ideally, you'd think that would backfire spectacularly. discrediting electoralism as a strategy to achieve change should go in only one direction. in reality, my guess is the ameriKKKan "left" will never connect this back to the noam chomskys and hasan pikers of the world and they'll keep canvassing and twitter arguing for the obamas and mamdanis of the world until the empire can no longer support their weight. times like this make me wonder how gramsci kept his optimism of the will.

pretty sure at this point he's a purposeful psy-op to humiliate and discredit progressives, and progressives took the bait hook-line-and-sinker. Every lib here who argued we have to be "pragmatic" and "vote for the lesser evil" just played right into the hand of the CIA discrediting their own electoral movement they care so much about supposedly.

In a time when Zionism has been thoroughly discredited among the general public with a void that could be filled with an anti-Zionist ideology, here strolls in some dude with a Nazi tattoo. Even Nick Fuentes and that fake Chinese professor's increasing popularity is more organic than this bullshit. As far as candidates for psy-ops and intelligence assets are concerned, I feel like some crayon eater who also worked with Blackwater would be relatively high on this list.

For caring so much about electoral politics, they don't seem to have very good strategy or understanding of what's happening or recognizing a poison pill being shoved down their throat by the CIA and blackwater mercs. "You are letting the Zionists win if you don't eat this poison pill provided by the US Military Industrial Complex!"

They have taken so many L's. For example, the smart pragmatic thing to do during the 2024 election was to not endorse Harris since Harris was going to eat shit anyways. Harris being an unrepentant Zionist who has never won a primary in her life should've been the convenient offramp to not endorse her. Endorsing a loser who will go on to eat shit just makes you look like a chump if you're doing it for purely pragmatic reasons. Washington Post (or was it the NYT) endorsed neither precisely for this reason. It's one thing to be an unprincipled winner or a principled loser, but being an unprincipled loser makes you a bozo and a clown.