Categories
Bernie Sanders Democratic socialists Influecers Intelwars Neekolul Nicole sanchez Socialists Tiktok

Popular supporter of Bernie Sanders and AOC branded a ‘hypocrite’ after bragging about $2 million apartment

A hugely popular influencer who often promoted democratic-socialist messaging has been branded as a “hypocrite” after bragging about her new $2 million apartment and fancy new BMW.

Nicole Sanchez, known online as “Neekolul,” became an overnight sensation last year when she went viral for her TikTok video of her dancing while wearing a shirt promoting Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) during the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries. Sanchez was lip-syncing a song with lyrics: “Whatever you say, Boomer. OK, Boomer.” Sanchez captioned the video: “Like to trigger the BOOMERS #bernie2020.” The song dismisses baby boomers, while simultaneously endorsing 79-year-old Sanders, who is too old to be considered a boomer, and is among the “silent generation” classification.

The viral video racked up tens of millions of views, and instantly made Sanchez an online standout while also promoting Sanders to a younger generation.

Last March, Neekolul posted another “OK Boomer” video, this time promoting another democratic-socialist politician — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). In this TikTok video, Sanchez is wearing a $58 sweatshirt that reads: “TAX THE RICH.” The pricey shirt is sold by Ocasio-Cortez’s merchandise shop that completely embraces capitalism.

Last week, Sanchez bragged about her new $2 million apartment. Neekolul gave her hundreds of thousands of social media followers a 10-minute virtual tour of her swanky new abode, complete with smart “Martha Stewart”-style kitchen, “East Wing” gaming room, master bedroom with “180-degree” views of the city skyline, and a walk-in closet.


$2,000,000 Apartment Tour! (My New Apartment)

www.youtube.com

Last month, Sanchez posed with a brand new convertible BMW. Fox Business estimates Nicole Sanchez has a net worth of between $1 to $5 million.

Online commenters quickly branded Sanchez as a “hypocrite,” and told her to “pay more taxes.”

Sanchez responded to the criticism by saying that “tax the rich” only applies to “like billionaires.”

“I think when people mean like tax rich, I think at the end of the day they do mean like billionaires and people that have insane unfathomable amounts of wealth,” Sanchez said. “Listen, listen whoever wants to show me to where those $1 to $5 million dollars are, I would happily follow you and reclaim them because I have no idea where this money is at or where it’s from.”

Share
Categories
Capitalism Chinese control elitists government is slavery Headline News Intelwars Klaus Schwab liars Marxist. digital currency Masters neofeudalism owners political parasites power Rchard Lewontin revolutionary sheep SLAVERY slaves social credit Socialists The great reset transhumanist wake up Wokeness wokeness isn't freedom

The Great Reset, Part V: Woke Ideology

This article was originally published by Michael Rectenwald at The Mises Institute. 

In previous articles, I’ve discussed the Great Reset and introduced several ways of understanding the economics of it. The Great Reset can be thought of as neofeudalism, as “corporate socialism,” as “capitalism with Chinese characteristics,” and in terms of “stakeholder capitalism” versus “neoliberalism.” In future installments, I intend to treat the technological (transhumanist) and monetary (centralized banking and digital currency) aspects that Klaus Schwab and others anticipate and prescribe.

But in this essay, I wish to consider the ideological aspect of the Great Reset. Just how do the planners mean to establish the reset ideologically? That is, how would a reset of the mass mind come to pass that would allow for the many elements of the Great Reset to be put into place—without mass rebellion, that is? After all, if the Great Reset is to take hold, some degree of conformity on the part of the population will be necessary—despite the enhanced, extended, and more precise control over the population that transhumanist technology and a centralized digital currency would afford.

This is the function of ideology. Ideology, as the Marxist historian of science Richard Lewontin has argued, works “by convincing people that the society in which they live is just and fair, or if not just and fair then inevitable, and that it is quite useless to resort to violence.”1 Ideology establishes the “social legitimation” that Lewontin sees as necessary for gaining the assent of the ruled. “The battleground is in people’s heads, and if the battle is won on that ground then the peace and tranquility of society are guaranteed.”2 Ideology on this account is not the same as a world view. It is rather the mental programming necessary for domination and control short of the use of force. Ideological indoctrination is easier, less messy, and less expensive than state and state-supported violence.

Some may argue that the ideology of the Great Reset is simply socialist-communist ideology. After all, in many respects, socialist-communist ideology supports what the Great Reset promises to deliver. And this may work for some. There are those who would welcome, on socialist grounds, the “fairness,” “equality,” or “equity” that the Great Reset promises. Socialists might overlook or excuse the oligarchical control of society on the basis of the supposed fairness, equality, or equity among the mass of the population, and on the presumption that the oligarchy will be overthrown in the not-so-distant future. Socialism embeds a leveling predisposition that puts a premium on “equality” among the visible majority, even when that equality comes as a great loss for many otherwise “middle-class” subjects. In fact, when I briefly entertained the rantings of members of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, including its leader, Bob Avakian, they admitted to me that worldwide socialism would mean reduced standards of living for much of the world, especially in the United States. They had no problem with this; in fact, they seemed to relish the prospect. No doubt, as Friedrich Nietzsche suggested, socialism is fueled, at least in part, by ressentiment—by resentment and envy for the property owner. Much could be said about socialists’ apparent approval, or at least conditional and temporary acceptance, of big monopolistic oligarchical corporatists and their preference for big business over small.3 Socialists see monopolization under capitalism as inevitable, as necessary for producing a more consolidated target to be overthrown, and as a sign of the imminent collapse of capitalism and the coming socialist-communist apocalypse.

Likewise, many socialists will be amenable to the Great Reset on principle—especially those who accept its rhetoric at face value. But for all its newfound popularity, socialism-communism still doesn’t represent the majority. While popular among Millennials and other millennialists, socialism-communism remains unsavory for many. It is regarded as alien, obscure, and loosely connotes something negative. But more importantly, for reasons that I’ll give below, socialist-communist ideology is not the ideology that best fits the goals of the Great Reset. This is where wokeness comes in.

What exactly is wokeness? As I write in Beyond Woke,

According to the social justice creed, being “woke” is the political awakening that stems from the emergence of consciousness and conscientiousness regarding social and political injustice. Wokeness is the indelible inscription of the awareness of social injustice on the conscious mind, eliciting the sting of conscience, which compels the newly woke to change their be­liefs and behaviors.4

This is as close to a definition of wokeness as I can manage, gleaning it as I have from the assertions of those who embrace it. Of course, the etymology of the word “woke,” and how it became an adjective describing those who are thus awakened into consciousness of social and political injustice, is another matter. I discuss the etymology in Google Archipelago:

“Woke” began in English as a past tense and past participle of “wake.” It suggested “having become awake.” But, by the 1960s, woke began to function as an adjective as well, gaining the figurative meaning in the African American community of “well-informed” or “up-to-date.” By 1972, the once modest verbal past tense began to describe an elevated political consciousness. In 2017, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) recognized the social-conscious awareness of woke and added the definition: “alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice.”5

Yet there are as many definitions of wokeness as people who’ve heard of it, as is the case with most anything the least bit controversial. I’m sure that others can and will add to the definition or suggest that wokeness should be defined altogether differently. But the above definition and historical-semantical renderings are sufficient for our purposes. According to adherents, then, wokeness is enhanced awareness of social and political injustice and the determination to eradicate it.

But what could wokeness have to do with the Great Reset? As a corrective, wokeness is not aimed at the sufferers whose complaints or imagined complaints, it means to redress. Wokeness works on the majority, the supposed beneficiaries of injustice. It does so by making the majority understand that it has benefited from “privilege” and preference—based on skin color (whiteness), gender (patriarchy), sexual proclivity (heteronormativity), birthplace (colonialism, imperialism, and first worldism), gender identity (cisgender privilege), and the domination of nature (speciesism)—to name some of the major culprits. The list could go on and is emended, seemingly by the day. This majority must be rehabilitated, as it were. The masses must understand that they have gained whatever advantages they have hitherto enjoyed on the basis of the unfair treatment of others, either directly or indirectly, and this unfair treatment is predicated on the circumstances of birth. The “privilege” of the majority has come at the expense of those minorities designated as the beneficiaries of wokeness, and wokeness is the means for rectifying these many injustices.

And what are the effects of being repeatedly reprimanded as such, of being told that one has been the beneficiary of unmerited “privilege,” that one’s relative wealth and well-being have come at the expense of oppressed, marginalized, and misused Others? Shame, guilt, remorse, unworthiness. And what are the expected attitudinal and behavioral adjustments to be taken by the majority? They are to expect less. Under woke ideology, one will be expected to forfeit one’s rights, because even these rights, nay, especially these rights, have come at the expense of others.

Thus, wokeness works by habituating the majority to the reduced expectations that I introduced in my first installment on the Great Reset. It does this by instilling a belief in the unworthiness of the majority to thrive, prosper, and enjoy their lives. Wokeness indoctrinates the majority into the propertyless future (for them, at least) of the Great Reset while gratifying the Left, its main ideological propagators, with a sense of moral superiority, even as they too are scheduled to become bereft of prospects.

One question remains. Why is wokeness more suited to the objectives of the Great Reset than socialist-communist ideology? To answer this question, we must recall the selling points of socialism-communism. Despite the leveling down that I mentioned above, socialism-communism is promissory. It promises benefits, not deficits. It does not operate by promising the majority that they will lose upon its establishment. Quite to the contrary, socialism-communism promises vastly improved conditions—yes, fairness, equality, or equity but also prosperity for the mass of humanity, a prosperity that has been denied it under capitalism. The workers of the world are called to unite, not under the prospect of reduced expectations, but on the basis of great expectations—not, according to Marx, to establish utopia, but at least to destroy and replace the current dystopia with a shared cornucopia. We know, of course, how this promise is kept. But it is nevertheless still proffered and believed by all too many in our midst.

We have seen, on the other hand, the subtractive character of woke ideology. Wokeness demands the forfeiture of advantages on moral grounds. Unlike socialism-communism, it does not offer empowerment or advocate the takeover of the means of production and the state by political means. Wokeness is a form of recrimination that compels the abdication, not the acquisition, of goods.

Woke ideology, I contend, has tilled the soil and planted the seeds for the harvest that the Great Reset represents to the ruling elite. Was wokeness intentionally crafted for this purpose? I don’t think so, but it nevertheless can and is being adopted for these ends, just as other ideological formations have been used for other ends. The ruling elite appropriates the available means at its disposal to affect its plans, including available ideologies. Woke ideology was available and ready for appropriation and application. Wokeness serves the Great Reset best, and thus we see the language of wokeness in the books and other literature devoted to its establishment: fairness, inclusion, etc.

Naturally, wokeness will not work on everyone. But the demand has been made so universal that unapologetic, noncompliant dissenters are figured as regressive, reactionary, racist, white supremacist, and more, and are dismissed, if not punished, on those grounds. Wokeness has thus attained dominance. Countering it will be a major requirement for challenging the Great Reset.

The post The Great Reset, Part V: Woke Ideology first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Georgia Intelwars Lindsey Graham Resign Socialists Squad

‘You’re a bunch of Socialists’: Lindsey Graham torches far-left lawmakers calling on him to resign

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) fired back Thursday after days of far-left House members calling for him to resign his seat, citing a claim from Georgia’s GOP secretary of state alleging that Graham suggested he toss legal ballots in favor of President Donald Trump.

But Graham says he did no such thing and warned the “bunch of Socialists” calling for him to step down that he sees through their agenda.

What are the details?

Earlier this week, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) told the Washington Post that during a phone call with Graham, “it sure looked like” the South Carolina Republican was pressing him to throw out mail-in ballots in some counties where there were higher rates of non-matching signatures.

“That’s ridiculous,” Graham said in reaction to Raffensperger’s claims. “What I’m trying to find out was how do you verify signatures for mail in ballots in these states … I thought it was a good conversation, I’m surprised to hear him characterize it that way.”

Georgia was, at the time, undergoing a recount after Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was projected to win the state by a very narrow margin against President Donald Trump. Several Republicans in Georgia and elsewhere criticized Raffensperger’s handing of the election.

In the meantime, Graham had just handily won re-election in the seat he has held since 2003 against Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison in a major blow to Democrats, despite Harrison raising a record-shattering $57 million in the fourth quarter alone.

Progressive House members pounced on the opportunity to try to get Graham to leave office. Far-left Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D) led the charge on social media, tweeting, “Lindsey Graham must resign. It has now been corroborated that he urged the Secretary of State in Georgia to find a way to throw out legally cast ballots. There must be accountability and justice for this dangerous attack on our democracy.”

Jayapal’s message was an apparent rallying cry for the far-left faction of the House.

Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) replied, “Lindsey Graham attempted to commit voter fraud. He can’t get away with it. Thank you @PramilaJayapal for demanding accountability.”

Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar (D) also declared that “it’s time for Lindsey Graham to submit his resignation,” pointing to an MSNBC report citing a Raffensperger staffer who purportedly corroborated the claims.

But Graham fired back on Thursday, posting the three congresswomen’s quotes and tweeting, “I can understand why the Squad doesn’t want me in the Senate – because I’m going to bury your agenda. You’re a bunch of Socialists. You would transform America and make it Venezuela. I’m gonna stand in your way. I’m not going anywhere!”

He also said that their demands for his resignation meant he “must being doing something right,” and added, “To those who are trying to silence me — you will fail miserably!”

Share
Categories
Coronavirus socialism Democratic socialists Intelwars lockdowns Socialism Socialists

Coronavirus has created more socialists in America. Democratic Socialists of America adds at least 10,000 to its ranks.

The Democratic Socialists of America have expanded their ranks by an estimated 10,000 members since March — and organizers say that the growth is likely a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

A DSA spokesperson told the Atlantic that the group, whose membership now totals approximately 66,000 nationwide, hasn’t had a surge like this since the election of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in 2018.

What’s driving the uptick?

“The present moment seems especially ripe for socialist outrage,” the outlet suggested, making mention of anti-lockdown demonstrations around the country and governors reopening businesses ahead of health officials’ recommendations.

For some, it appears, these are examples of too much liberty.

Others point to an alleged failure of the market system: “People are really starting to just look around and say, ‘man, capitalism isn’t working,'” the co-chair of the Detroit DSA chapter told tThe Atlantic. “If the markets can’t even produce hand sanitizer or toilet paper or masks during a plague — what good is this system?”

Still others are joining the socialist cause simply in protest of the pandemic response.

“Anyone who lives with a little precarity in their life … could see that the overall response to the pandemic was completely insufficient,” the Twin Cities DSA director said. “We seized on that moment.”

Then, check out this revealing paragraph from the article:

Right now, the DSA is emphasizing recruitment, framing their efforts as giving struggling workers “a way to fight back,” the DSA Denver labor chair, Mariah Wood, told me. Her chapter … has organized more than 200 laid-off service workers as part of a citywide campaign to urge Governor Jared Polis to cancel rent and mortgage payments. The chapter teamed up with other local groups, including the Denver Classroom Teachers Association and several trade unions, to urge the Denver City Council to help lobby the state government, which it did.

“[These days], people are enthusiastically working with the DSA,” Wood said. “It’s a good time to be a socialist.”

One glaring problem

The uptick in socialist registrations appears to be driven by displeasure with the government’s response to the pandemic, but socialism’s answer to the problem is inevitably more government involvement.

Take for example, DSA Denver’s initiative to cancel rent and mortgage payments.

The most natural solution to the problem would be to reopen businesses so that people can afford rent and mortgage payments, since the problem was caused by government shutting down the economy in the first place. Instead, the DSA fought to expand government power, calling on officials to cancel the rent and mortgage payments — which, don’t forget, really just means that money from some taxpayers will go toward covering the living expenses of others.

Nevertheless, the Atlantic report noted that the “surge in membership isn’t likely to seriously affect the politics of the broader Democratic Party” since the DSA is still comparatively small. The group’s 66,000 members pales in comparison to even the Libertarian Party in America, which boasts 600,000 registered members.

Yet, it’s worth noting that even though only 10,000 formally registered as socialists, the number of people embracing socialism as a result of the pandemic is likely much larger than that.

Share
Categories
Bailout communism Coronavirus COVID-19 CRISIS Economy fiscal relief package GOP proposal Headline News Intelwars liberal agenda money Nancy Pelosi pandemic political elitists Politicians Rahm Emanuel Socialists

Democrats Try To Use COVID-19 To Push Their Socialist Agenda

In a bit of not-so-surprising news, democrat politicians have decided that during the coronavirus pandemic, they should push a liberal agenda.  In the words of infamous socialist Rahm Emanuel, Democrats will “never allow a crisis to go to waste.”

Democrats used their stimulus bill, which was a response to the GOP’s proposal, to pack it with funding to advance a liberal communist agenda.

Both Republican and Democratic senators had spent several days negotiating a nearly $2 trillion package that would provide financial assistance to workers, small businesses, large corporations, and certain industries hit particularly hard by the economic shutdown in response to the public health crisis.

Then Pelosi showed up and declared the package not good enough while touting a number of demands that, at best, were only tangentially related to the coronavirus issue, which prompted Senate Democrats to essentially scuttle the whole thing on Sunday afternoon. –Western Journal

This is really unsurprising news considering that according to The Hill on Thursday, House Democrats held a conference call to discuss both the efforts in the Senate to construct a coronavirus fiscal relief package as well as ideas for a package of their own for the same alleged purpose. And Emanuel was quick to bring back his infamous line:

Amid negotiations over how lawmakers should respond to the coronavirus pandemic, Rahm Emanuel has reprised his famous rallying cry from his 2008 financial crash: Never let a crisis go to waste.

Speaking during an interview on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, the former Chicago mayor and chief of staff to President Barack Obama brought back his infamous quote from the 2008 financial collapse in an attempt to highlight that the government can learn from its mistakes when dealing crises.

“Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” Emanuel said Sunday. “Start planning for the future. This has to be the last pandemic that creates an economic depression. We’re going to have more pandemics, but this has to be the last economic depression.” –Fox News

Simple Prepper Hacks To AVOID Getting The Flu

According to Fox News, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is accusing Democrats of trying to extract concessions from airlines over their “carbon footprint,” with the economy hanging in the balance. “They ought to be embarrassed,” he said. “This is no time for this nonsense.”

Share