dives. Let’s jump in!

➊ NEW ON THE TUCKER CARLSON SHOW

★★★★★
New Outlook Recommends
Podcast: The Tucker Carlson Show
Episode: “Glenn Greenwald: The Truth About Epstein, Jake Tapper's Humiliation, & Insane New Push to Nuke Gaza”
Published: May 30, 2025

Independent journalist Glenn Greenwald appeared for the third time on The Tucker Carlson Show this past Friday. They discussed CNN’s Jake Tapper and his attempt at cosplaying as a journalist with his latest book and “exposé” on Joe Biden’s cognitive decline. They also cover the latest development and apparent coverup of the Epstein story by Trump’s cabinet (namely Kash Patel, Director of FBI, and Dan Bongino, Deputy Director of the FBI), attacks on free speech, corruption of corporate media, and much more.

➋ NO JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY TO BE FOUND

Instead of directly engaging in a substantive conversation with specific people in powerful positions on the Right, Liberals in the legacy media space would rather hem and haw about what they’ve heard some random people say about specific figures on the Right.

You would think these so-called journalists would have the wherewithal to seek out answers for themselves. But no, they’d rather allow hear-say to dictate their entire worldview.

➌ MEDIA LORDS NO MORE

Legacy media is frustrated that it’s losing its power to platform politicians running for office. It’s quickly losing its gatekeeper status.

Every politician is now flocking to comedy podcasts and every alternative outlet out there. (That’s a discussion for another day because the clout-chasing trend this has produced for podcasters who have no business talking politics is actually a problem in and of itself.)

Now legacy media is engaging in a new type of tactic: shaming independent outlets and comedy podcasters, who are newly rising as the new media, for making politicians “look cool” and relevant. Legacy media outlets now put on a pretense and warn comedy podcasters that these politicians “might use podcasters for their own ends.” As if legacy media platforms have not been subserviently prostrating themselves before politicians to peddle their propaganda. (All of this can be found in CNN’s recent interview with Tim Dillon)

The legacy media is losing its specialty. And they’re bitter that the tables are being turned right before their eyes. Their role as kingmaker is quickly slipping away. And they’re desperately rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic before the ship has fully sunk.

It’s a pleasure to watch in slow motion.

➍ WHY THE WORLD HATES LEGACY MEDIA

CNN recently invited a comedian—Tim Dillon—on to basically teach them about the fundamentals of journalistic integrity and building a media platform that people actually want to watch. Essentially, Dillon was there to inform them on how to suck less.

In the interview, the interviewer Elle Reeve represents everything wrong with journalists in mainstream media (if you can even call them that). And these are the types that will continue to have high-paying, lucrative jobs in the business.

Reeve’s questions did not seem at all genuine. Instead, they seem like super scripted questions meant to build the narrative they’ll probably end up running as a hit-piece online.

Reeve is the type whose entire ideology is obvious before she’s even uttered a word about her beliefs. There’s no complexity to their thinking or line of questioning. There is no curiosity. There is no quest to discover what they did not know before. There is no real search for truth. Her conclusions were already drawn up prior to the sit-down, and nothing—absolutely nothing Dillon said in the span of the hour-long interview—was going to change her mind.

She was evidently out of her depths and not cut out for the type of hit-piece that the interview was supposed to kickstart against comics and new media voices such as Dillon, Rogan, etc. But what CNN journalist really needs depth when they have propagandistic narratives?

➎ ON THE MODERN ACTIVIST ETHOS

Somehow, modern activists have managed to convince people that the phrases “people of color” and “colored people” hold completely different meanings.

I will never get over this. I will never get over how modern activists tamper with language or employ euphemistic terms to create a new world based on a newly concocted worldview.

This same tactic—the manipulation of language—can be observed across various other identity politics positions. While its proponents claim the tampering of language is “for the greater good,” the only results we ever see is chaos, confusion, coercion to adopt new “inclusive” terminologies, indoctrination, and ultimately, a decimated culture.

Simply put: the modern activist ethos is as follows: “If it isn’t broken, destroy it.”

➏ DELUSIONS OF THE DUOPOLY

On both the Left and Right, the excuse for their favorite politicians elected into office is the delusional reasoning that says:

“Just give them time, they’re eventually going to do what they promised.” 

➐ VICTIMHOOD AS A POWER TACTIC

The Left, even while it disproportionately holds majority of all institutional power, believes itself powerless.

➑ SORTING CRITICAL THINKERS FROM IDEOLOGUES

Uttering the words “Joe Rogan” in a crowded room can quickly help you sort through the critical, independent thinkers from the group-think ideologues.

I urge you to try it.

➒ WHAT DO YOU VALUE?

The simple act of pulling at the thread of a single narrative can unspool entire networks of propaganda.

Incessant curiosity will often shatter false narratives. But it may also shatter the bond you have with peers who are wholly tethered to false narratives.

You must choose what you value most.

➓ CULT OR NOT?

If you cannot question it, it’s not an honest movement or ideology. It’s a cult that uses propagandistic tactics to drown out dissident voices.

(Apply this to any movement or ideology you’ve been told not to question.)

That’s a wrap! Hope you enjoyed this edition of The Monthly Review. If something resonated, drop a like, leave a comment, and let’s discuss further. Share this with a friend. Thank you for reading, subscribing, and supporting this project. Until next month!

Share

LIKE many who’ve walked away from the Left, Sasha Stone has quickly developed a sharp eye for diagnosing the Democratic Party’s internal failings. That’s often how it goes when you spend years embedded in any institution—especially in a position of influence. When you leave, you take with you more than just disillusionment; you carry insider knowledge of how the system truly operates. You know where the bodies are buried, so to speak—and where the tripwires are, because you helped lay them.

Much like a whistleblower revealing institutional corruption through leaked documents, those who leave the Left often carry with them a revealing arsenal of insider knowledge. That’s what makes Stone’s departure so compelling. With decades of experience as a committed Democrat and party loyalist, she knows the tactics—narrative control, propaganda, and the inner workings of partisan politics—from the inside out. Her self-made career, spanning more than twenty years, has taken her deep into powerful institutions, from Hollywood’s film industry and the Oscars to the inner circles of the Democratic Party elite.

In 2020, Stone launched her Substack and podcast—Free Thinking Through the Fourth Turning—creating a powerful archive of some of the most thoughtful critiques of the Democratic Party’s failures. Many of these insights rarely find space to surface within liberal circles, which often operate with the rigidity of a closed belief system or cult. It’s no coincidence that, in recent years, the Left has become increasingly fixated on rebranding censorship through euphemisms like “fact-checking,” “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malformation.” To shield their official narratives from scrutiny, they’ve embraced new forms of censorship aimed at suppressing dissent and preventing alternative viewpoints from gaining traction in the public consciousness.

Over the past month, I’ve been hooked on Stone’s podcast with the same intensity I usually reserve for my all-time favorite TV shows—often replaying episodes more than once. Below, I’ve shared a few of my favorite episodes, each with a brief summary. Each one feels like an audio documentary, expertly produced, with Stone’s soft, compelling voice weaving through original source material that captures the defining moments of the past two decades in politics and culture.

Each episode traces Stone’s personal story of breaking from the Left, a journey that may challenge you to rethink the political framework you’ve grown accustomed to. While she’s ultimately embraced the Right, my advice is this: be careful not to mistake escape for freedom if you’re simply exchanging one master for another.

Enjoy!

Published — February 15, 2023

Stone analyzes the ideological framework of the Left, arguing that its underlying structure exhibits characteristics commonly associated with cult behavior.

Free Thinking Through the Fourth Turning with Sasha Stone

Did I just Leave a Cult?

“The modus operandi of every cult is to convince you there's something wrong with you and only they can fix it…

Listen now

3 years ago · 1909 likes · 602 comments · Sasha Stone

Published — March 20, 2025

Stone pens an open letter to the Democratic Party. In it, she suggests the party ought to embrace their inner fascist because they’ve clearly been openly flirting with the ideology without fully committing to it. Should they embrace it, they can once and for all be done with their decades long pretense of claiming to care about civil liberties, freedom of speech, and tolerance for alternative viewpoints.

Free Thinking Through the Fourth Turning with Sasha Stone

The Democrats Should Embrace Their Inner Fascist.

As SpaceX and NASA elegantly brought Crew-9 down from outer space to splash into the waters of the Gulf of America, with dolphins cresting the surface to greet them upon their arrival, the lunatics on the Left were burning up the last remnants of their political capital. They were destroying Teslas…

Listen now

a year ago · 372 likes · 235 comments · Sasha Stone

Published — February 10, 2025

In many ways, Trump’s reelection—whatever one makes of it at this point—signals a broader cultural shift in American politics. It reflects a move away from the coddling of the American mind, a return to reality, and a rejection of ideas that emanated from the Left, which struggle to hold up in the real world. Stone unpacks this shift with a deep dive into the changing political landscape.

Free Thinking Through the Fourth Turning with Sasha Stone

So Begins the Un-Coddling of the American Mind

“With this Executive Order, the war on women’s sports is over.” - Donald Trump, 45th and 47th President of the United States…

Listen now

a year ago · 461 likes · 221 comments · Sasha Stone

Published — March 21, 2025

Stone dissects the Democratic Party’s latest gambit: positioning millennial firebrand and self-declared Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as the new face of a “reinvented” party, ahead of the 2028 elections.

Free Thinking Through the Fourth Turning with Sasha Stone

Here Comes the Pitch for Socialism

I have a soft spot for the Dirtbag Left now that I never used to have. Listening to them viciously destroy the Democratic Party scratches that itch. They were ahead of the curve, and the Democrats would have been better off not snuffing out the movement way back when…

Listen now

a year ago · 232 likes · 243 comments · Sasha Stone

Published — February 14, 2025

In a satirical take, Stone advises Democrats on the foolproof way to keep losing elections: by disregarding the concerns of average Americans.

Free Thinking Through the Fourth Turning with Sasha Stone

Please, Democrats, Keep Losing Elections

Everywhere I look, I see the telltale hysteria that gripped my former party back in 2016. I was a good soldier for the Left, fighting for what I believed was the right side. The hysteria spread, infecting every corner of the Left, and at some point, we lost touch with reality…

Listen now

a year ago · 452 likes · 384 comments · Sasha Stone

Published — April 7, 2025

While the Democrats champion freedom, empathy, and compassion, their actions expose their rhetoric as performative, regularly opposing anything that aligns with true democratic values. Stone unpacks this argument in this episode.

Free Thinking Through the Fourth Turning with Sasha Stone

The Worst Thing to Happen to Democrats is Democracy

The worst thing that’s ever happened to the Democrats is democracy…

Listen now

a year ago · 389 likes · 298 comments · Sasha Stone

For readers who crave short, snappy reads—whether you’re pressed for time, commuting, or just looking for a quick gateway into bigger ideas.

The Monthly Review is a curated preview of the topics, stories, and opinions I explore on New Outlook—from bite-sized insights to deep dives. Let’s jump in!

➊ PRESCRIPTIONS FOR THE LEFT

★★★★★
New Outlook Recommends
Podcast: Free Thinking Through the Fourth Turning
Episode: “The Democrats Should Embrace Their Inner Fascist”
Published: March 20, 2025
Written & Produced by: Sasha Stone

A few months ago, former Democrat and Substack writer Sasha Stone, released a podcast episode that played like an open letter to the Democratic party (in fact, the text from that episode is available for reading here). The primary message is no attempt at hyperbole — she suggests, with ample sarcasm, that the Democrats should finally embrace their inner fascist and be once and for all done with their decades long pretense of claiming to care about civil liberties, freedom of speech, and tolerance for alternative viewpoints. The excerpts from the podcast alone say all there is to say (but the podcast, in its entirety, is worth an attentive listen):

What you see on the modern Left is failure everywhere you look. A failed legacy media, a failing Hollywood, and an empire in collapse propped up a failed political party full of failed candidates.

Lies over truth: You lie all of the time, to yourselves and to other people—the legacy media lies. Hollywood lies. Women are men, and men are women, but gender is not binary.
Solution: As fascists, there is no argument. You take complete control of the press (oh, wait, you already did) and force everyone to accept your version of the truth (oh wait, you already did!) and then mandate it so all must obey (yeah, you tried that, didn’t work out so well).

Division over unity: Admit it. You would prefer to be living in a segregated society with Trump supporters banned from your restaurants, your movie theaters, your schools, and your social media. You don’t even hide it anymore.
Solution: As fascists, you can simply beat them up, spit on them, knock the hats off their heads, kick them out of restaurants, and harass them on airplanes. Oh wait, you already did!

I always thought we were the good guys, that we knew the difference between right and wrong, that we wouldn’t dehumanize whole groups of people because we didn’t agree on everything, and tell them they were no longer welcome in their own country.

➋ THE LEFT’S HYPOCRISY

What fascinates me about people who viscerally hate Trump is how consistently duplicitous their arguments are. There are countless valid criticisms to make about this Trump administration, yet these people often bypass them in favor of the most baseless, ideological attacks—revealing their own blatant hypocrisy in the process.

”We care about women’s rights so we would never support a misogynist as a president.” 

Yeah, but you did. You supported a misogynist for president—and you did it gleefully. He was just in office for four years while you looked the other way, even as women like Tara Reade were thrown under the bus for coming forward with their stories of sexual assault at the hands of Joe Biden. It was “Believe all women” until it threatened your favorite Democratic politician. So the real question is: do you actually care about women’s rights, or do you just need something—anything—to screech about when the oppositional party is in power?

“Women’s safety will be under attack under a Trump administration.”

Once again, it’s dishonest to suddenly claim concern for women’s safety if it was never an issue for you during Biden’s presidency. Under that administration, you were perfectly fine with granting access to men cosplaying as women in women’s sports, spaces, and sacred grounds. If you weren’t advocating for women’s safety then, you have no credibility being up in arms about it now.

I always come across these kinds of arguments from political ideologues on the Left, and it’s always so disingenuous. It’s clear they never truly cared about the issues they claim to protest. If they did, they would have been advocating for them consistently, regardless of who was president. There are very real and serious criticisms to be made about this early Trump administration. What I’d like to see more of is people on the Left offering honest, principled critiques instead of reaching for straw man arguments. If women’s rights and safety genuinely matter to you, then you should have been sounding the alarm during the Biden administration too. Otherwise, you come off like every other ideologue—lacking principles and always willing to excuse heinous acts when it’s politically convenient for “your side.”

➌ THE FALSE MORALITY OF IDEOLOGUES

From the onset of Rogan’s podcast with Douglas Murray and Dave Smith, you can get a good sense of how propagandists and ideological thinkers operate as soon as Murray begins speaking and probing into why Rogan hasn’t been taking careful inventory of how his guests have skewed on the Israel-Palestine issue. He also leans into why Rogan has been having non-experts on the show, as if he is some “expert” we’re supposed to revere for whatever reason.

It’s quite interesting because this is how they subtly browbeat people into submission. Make you feel guilty for having done nothing wrong.

When I hosted a podcast years ago, I got a taste of this when my former activist friends asked, in a similar way to Murray’s pestering of Rogan, why I’d been “centering white voices on the podcast” during the height of the George Floyd protests when I was “supposed to be platforming black and brown voices.”

If you blink too fast, you’ll miss the subtlety of their pressure campaign that demands you censor and banish others who do not believe what they believe. The irony is that these people would not even blink once before they revoke your right to think and speak freely, if they ever had the opportunity. And they’ve certainly tried it. It’s sickening.

➍ POLITICS AND CULTURE CULTS

There’s a reason why cults will either crank up the narrative against heretics, to apply a more convincing pressure, or directly make your life a living hell when they catch wind of your efforts to break away.

They know that if you successfully escape their enclosed community, it may eventually become their undoing. You effectively possess confidential knowledge of the inner workings of the entire operation, and you may very well be inclined to tell-all to outsiders upon escaping. Afterall, a propaganda campaign ceases to be effective if the master narrative is constantly disrupted and the mechanisms exposed to the public.

This is precisely how the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, in addition to the activist flanks and movements within, function. Dissidents who so much as signal that they may hold alternative opinions that deviate from the official party narratives are quickly entered into a cycle of pressure campaigns. Their character is entirely subjected to destructive smear tactics. Their fortitude endlessly tested.

If they are tough, they’ll withstand the pressures and come out on the end even bolder, louder (see Candace Owens, who’s become an investigative powerhouse following her ouster from The Daily Wire). If they’re weak, unable to bear the pressure of being perceived as an outcast, they’ll fold and rejoin the cult (see Bernie Sanders, who’s become nothing but a feckless coward whose sole responsibility it is to sheep-herd a disaffected generation back into the anti-democratic Democrat party). Often, they’ll even become the newly appointed enforcer who is tasked with applying the pressure against new defectors.

➎ THE DEVIL IS IN THE ACTIONS. THE SLOGANS MASK IT.

The modern Left longs to disappear dissidents off the map into the digital gulags. They want you forever banished to toil away in silence and poverty, struggling to put your life back together.

Behind every seemingly “well-intentioned” movement of the modern Left is a ruthless grasp for power and control.

The actions, not the slogans, always reveal the real intention.

➏ TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN

The Liberal mindset:

“If you critique my favorite Progressive/Democrat politician, you must be MAGA.” 

The Conservative mindset:

“If you critique my favorite MAGA/Republican politician, you must be a Leftist.” 

Zero nuance to be found among them. And we wonder why politicians keep finding new ways to swindle these political sycophants every 2-4 years, why journalism is dying, and why nothing ever gets accomplished.

➐ WHEN KEEPING IT REAL GOES WRONG

If you’ve ever wanted to understand the core of Liberal and Leftist activism, perhaps no other video encapsulates it better than this one.

It is the best illustration of how activism on the Left works today, and why I often say that to be an activist is to be intellectually lazy. It requires no rigorous thought. No nuance. No anchoring principles. It’s all just superficial, emotional, virtue signaling by people who wish to publicize their morality to the world without having done anything morally worthy.

As Jordan Peterson in his heyday once said, “We like the feeling of unearned moral superiority. [The activist ethos] is an abdication of responsibility with a mask of social virtue. It’s superficial, and trendy, and too easy. And it externalizes the blame—the ‘evil’ is always elsewhere. Which is a dreadful mistake to make, because the evil isn’t elsewhere. That’s the thing that you understand when you’re wise, is the evil is not elsewhere. It’s you! Because you’re not everything you could be. And so you should work on that before going and telling someone else that maybe they’re not who they should be.”

Watch the full Jordan Peterson segment on virtue signaling activism below:

➑ NO SAVIORS

When those you once looked up to—in the intellectual space or otherwise—disappoint you by failing to uphold their very own principles, it’s a reminder of the autonomy and power you have as an individual.

So often we relinquish that power to intellectual figures we believe can help steer us toward freedom, peace, knowledge, a better future state.

In reality, each one of us always had what it took. Sometimes it just takes having your heroes disappoint you to wake up and realize it.

➒ A MOVEMENT WITHOUT PRINCIPLES

Women: “Down with the patriarchy!”

Also Women: “Men should be included in women’s sports, you bigot!”

➓ WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, LIKE CLOCKWORK, THEY WILL LABEL YOU

If you refer to this entry — Communist Smear Tactics: Then and Now — you’ll understand the core of the tactic being deployed against you.

That’s a wrap! Hope you enjoyed this edition of The Monthly Review. If something resonated, drop a like, leave a comment, and let’s discuss further. Share this with a friend. Thank you for reading, subscribing, and supporting this project. Until next month!

Share

IN Issue Three of Outlook Magazine, I proudly recognized Mike Benz as one of new media’s top ten independent voices. His solitary work—meticulously exposing the inner workings of what is now known as the Censorship Industrial Complex—has been nothing short of remarkable. During the Twitter Files revelations, Benz was a key resource for Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi, two of the principal journalists who uncovered former Twitter’s deep ties to government agencies and the censorship apparatus quietly built behind the scenes.

In the introduction to that magazine issue, I wrote the following about the featured journalists:

“By challenging conventions and reclaiming the core values of journalism, these individuals are paving the way for a new era of integrity, truth-telling, and nonpartisanship—ushering the industry back to its foundational ideals.”

At the time, independent media was on the rise, and I firmly believed that the few journalists and investigative reporters willing to place integrity, truth-telling, and nonpartisanship above all else would become this generation’s change-makers. By distinguishing themselves radically from their mainstream counterparts, they had the potential to help usher in the “golden age for investigative journalism” that Matt Taibbi envisioned during his appearance on The Tucker Carlson Show in January—anticipating what a Trump presidency could mean for the future of journalism and the country at large.

In Benz’s feature, I wrote the following:

“Since 2016, Mike Benz has followed in the tradition of courageous Americans who risk a lot to bring high-level government disclosures to light. Unlike most whistleblowers, who typically release troves of documents to independent journalists or mainstream outlets, Benz has taken a methodical, investigative approach. Through careful dissection and play-by-play analysis of internal government records, documents, calls, conferences, and more—all hidden in plain sight—he has been steadily exposing the intricate and sprawling system known as the Censorship Industrial Complex—a behemoth born from the shift toward waging war through information via media rather than military might.”

With the Trump administration now well underway, independent media figures like Benz—once seen as potential stalwarts of journalistic integrity—have, in many cases, morphed into a propagandistic arm of the conservative political establishment. In Benz’s case, this shift is perhaps unsurprising: he served as a White House speechwriter during Trump’s first term and emerged as a leading advocate for the Trump-Musk coalition in the lead-up to the 2024 elections.

In his recent sit-down interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Benz made his political biases unmistakably clear. For Benz, access to conservative power brokers appears to take precedence over the pursuit of truth—a reality reflected as much in the questions he posed to Rubio as in the ones he conspicuously avoided.

In the video titled “Dismantling the Censorship Bureaucracy,” Benz fails—more accurately, submissively toes the line—to critically challenge or even acknowledge the glaring hypocrisy of Rubio and the Trump administration’s righteous crusade against attacks on free speech, even as they construct their own censorship apparatus targeting critics of Israel’s brutal assaults on Palestinians.

“The best way to counter disinformation is free speech,” Rubio says in a matter-of-fact tone. “It’s to make sure that what’s true has as equal or greater opportunity to communicate as what’s not true. We’ve learned that the hard way… We have instances now in Western countries where people are being arrested—you’ve seen these, you know what I’m talking about—people out there, they put up a post and a cop comes coming knocking on their door, and you’re going to go to jail for sixty days for posting something online. You know, this is crazy stuff that’s happening.”

If only Rubio listened to himself speak. That he could utter those words without a hint of shame or guilt—despite the Trump administration’s ongoing crackdown on free speech among student activists who protest against Israel, and on campuses like Columbia and Harvard—speaks volumes about why he was elevated to Secretary of State. He doesn’t need to believe a word he says publicly; he only needs the MAGA/Republican base to blindly absorb the talking points and walk away convinced that the Trump administration is a steadfast defender of free speech and “America First” policies.

If you think that strategy has no chance of succeeding, think again. Benz—a loyal MAGA constituent and one of the leading voices on issues of digital freedom, civil liberties, and censorship—somehow managed to spend fifteen minutes with the Secretary of State without once posing a single critical question that challenged the administration’s blatant assault on free speech. That wasn’t an oversight—it was part of his role in propping up the establishment’s image as a crusader against censorship, even as it builds its own machinery to suppress dissent.

If ever there were a clearer sign that independent media is being infiltrated by former State Department officials and Intelligence Community agents, this interview would be it.

DONATE TO SUPPORT THIS ARTICLE

WHEN asked by a viewer to reflect on the recent secret meeting between various conservative independent media personalities and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Glenn Greenwald offered a measured response, using the moment to reflect on what it takes to succeed in the independent media landscape. He discusses the vulnerabilities that independent outlets must confront if they hope to avoid the same pitfalls now afflicting legacy media corporations.

An excerpt:

“If you’re suddenly now—because you cheered on MAGA, you cheered on Trump everyday—now you’re getting invited to the White House, you’re being let in on secret meetings, the Trump White House is calling you, giving you little tidbits; to what extent is that really independent media?

I mean, I’ve always believed it’s important to keep people in power at a distance, at arms length. The minute you start befriending them, the minute you start talking to them too much, the minute you start succumbing to the temptations of being let into their world, and you know, people with power, they can open doors… of course that’s going to compromise your independence.

Or maybe not of course, maybe you can resist that and fight against that. But it’s certainly going to have a big effect. That’s why I’ve always hated anything that reeks of journalists and political power merging socially, or any other way, like that White House Correspondents dinner.”

FROM the onset of Rogan’s latest podcast episode with Douglas Murray and Dave Smith, you can get a good sense of how propagandists and ideological thinkers operate. As soon as Murray begins to speak, questioning Rogan on how his guests have leaned on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and why, it’s clear what his intentions are: to police speech that he views as “misinformation” or ideologically out of line. For Murray, the real battle isn’t about ideas — it’s about controlling who gets to speak. “If you’re going to interview historians of a conflict, or historians in general,” he scolded Rogan, “why would you get somebody like Ian Carroll?”

For one, Carroll has never claimed to be a historian. He’s always identified as an investigative citizen journalist, chasing conspiracies and breaking down his findings on everything from Epstein and GameStop to Diddy, the CIA, the Deep State, and the Israel-Palestine conflict. But since Murray isn’t concerned with accuracy, he’s more than happy to blur the lines for listeners and viewers.

Murray’s ideological playbook here mirrors the Trump administration’s Israel-first policies. Just in the past month, the administration has normalized crackdowns on pro-Palestine student protesters, labeling many as “pro-jihadist protesters,” “Hamas sympathizers,” and even “anti-American terrorists.” Some green card holders — like Mahmoud Khalil — have even been marked for deportation simply for challenging Israel’s human rights abuses.

AIPAC’s efforts to co-opt artificial intelligence, dismantle social media platforms like TikTok, and smear pro-Palestinian journalists, congressmen, and commentators also come to mind when assessing Murray’s tactics. Censorship — typically following a heavy barrage of propaganda — remains the weapon of choice against anyone too critical of Israel’s human rights abuses.

Murray constantly pulls at this lever in the opening segment of the debate, questioning why individuals critical of Israel are even given a platform on Rogan’s podcast. As if every guest must be screened first and foremost for their stance on Israel-Palestine — not for their work, expertise, or experience that has made them relevant to the public. But the real question we should be asking is simple: Who appointed Douglas Murray the arbiter of truth and discernment? What makes him the “expert,” and others mere amateurs?

SUPPORT THIS ARTICLE

The disgraced philosopher and Trump-deranged ideologue Sam Harris is infamous for also relying on appeals to authority in his so-called arguments against figures like Dave Smith and Joe Rogan. In the latest episode of Part of the Problem, Smith effortlessly dismantles Harris’ argumentative style, spending an hour rebutting his latest commentary, which bears a striking resemblance to Murray’s own argumentative tactics:

Sam Harris: “Joe [Rogan] is a genuinely good guy who wants good things for people. But he is honestly in over his head on so many topics of great consequence. When he brings someone on to just shoot the shit about how the Holocaust is not what you think it was, or maybe Churchill is the bad guy in World War II. Or he’s got Dave Smith being treated as an expert on Israeli and Palestine and the history of that conflict, and the moral emergency that came to the World’s attention on October 7th, and what is appropriate to think in the aftermath of all of that. The only reason why anyone knows what Dave Smith thinks about any of this is very likely because Joe had him on multiple times to talk about it. He’s a pure misinformation artist, on top of many others.”

“The thing about it is that, really, I don’t have to be the expert,” says Smith in response to Harris’ claims. “It’s really easy to poke holes in Sam Harris and other liars’ bullshit… I wasn’t a virologist but I could tell you that Sam Harris was full of shit the whole time about COVID. I could tell you that lockdowns were going to have way bigger costs than benefits, because you don’t really need to be an expert to do that.”

When Murray and Harris decry the platforming of “misinformation artists” and demand that “legitimate experts” be given a voice on shows like The Joe Rogan Experience, what they really mean is “experts” whose views align with their own. Credentials are secondary to them; what matters is conformity, achieved through censorship and coercion. As Harris argues in a 2023 interview, to combat dangerous events in society, we must trust our institutions — the experts — and accept the collateral damage necessary to achieve the greater good. In his own words:

“Can we fight a war, really fight a war that we may have to fight, like the next Nazis… can we fight that war when everyone with an iPhone is showing just how awful it is that little girls get blown up when we drop our bombs. Could we, as a society, do what we might have to do to actually get necessary things done when we’re living in this panopticon of just… everyone’s a journalist, everyone’s a scientist, everyone’s an expert, everyone’s got direct contact with the facts, or a semblance of the facts?”

We saw this play out during COVID, when virologists and scientists who challenged the official narrative were swiftly censored, deplatformed, canceled, or even threatened with losing their medical licenses. These were credentialed experts, but they were deemed guilty of “wrong-think” by the institutions tasked with upholding the official narrative.

Here’s the thing: ideologues, propagandists, and liars have a tell that exposes their fraudulence — they relentlessly seek ways to silence any viewpoint that challenges theirs. By suppressing dissent, they can craft their own version of truth, built entirely on lies legitimized by institutions of power. Murray reveals his hand within the first few minutes of the debate, dismissing investigative journalist Ian Carroll as a non-expert, labeling historian and podcaster Darryl Cooper’s views as “horrific,” and mocking comedian and political commentator Dave Smith as someone who’s actively partaking in a “schtick” and is not well versed in geopolitics to be weighing in on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

As Smith aptly points out in his podcast rebuttal to Sam Harris, Murray and Harris’ real issue is that others are simply having conversations, recording them, and sharing them for people to watch. If that’s such a problem for them, maybe it’s time they reconsider their stance on free speech.

For readers who crave short, snappy reads—whether you’re pressed for time, commuting, or just looking for a quick gateway into bigger ideas.

The Monthly Review is a curated preview of the topics, stories, and opinions I explore on New Outlook—from bite-sized insights to deep dives. Let’s jump in!

➊ IT’S TIME TO HEAR FROM THE OTHER SIDE

When American mainstream media outlets and publications talk about Russia’s “unprovoked” invasion, they strategically do so to make you forget that speeches like this one from the Russian president Vladimir Putin, delivered eighteen years ago—warning of NATO’s encroachment on Russian territory—ever took place.

Putin, in 2007, said:

“It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfill the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all. I think it’s obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious PROVOCATION that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended?”

★★★★★
New Outlook Recommends
2007 Munich Security Conference
Delivered: February 10, 2007
Translated: AI

To understand the geopolitics of today, study the geopolitics of yesteryear. History often provides context. Revisit this landmark moment in history during which Vladimir Putin delivers a critical speech at the 43rd Munich Security Conference. As the description reads: “He openly criticizes the U.S. for its striving for a unipolar world, its unrestrained use of force, and its disdain for international law. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, he made clear that Russia does not intend to fit in this kind of world order. Despite his criticism, Putin didn’t seek confrontation but called for a new partnership on a fair basis. The Western mainstream media, however, distorted his speech and portrayed it as a malicious attack. Watch and judge for yourself.”

New Media's Top 10 Independent Voices: Glenn Greenwald

READ A PREVIEW OF THE ARTICLE

➋ COMMUNIST SMEAR TACTICS: THEN AND NOW

G. Edward Griffin lectures on Communist smear tactics in 1969. More than fifty years later, many of these same smear tactics are observed among the Woke Left and the Woke Right.

➌ “FEEL THE BERN”… OF A POLITICAL PARTY BURNING TO THE GROUND

The Democrat Party is thinking of running AOC in 2028. Because of course the party that has nothing but identity politics to give the people would deliver them the most vapid identitarian of them all. The buffoon who’s somehow still managing to swindle voters. The Socialist herself. What could possibly go wrong?

This must be Bernie’s version of passing the torch. One last shameless heist from the voters he abandoned in 2020 — giving AOC his platform, whatever remains of that tattered legacy.

It all makes sense now why AOC was desperately asking Trump supporters, post-Democrat election loss, what podcasts and shows Trump voters regularly consumed, and which outlets they read and pay attention to. It was never to actually learn from the American people during a period of reflection. It was simply a soft launch for her coronation as the frontrunner for the 2028 elections. Also worth noting that her inquiry was an effort to ensure which outlets need to be clamped down against during the next election cycle.

What’s remarkable about Bernie and AOC practically campaigning together on their “Fight Oligarchy” tour is that the American Left is so overwhelmed by propaganda that they’ll eat this all up without a single critical thought. They’ll argue that “AOC is exactly what that country needs right now because there is no better woman to be the first female president. She’s young. She’s a person of color. She’s a woman. She’s ‘working class.’ She’s progressive. She’s the natural follow up to Bernie’s campaigns. She’s the antidote to a Trump-JD Vance-Elon Musk presidency. And she represents the American Dream.”

Tell yourselves whatever you need in order to cope. Reality is operating on a different timeline, and it’s not looking good for Democrats who still believe that this is the way forward.

➍ ISRAEL-FIRST, FREE SPEECH LAST — ON CAMPUS PROTESTS

Trump’s admin is currently overcorrecting by censoring, deporting, punishing dissident citizens with long sentences, and classifying green card holders who challenge Israel’s genocidal campaign as “terrorists” and “Hamas supporters.” All of this because the entire admin is comprised of political figures who are completely subservient to Israel.

➎ TRUMP’S DOMESTIC WAR ON TERROR

If we are to allow Trump’s admin to define who/what counts as “Anti-American,” “Hamas supporter,” “terrorists,” surely it will be you and me very soon for holding the stance that innocent people—who do not belong to one of many U.S. client states—should not be slaughtered, and that Israel should not be funded to the tunes of billions of dollars.

The Left has spent the past five years defining what “misinformation” is. And we witnessed how quickly that swept up actual legitimate scientists, intellectuals, everyday truckers in the Americas, social media users, and much more, who pushed back on the prevailing Covid/vaccine narrative.

The road to America’s Domestic War on Terror was laid by the Biden admin (many have written at length about this over the past several years). I think the smart thing here would be to push back in order to prevent the current admin from finishing that job.

➏ “YOU’RE A DISSIDENT JOURNALIST? STRAIGHT TO JAIL!”

It’s ironic that by holding fast to “America-First” values, you’re perceived as “Anti-American” by the administration that ran on—wait for it—America-First policies.

Under Trump’s administration, an American journalist who reports on Israeli military attacks that kill Palestinian journalists is apparently to be labeled a “Hamas supporter.”

To the folks who’ve been saying this issue isn’t about free-speech and that American citizens are not at risk of facing similar repercussions as green card holders are—is it making sense yet??

No, you won’t be getting deported, but you will surely be silenced by the regime, made to lose your livelihood, perhaps even be detained for simply reporting on anything remotely critical of Israel.

➐ VIOLENCE AS THE LANGUAGE OF THE PARTY OF TOLERANCE

The party that screeched about the “insurrection” at the Capitol are committing serious acts of violence because they don’t like the people in power.

When their party can’t successfully rig elections, they turn to their base to activate them as foot soldiers who will use violence to accomplish their goals.

It’s why many of them were all over Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook last year openly expressing their disappointment that Trump’s would-be assassin didn’t succeed. They all desperately pleaded openly for “the next shooter to have better aim.”

This is their language. This is what they know. Violence, when all else—including coercive tactics—fails. This is the so-called party of tolerance, of diversity, of acceptance, of equity, of inclusion, of “live and let live,” of love is love, of safe spaces.

It’s THEIR way or NO WAY. What they accuse others of, they are guilty of. It’s conformity or die.

And rest assured, political figures like Trump and Musk are very much still in this “tolerant” party’s literal crosshairs should they continue on the track they’re on. It’s only been two months. Before Trump’s attempted assassination, we witnessed lots of rhetoric and coverage in the media painting Trump as Hitler, Nazi, etc. Now, we’re seeing an uptick of the same for Musk matched with acts of violence against all things Tesla. Stay vigilant. Normalcy is a thing of the past.

➑ MEET THE NEW BOSS, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS

When Biden’s admin labeled Jan. 6th protesters as “right-wing domestic extremists” and “militia groups,” we all had an issue with that.

Now that Trump’s admin is labeling arsonists and others vandalizing Tesla property as “terrorists,” rhetoric that not only mirrors the Biden admin playbook, but follows the 9/11 strategy of waging war against any entity that can be labeled as “terrorists,” we should all be deeply concerned.

There are laws already in place to prosecute people who vandalize and commit foolish crimes—put them behind bars.

Glenn Greenwald touched on this subject of the Domestic War on Terror back in 2021. Today, journalist Ken Klippenstein is carrying the torch and sounding the alarm.

Glenn Greenwald

The New Domestic War on Terror is Coming

The last two weeks have ushered in a wave of new domestic police powers and rhetoric in the name of fighting “terrorism” that are carbon copies of many of the worst excesses of th…

Read more

5 years ago · 902 likes · 850 comments · Glenn Greenwald

Ken Klippenstein

Trump's Domestic War on Terrorism

Need more of you to subscribe so I can keep doing this work. If just 5% of my readers chipped in, I wouldn’t have to ask. Please subscribe…

Read more

a year ago · 487 likes · 21 comments · Ken Klippenstein

➒ “FOLLOW OR DIE”

When you think about industries like journalism, when you think about the social media experience, and much more—this is essentially what has been indoctrinated into the populace: “Follow the trends, and the algorithm will shower you with views. You’ll go viral and bask in the spotlight. Dare to stray, refusing to trade craft for clicks, and you’ll be buried. You’ll get fewer views and fewer shares, so good luck getting discovered.”

And so the entire culture embraces following not leading. Originality is discarded for the trendy. Children and young adults join the latest mindless trends on Instagram and TikTok because they know they’ll algorithmically get rewarded for it. Fewer kids and young adults pursue real, creative ideas that stimulates the artistic mind and sensibilities. Mainstream journalists normalize conformity and doing access journalism over taking risks that come with bold investigative reporting because they know that not stirring pot gets rewarded and lands bigger opportunities. As journalist Glenn Greenwald always notes, the more corporate journalists are able to lie, the more they are able to advance their careers.

This is our culture. And it has been deliberately and systematically normalized.

➓ THE WEAPONIZATION OF GUILT

I’m genuinely not surprised that white women who have been brainwashed by black activists to feel guilty for their “white privilege,” that they loudly denigrate themselves and others for being white are the same ones who are willing to sacrifice women’s safety and sacred spaces in order to adopt men cosplaying as women into women’s sports.

That’s a wrap! Hope you enjoyed this edition of The Monthly Review. If something resonated, drop a like, leave a comment, and let’s discuss further. Share this with a friend. Thank you for reading, subscribing, and supporting this project. Until next month!

Share